Talk:Wikimania05/Paper-BO1

Edit history from English Wikibooks

This page was at en.wikibooks.org/Wikimania05/Paper-BO1 (except without the "Transwiki:"). Its edit history was:

22:09, 10 December 2005 Boud (still don't know if the edit stage means someone else will "peer review" it in some sense or not, or if i should switch to 5 myself without waiting.......)
22:02, 10 December 2005 Boud
09:48, 9 November 2005 Boud m (wikibooks user links instead of wikipedia)
09:43, 9 November 2005 Boud (removing editing notes which have been responded to)
09:31, 9 November 2005 Boud (french abstract)
09:08, 9 November 2005 Boud
09:05, 9 November 2005 Boud
09:03, 9 November 2005 Boud
08:06, 9 November 2005 Boud (→Caveats and methodical comments)
07:53, 9 November 2005 Boud (→method - lots of cleaning up)
07:47, 9 November 2005 Boud (→wikisphere as alternative meme distribution model)
07:06, 9 November 2005 Boud (source files)
06:57, 9 November 2005 Boud (|slides= Image:Wikievol.pdf)
22:58, 8 November 2005 Boud (→random comments (need to be integrated above or below) - cleaning up)
22:28, 8 November 2005 Boud (bio (i guess i have no choice...))
08:33, 29 August 2005 Fuzheado
08:32, 29 August 2005 Fuzheado (add author info)
08:32, 29 August 2005 Fuzheado (add notes)
08:20, 29 August 2005 Fuzheado (add edit status)
11:00, 28 August 2005 JakobVoss m (-heading)
10:59, 28 August 2005 JakobVoss m (abstract, text only)
19:05, 1 August 2005 Boud (link to start - début de la version francophone)
17:31, 31 July 2005 Boud (real name (i thought i put this here earlier), removed "TK" don't know if TK is relevant, if so it can be reverted)
13:45, 29 July 2005 Fuzheado (real name needed)
13:00, 29 July 2005 Fuzheado (templateize)
12:23, 20 July 2005 Sj
12:13, 20 July 2005 Sj
20:14, 15 July 2005 Boud (→Introduction)
02:34, 15 July 2005 Boud (→Introduction)
02:28, 15 July 2005 Boud (→Introduction)
02:24, 15 July 2005 Boud (→Introduction)
02:16, 15 July 2005 Boud (→Introduction)
01:42, 15 July 2005 Boud (→Introduction)
01:18, 15 July 2005 Boud (→Introduction)
23:54, 14 July 2005 Boud (→method - cf to other research methods on the wikisphere)
23:26, 14 July 2005 Boud (→method)
23:07, 14 July 2005 Boud (→Abstract)
22:57, 14 July 2005 Boud (→Paper - in progress....)
01:11, 4 July 2005 JakobVoss m (format)
15:09, 15 June 2005 Boud m (→Abstract)
23:52, 14 June 2005 Boud (→Abstract - w: links)
14:40, 14 June 2005 Aphaia (Wikimania paper; boud)

Talk from Engish Wikibooks

Help

Talk:Wikimania05 (i don't know how useful this will really be, but the email from cfp@ recommended it...) Boud 22:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

co-authorship welcome

As is already said, anyone feel welcome to help edit in improving layout, style - it's a wiki - but anyone willing to help think through (and do) the actual research is also welcome. What's the point of doing research into the wikisphere without using wiki culture itself? IMHO it should not be difficult to come to consensus on who does enough work to be able to get official credit for the work - whatever official may mean in a wiki context... since anyone (with internet access) can easily check the history.

At the moment 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC), it's still not obvious what the methodology is going to be, and i haven't yet started playing with the database to find out how to analyse it. i hope to get something started around the 4th week of July, but let's see... Boud 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

editing status notes

Need more author information - done Boud 09:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Change case of headings - done Boud 09:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Fundamental error with regard to NPOV on Wikipedia

From the section entitled: "The wikisphere as an alternative meme distribution model"

"(positive feedbacks which are generally felt to have a positive role, i.e. for going towards "truth") NPOV on wiki enables sensitivity to minorities with convincing arguments so that these exponentially grow despite being dissident points of view"

This statement is fundamentally incorrect on Wikipedia given the current power structure and natural selection of participants. It is more correct to say that a minority position with arguments convincing to the Chairman of the Stacked Board have the potential to experience amplification. This single point of failure is well documented in the mail archives and ongoing operations of Wikipedia. The arbitration committee folks (as well as disputants in controversy adjudicated there) might be good people to check with for verification. I have seen them acknowledge their authority flows from Jimbo and explicitly deliver the "Jimmy says ..." ultimatum to participants in conflict. Since Jimbo is an internet entrepreneur with vested interests in potentially competing commercial wiki activities he is part of the group of corporate executives and owners in current market economies that you state currently suppress or bias against certain memes they find unpalatable or detrimential. If the idea of objective reporting (NPOV is clearly physically impossible according to current scientific and religious theory ... on Wikipedia it was presented as a goal to confuse people in conflict prior to implementing a "Larry says ..." or "Jimmy says ..." or "arbitration committee says ..." gram to generate closure of an ongoing controversy) as an ideal is migrating to other more decentralized or community lead wikis then perhaps your research approach will be valid there. As Wikimedia is currently structured with an acknowledged God King Chairing a Stacked Board owning a potentially competing business I fail to see how your assumptions, methods, or hypothesis, or data can have any conclusive interpretation regarding learning communities or decentralized wikis. user:lazyquasar

It occurs to me that it may be possible for you to establish valid research data to test your current hypothesis or questions of interest (Can wikis and properly structured and managed NPOV/objectivity processes help enable effective information compression for a global population?) by comparing Wikimedia projects (all with centralized command and control and natural selection for compliant participants) with other less titular or authoritarian control of content selection and retention. Wikimedia would become a control showing how the status quo transforms into the wiki media while the free or decentralized wikis might yield data useful to supporting or disproving various methods of amplification modulation. Very interesting and useful research! I look forward to your future results. user:lazyquasar

"So does the compression in the wikisphere get anywhere near the possibility of compressing information in a way in which everybody's participation is considered in some neutral way? The wikipedia concept of neutral point of view (NPOV) clearly is intended to provide a mechanism in this direction. "

This would be far less clear if you had been there to watch it in early operation. To me it appeared designed and applied consistently to confuse participants in controversy sufficiently that Bomis employees, owners or "old hands" could step in and pick the answer they liked. Thus issues was settled in accordance with preferences predefined on a mailing list at some earlier point in the "community's" evolution. Vocal participants disputing this methodology were routinely labled and lynched with the expressed goal of running them off. Thus natural selection was trending the participating population towards existing authorities viewpoints. Nothing "neutral" or objective about that. Eliminates any most possibility of feedback amplication. This evolved into the standard appeal to "Jimmy says ..." currently dominating Wikimedia Foundation projects. Thus regurgitation of alleged opinions or view of "Jimmy" are often preferred to critical thinking within the alleged "learning communities" formed ad hoc around interesting/controversial/important/fashionable articles. Perhaps they have improved the NPOV writeup such that it makes clear the concept of an incremental asymptotic approach to some overall gesalt ... rather than the truth according to Larry, Jimmy or some designated trusted subordinate or volunteer. Interesting that voting is considered way too fallible a method of selecting the merit of a neutral view or a community standard. Afraid of invasion by credentialed academia or Nazis I suppose. Fear that the assimiliation process was and remains inadequate to properly aclimate large hordes of similar mindsets rapidly enough to retain control of the community I suppose. Could be some of the non-english wikis show markedly different characteristics as Jimbo must have some language limitations. Of course if he has chosen his delegation to subordinates wisely, the other languages might still be tainted. user:lazyquasar