[p2p-research] some wiki editing rules

Tue Aug 10 08:04:29 CEST 2010

Hi sam, thaiks for  your intervention ...

to respond to your last paragraph,

until recently, the p2p foundation was never really an organization, just a
bunch of informal processes around content creation, and most conflicts were
just solved pragmatically through dialogue

the reason we have a brewing conflict now, is that, first of all there more
people doing things and so social processes are becoming more complex and
may indeed start to need formal rules,

also, I think we are stuck in our private communication,

we had a long talk alex and I some 2-3 weeks ago, and though he kind of
closed the talk with saying that I should learn the new things, I thought he
had sufficiently heard my concerns, but in practice, this has not happend,
and the amount of code knowledge needed to edit entries is increasing by the
day ... I think the issue is really incompatible directions, I want to keep
editing as simple as possible and only introduce extra code when there is an
expressed need or a wish byh the community, and Alex has a view in mind of a
perfect wiki which is fully encoded to do all kinds of advanced things, and
that these things should be learned ...

but to me this is a fundamental mistake

it is not that there should be no advanced coding, but that this code should
be invisible to content producers ... I have worked as editor in chief for a
number of years, and though it was a geek magazine, I can tell you that the
inputting for journalists was made extremely easy, and that no code was
visible ... in contrast, if you know want to change a wiki page, the content
is buried in code, making it very cumbersome to change things ...

I have a fundamental problem with the attitude that Alex is taken in my
regard ... I'm the poor amateur, author of a messy and pretty useless wiki
which has no original content; he is the experienced editor who has produced
millions of pages and is making loads of money by working just an hour a day
... out of the goodness of his heart, he is willing to help me in my
problems, by explaining to me how I should use all of that code ... but that
is not the point ... I do not want to see that code in the first place ..
tech should be subordinated to content, not the other way around ... tech
should facilitate my work, not make it more complex ... I should NOT have to
contact him privately five times a day to ask how I should do things ... the
way to do things should be obvious and easy, and the use of extra code
optional ...

I understand the similar feelings of Alex, who feel I do not show enough
respect, but if private communication doesn't work, what to do ... If I
express a wish to slowdown the change of direction in the wiki in directions
that I totally oppose, and the process just continues and increases, then I
really do not longer know how to react ..

I realize I'm being quite harsh in my communication for the moment, but it
is born of frustration, my concerns are not heard, friendly requests do not
work, and I feel this is a mortal threat to the work I have done so far, so
the only way I know, is to make more noise in the hope that some of it
penetrates the carapace of incommunication ..

I don't have the right personality to go into a dogfight over details
several times a day ...

I'm all for designing a set of governance rules, we need it at this stage,
on the other hand from experience, if two streams want to go into opposite
directions, rules may not be enough,

this is why I propose a linux like solution for our wik

as far as I understand, I learned this from george dafermos, there is a
stable version that is tightly controlled by maintainers, and a experimental
version where things can be tried out,

so why not do it this way, and so avoid a permanent conflict between the
geek-wiki version and the content-wiki version ... let alex experiement and
play around in a version which is his responsiblity and attract the people
who like his approach, while leaving the less-so inclined to continue to
work on a slower moving system, where tech is added either organically, or
when proven stable on the experimental version?

Michel

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > hi sam,
> >
> > I spent another 15 minutes today just to get an article posted by Alex to
> > also show its categories ... there's so much code now on a page, lots of
> > dead links, and there was no visible sourcing on the visible page ...
> >
> > I'm not blaming mistakes, but I don't see progress, when I can now post
> only
> > 5 articles a day  instead of 30,
> >
> > for me, the technological approach should be emergent and organic, see
> from
> > current practice how it can be improved, make sure everyone is on board,
> >
>
>
> I agree. There has to be some middleground here somewhere. Michel's
> concerns should not be dismissed. This is really easy for me to
> understand.
>
>
> > it seems to me that the current vision is to imagine an idealized content
> > manufacturing system, based on heaving coding, and which makes
> participation
> > increasingly difficult, certainly on  my side, I am contemplating the
> > creation of two wiki's, and to let Alex run a separate p2pfoundation.com
> ,
> > which he can automate at his heart's content
> >
> > since alex think I should just adapt and learn to code myself, our
> > communication is not as smooth as it should be ...
> >
>
> This assumption is faulty, and seems to be breeding conflict among the
> main participants of this resource. You shouldn't have to feel the
> need to be driven to fork this wiki. P2P Foundation needs a way to
> deal with conflicts like this, before they become destructive to
> everyone connected.
>
>
>
> > what is the rationale for wikipedia stuff?
> >
> > this was the 'historical practice': the  wiki is based on opportunistic
> > updating, this is, relevant quotations are puzzled together and grow
> > gradually into article combining various perspectives on a topic, a
> > wikipedia definition was occasionally included for clarity and
> introduction,
> > with just refernece to the rest of the article
> >
> > the intent of the wikipedia, a universal neutral and self-written
> > encyclopedia, is entirely different from our wiki which was until now
> based
> > on collecting the external collective intelligence
> >
> > alex is now creating a new layer with self-written articles on how to
> > proceed for p2p organisations, which I applaud, and it doesn't interfere
> > with the other layer of the wiki,
> >
> > however, the  forced technologizing of the wiki is a different matter,
> it's
> > done without regard for previous need, based on a imposed idealistic
> vision
> > of how others should work, integrated without dialogue, and greatly
> > increases the difficulty of adding content ... it's in danger of creating
> > the same effect as what happens int he wikipedia, flat growth, and then
> > decline,
> >
> > for me, and I've considered this formulation, it is the gravest
> existential
> > threat to the work I have undertaken so far, and this is why I feel so
> > strong about it,
> >
> > I have often communicated with alex about not multiplying dead links,
> > sourcing the articles, and other simple rules, but alex does not seem to
> > agree with the old rules ... none of the old formats regarding
> > titles/subtiles etc... is respected, it seems that wikipedia's rules have
> > been introduced systematlically, but again this was never discussed
> >
> > conversation with alex, I'm sorry to say, always ends in his concluding
> > remark, "this is how it should be done, and will be done from now on, get
> > over it" ...
> >
>
> I don't think this is an acceptable way of dealing with the problem.
>
> > I suppose this will lead to permanent trench warfare, and that I will go
> in
> > a regular rage because of the powerlessness I feel, and the threat it
> > represents to the wiki, as I see it,
> >
>
> I guess I don't fully understand P2P Foundation as an organization.
> Are there not some rules that outline how resources shall be
> co-governed/co-managed? If I recall correctly, the wiki was not
> intended to be fully open, but was instead accessed via invitation
> from you. Perhaps it's time to create a set of organizational rules
> that describe clearly how resources are co-governed/co-managed?
>
> > Michel
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > It's just wiki markup.
> >>
> >> Sounds to me, though, that it is not all decipherable by Michel.
> >>
> >> >Let me know when you run into a hiccup.
> >> > Broadcasting to this list won't get me to respond. I don't copy off
> >> > wikipedia for no reason.
> >>
> >> What is the rationale for including wikipedia stuff?
> >>
> >> >Check out the current inspiration for
> >> > Michel's comment here.
> >> >
> >> > http://p2pfoundation.net/Talk:State_Capitalism
> >> >
> >> > A
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Michel Bauwens <
> michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear friends,
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to remind contributors of the policy that was used in
> the
> >> >> last
> >> >> four years:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) please no wholesale dumping of wikipedia entries
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) please, no dead links, do not create links to material which you
> do
> >> >> not
> >> >> intend to create immediately (I had to change an article that had
> about
> >> >> 40
> >> >> dead links)
> >> >>
> >> >> 3) adding tons of complicated code is making editing a huge headache,
> I
> >> >> am
> >> >> now spending 15 minutes editing articles which used to take 30
> seconds
> >> >> ...
> >> >> it's a huge drain on productivity
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm very close to feeling that my practice is incompatible with that
> of
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> Rollin (sorry Alex, but I got to say this), and that we will need two
> >> >> wikis,
> >> >> one where the geeks amongst us can play at their hearts content, and
> >> >> one
> >> >> which keeps the simplicity of organization and procedure which lead
> to
> >> >> 12,000 articlds and 13 million pageviews in 4 years.
> >> >>
> >> >> Michel
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> p2presearch mailing list
> >> >> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >> >>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > p2presearch mailing list
> >> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> Sam Rose
> >> Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
> >> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> >> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> >> skype: samuelrose
> >> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> >> http://forwardfound.org
> >> http://futureforwardinstitute.org
> >> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> >> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> >> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> >> http://localfoodsystems.org
> >> http://notanemployee.net
> >> http://communitywiki.org
> >> http://p2pfoundation.net
> >>
> >> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> >> ambition." - Carl Sagan
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2presearch mailing list
> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://forwardfound.org
> http://futureforwardinstitute.org
> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> http://localfoodsystems.org
> http://notanemployee.net
> http://communitywiki.org
> http://p2pfoundation.net
>
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100810/ca55f1f8/attachment.html>