Community point of view - Revision history

Jukeboksi: see also

2004-09-23T12:39:02Z

142.177.108.38 at 17:16, 2 July 2004

2004-07-02T17:16:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 2 July 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''[[community]] point of view''' is a [[consensual point of view]] of all those who have not been censored. It is defined by the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. Some view this as just [[editorial bias]] of the normal sort, as [[Disinfopedia]] seems to have. Others view it as a symptom of an ideology called "[[virtual community]]", which seems to be a way for insiders to excuse methods to limit debate with outsiders they despise (which is necessary in a real community where physical contact is involved, but is not really an aspect of wiki communication).		The '''[[community]] point of view''' is a [[consensual point of view]] of all those who have not been censored. It is defined by the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. Some view this as just [[editorial bias]] of the normal sort, as [[Disinfopedia]] seems to have. Others view it as a symptom of an ideology called "[[virtual community]]", which seems to be a way for insiders to excuse methods to limit debate with outsiders they despise (which is necessary in a real community where physical contact is involved, but is not really an aspect of wiki communication).

			Examples:

			* [[Meta-Wikipedia]]
			* [[Meatball Wiki]]

	To date none of these wikis has put measures in place to deal with this bias other than informal methods which have proven clearly inadequate. Starting by acknowledging that there is such a POV, and that it must be neutralized or limited like any other POV, is critical. ''See also [[individual bias]].''		To date none of these wikis has put measures in place to deal with this bias other than informal methods which have proven clearly inadequate. Starting by acknowledging that there is such a POV, and that it must be neutralized or limited like any other POV, is critical. ''See also [[individual bias]].''

142.177.108.38 at 17:16, 2 July 2004

2004-07-02T17:16:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 2 July 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''[[community]] point of view''' is the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. Some view this as just [[editorial bias]] of the normal sort, as [[Disinfopedia]] seems to have. Others view it as a symptom of an ideology called "[[virtual community]]", which seems to be a way for insiders to excuse methods to limit debate with outsiders they despise (which is necessary in a real community where physical contact is involved, but is not really an aspect of wiki communication).		The '''[[community]] point of view''' is a [[consensual point of view]] of all those who have not been censored. It is defined by the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. Some view this as just [[editorial bias]] of the normal sort, as [[Disinfopedia]] seems to have. Others view it as a symptom of an ideology called "[[virtual community]]", which seems to be a way for insiders to excuse methods to limit debate with outsiders they despise (which is necessary in a real community where physical contact is involved, but is not really an aspect of wiki communication).

	To date none of these wikis has put measures in place to deal with this bias other than informal methods which have proven clearly inadequate. Starting by acknowledging that there is such a POV, and that it must be neutralized or limited like any other POV, is critical. ''See also [[individual bias]].''		To date none of these wikis has put measures in place to deal with this bias other than informal methods which have proven clearly inadequate. Starting by acknowledging that there is such a POV, and that it must be neutralized or limited like any other POV, is critical. ''See also [[individual bias]].''

142.177.92.200: linking individual bias

2004-03-03T22:25:16Z

linking individual bias

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 3 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''[[community]] point of view''' is the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. ~~To date none~~ of ~~these has put measures in place~~ to ~~deal with this bias other than informal methods which~~ have ~~proven clearly inadequate~~. ~~Starting by acknowledging that there is such~~ a ~~POV~~, ~~and that it must~~ be ~~neutralized or limited like any other POV~~, is ~~critical~~.		The '''[[community]] point of view''' is the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. Some view this as just [[editorial bias]] of the normal sort, as [[Disinfopedia]] seems to have. Others view it as a symptom of an ideology called "[[virtual community]]", which seems to be a way for insiders to excuse methods to limit debate with outsiders they despise (which is necessary in a real community where physical contact is involved, but is not really an aspect of wiki communication).

	~~As an example~~ of ~~the systemic denial,~~ there is ~~no discussion whatever of this on [[m:community point of view\|Meta-Wikipedia]]~~, ~~despite several attempts to start one~~. ~~It seems the~~ [[~~Wikipedia Liars Club~~]] ~~is quite determined to pretend that they have "no POV" and are "inherently neutral" or something~~.		To date none of these wikis has put measures in place to deal with this bias other than informal methods which have proven clearly inadequate. Starting by acknowledging that there is such a POV, and that it must be neutralized or limited like any other POV, is critical. ''See also [[individual bias]].''

	~~This~~ is of ~~course bullshit~~, ~~and, detrimental in the extreme~~ to ~~that project~~. ~~Similarly attempts to declare that~~ [[m:Wikipedia ~~is not a social club~~]] have ~~been attacked, deleted without process, etc., by those who use it primarily for social means~~. This ~~is detrimental~~ to ~~its mission as an encyclopedia of course~~.		As an example of the systemic denial, there is no discussion whatever of this on [[m:community point of view\|Meta-Wikipedia]], despite several attempts to start one. It seems the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]] is quite determined to pretend that they have "no POV" and are "inherently neutral" or something. This seems to be the [[basis for unity]] on which they have built their own [[social capital]].

	See also [[sysop vandalism]].		This is of course also plain bullshit in light of their claims to be "open", and, detrimental in the extreme to that project. Similarly attempts to declare that [[m:Wikipedia is not a social club]] have been attacked, deleted without process, etc., by those who use it primarily for social means. This is detrimental to its mission as an encyclopedia of course. ''[[Wikinfo]] is a better encyclopedia project that is aware of this problem and tries to overcome it, but not by compensation and [[faction]] mechanics, more by just separating the [[multiple point of view]] involved.''

			See also [[sysop vandalism]], [[sysop vigilantiism]]

	The Consumerium approach should be to start by treating the current set of contributors as at least one [[faction]], and, permitting other factions to be started as differences of view become too extreme to accomodate without some system of [[factionally defined]] or approved edits. In other words, something controversial should not stand without at least one faction "behind it", and it should be this factional backing, not the contributor's "reputation" or any [[conflicts between users]] that determine whether the edit stands or not.		The Consumerium approach should be to start by treating the current set of contributors as at least one [[faction]], and, permitting other factions to be started as differences of view become too extreme to accomodate without some system of [[factionally defined]] or approved edits. In other words, something controversial should not stand without at least one faction "behind it", and it should be this factional backing, not the contributor's "reputation" or any [[conflicts between users]] that determine whether the edit stands or not.

142.177.82.119 at 09:25, 29 December 2003

2003-12-29T09:25:16Z

New page

The '''[[community]] point of view''' is the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. To date none of these has put measures in place to deal with this bias other than informal methods which have proven clearly inadequate. Starting by acknowledging that there *is* such a POV, and that it must be neutralized or limited like any other POV, is critical.

As an example of the systemic denial, there is no discussion whatever of this on [[m:community point of view|Meta-Wikipedia]], despite several attempts to start one. It seems the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]] is quite determined to pretend that they have "no POV" and are "inherently neutral" or something.

This is of course bullshit, and, detrimental in the extreme to that project. Similarly attempts to declare that [[m:Wikipedia is not a social club]] have been attacked, deleted without process, etc., by those who use it primarily for social means. This is detrimental to its mission as an encyclopedia of course.

See also [[sysop vandalism]].

The Consumerium approach should be to start by treating the current set of contributors as at least one [[faction]], and, permitting other factions to be started as differences of view become too extreme to accomodate without some system of [[factionally defined]] or approved edits. In other words, something controversial should not stand without at least one faction "behind it", and it should be this factional backing, not the contributor's "reputation" or any [[conflicts between users]] that determine whether the edit stands or not.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:39, 23 September 2004
Line 15:		Line 15:

	The Consumerium approach should be to start by treating the current set of contributors as at least one [[faction]], and, permitting other factions to be started as differences of view become too extreme to accomodate without some system of [[factionally defined]] or approved edits. In other words, something controversial should not stand without at least one faction "behind it", and it should be this factional backing, not the contributor's "reputation" or any [[conflicts between users]] that determine whether the edit stands or not.		The Consumerium approach should be to start by treating the current set of contributors as at least one [[faction]], and, permitting other factions to be started as differences of view become too extreme to accomodate without some system of [[factionally defined]] or approved edits. In other words, something controversial should not stand without at least one faction "behind it", and it should be this factional backing, not the contributor's "reputation" or any [[conflicts between users]] that determine whether the edit stands or not.

			'''See also:'''
			*[[POVs]] - for a complete listing of different POV schemes proposed or in use elsewhere