[p2p-research] Wikiversity’s potential in global capacity building

[Chris Watkins]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 16:49, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> You label people as trolls and arguments as non-sensical. But you are
> 1 voice in 6 billion.
>
> The way to enable change is with the power of ideas and the will to
> put them in action. Not by stating subjective opinions and judgments
> with no consequence whatsoever.
>


Marc,

The ones taking action are working within Wikipedia to make it better -
Andrew Lih, Durova, myself in my small way and many others. You're repeating
unsubstantiated claims, probably nonsense, from a site known for nonsense,
griping, and
The ones taking action are working within Wikipedia to make it better -
Andrew Lih, Durova, myself in my small way and many others. You're repeating
unsubstantiated claims, probably nonsense, from a site known for nonsense,
griping, and defending trolls and vandals, and which has produced nothing of
a ten-thousandth of the value of Wikipedia, the site they exist to
criticize. Who is being subjective?for defending trolls and vandals, and
which has produced nothing of a ten-thousandth of the value of Wikipedia,
the site they exist to criticize. Who is being subjective?


>
> Let's focus the debate on ideas.
>
> I sated mine with respect to no bans, no deletions and PageRank-like
> trust metric to rank versions.
>
> PageRank tells nothing about information quality. It's democratic in a
> sense, but these suggestions would take things backwards in quality.
> Frankly, I want trustworthy information, not appealing or sensational
> "information" that ranks well. Wikipedia's process is the best I've seen for
> doing that. And of course it can be made better .
>
>
>
> It is not a perfect idea. No idea is, but it is an idea that I and
> other developers can think about and possibly code one day. Maybe
> soon. The important thing is to contribute ideas to the debate not
> simply provide opinions and circumstantial arguments.
>
> Can you share your ideas?
>

I have done to an extent in earlier emails. These are meant to make
Wikipedia better than it is, not to complain.

I find these conversations frustrating - I don't see the substance in what
you're arguing, and in the interest of continuing to do something rather
than argue, I'm going to withdraw. I've already filtered my emails so that
emails from you to the list don't bring the thread into my inbox. Not that I
have a personal problem with you - I just don't see any sense in much of
what you write. Sorry.

Chris


Marc

On 2/20/09, Chris Watkins <chriswaterguy at appropedia.org> wrote:
> Is there something about this from a trustworthy source? I.e. not
> wikipediareview.com. Speaking personally, quotes from such an unreliable
> troll site really detract from the discussion, and make me less inclined
to
> follow these conversations, unfortunately.
>
> I notice one of the replies says:
> It wasn't the concept of a course on applied ethics that was declared
> "beyond the scope" of wikiversity, it was the implementation (drawn
heavily
> from your personal disputes).
>
> - which sounds far more believable, based on what I know of Jimbo and
> Wikimedia.
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 13:30, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jimbo Unilaterally Cashiers WMF's Section 230 Immunity - The Wikipedia
>> Review
>>
>> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22070
>>
>> Jimbo's recent intervention in Wikiversity, where he declared various
>> academic lines of inquiry (primarily associated with a course on
>> Applied Ethics) to be "Beyond the Scope" of Wikiversity. At the same
>> time that Jimbo publishes an appeal to donors to contribute to WMF's
>> mission of bringing the sum of all human knowledge to 21st Century
>> youth, he declares that a wide swath of educational material on
>> Wikiversity is beyond the remit of the project, and he personally
>> expunges it."
>>
>> ==
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:27 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The question is who dictates what is useful knowledge and what is not.
>> >
>> > God? Jimmy Wales? You? I? The Crowd? or Google?
>> >
>> > I personally vote for The Crowd via PageRank like algorithm.
>> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090220/df77f5ec/attachment.html>