[p2p-research] semantic wiki extension

[Michel Bauwens]

I'm not following this in detail, and I often disagree with patrick's basic
premises,

however, I think that developing a set of rights for online users is a
really very important,

is this something some people could working on, using a wiki project
document?

once there is a consensus, we would then discuss how to apply it as a
governance model for the p2p-f ecology?

Michel

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:

> Samuel Rose wrote:
> >
> > Can you tell me why you are not a member of
> > http://CommunityWiki.org/en/CommunityWikiAssemblyMemberList<http://communitywiki.org/en/CommunityWikiAssemblyMemberList> were you
> > denied access to joining that?
>
> I did not apply because I did not want to become part of what I
> consider a wrong direction.
>
> I felt isolated and confused because this kind of hierarchy seems
> wrong to me and yet, since I have no ownership in the server hosting
> that wiki, I had no real property rights to assert my disdain.
>
> But it is even more complicated than that because current "social
> software" does not take this type of secession into consideration, and
> so there would be no way of exerting such property rights without
> becoming fully disconnected from the original community -- and such
> disconnection would be social suicide since it would then be a stark
> either/or choice instead of allowing incremental dissent.
>
> So there is much work to be done in rethinking and reimplementing how
> we organize before this problem can be realistically addressed.
>
> I outlined my ideas about how to approach some of this complexity at
> http://CommunityWiki.org/en/PlainTextWiki<http://communitywiki.org/en/PlainTextWiki>:
>
>
> ==Multiuser Concerns
> * Authors own their own comments outside of the DefinitionArea.
> * All users may work immediately and all changes are stored, but are
> actually just votes.
> * SPAM is quickly voted away (hidden by default for other users) when
> too many early viewers find it offensive enough to hide or reject.
> This could be a problem too?
> * Changes to Definitions or to the HTML/CSS interface appear immediate
> and permanent to the editor, but are actually just a vote change those
> things.
> * The VoteWeight of a user is increased whenever that user makes a
> change that is accepted by the community.
> * User implicitly vote for and against others by accepting, hiding or
> rejecting comments and changes.
> * SoftSecurity could be used to track VoteWeight.
>
> ==Transform lists may also be adjusted by a mixture of community and
> private NameSpaces.
>
> * INPUT files may be edited, but 'Comments' are usually not stored
> within the INPUT file itself.
> * Comments are usually metadata that is stored in a DataBase or in
> companion files.
> * The CommunityNamespace is used when rendering the INPUT file.
> * The User's PrivateNamespace is used for his digitally signed Comments.
> * The CommunityNamespace includes only local hosted PageNames until
> some Users begin to vote.
> * Voting occurs when a User makes part of his PrivateNamespace
> 'available' for the wiki software to read.
> * The CommunityNamespace is thus 'weighted' by implicit suggestions
> from Users to do things the way they like it. When enough Users decide
> the word 'wiki' should link to MeatBall instead of WikiPedia, pages
> are then rendered with links that point to the new preference.
> * Maybe the StyleSheet could be a mix of Users preferences? Maybe too
> crazy. A limited feature subset might work.
>
> ==Voting
>
> * Any User may work immediately and all changes are stored, and appear
> to be 'done' to the editor, but are actually just votes for those
> changes to be made if the community agrees (but what percentage?).
>
> * SPAM and SPAMMERS are quickly voted away (hidden by default for
> other users) when too many early viewers find them offensive enough to
> hide or reject. This could be a problem too.
>
> * The VoteWeight of a user is increased whenever that user makes a
> change that is accepted by the community.
>
> * Users implicitly vote for and against others by accepting, hiding or
> rejecting comments and changes.
>
> * Identity may be optionally 'secured' through password if a User
> decides to stay a while.
>
> * Sub-communities need to be able to "carve out" their own space
> without annoying others with what the old-timers may consider SPAM.
> SPAM is subjective pollution?
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100804/0a6d0550/attachment.html>