Talk:Development Wiki: Difference between revisions
content/opinion distinction only valid per faction, not for all factions - un/disputed distinction more important - arguments for development/research/signal naming scheme
m (typos + fix sentence) |
(content/opinion distinction only valid per faction, not for all factions - un/disputed distinction more important - arguments for development/research/signal naming scheme) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:I suppose this "process" refers to the information flow from the '''Research Wiki''' into the '''Signal Wiki''' which is '''confusing''' because before the distinction between [[Content Wiki]] (for facts) and [[Opinion Wiki]] (for subjective views and campaigns based on subjective criteria) was clear and as unambiguous as it can get -- [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 11:16, 23 Feb 2004 (EET) | :I suppose this "process" refers to the information flow from the '''Research Wiki''' into the '''Signal Wiki''' which is '''confusing''' because before the distinction between [[Content Wiki]] (for facts) and [[Opinion Wiki]] (for subjective views and campaigns based on subjective criteria) was clear and as unambiguous as it can get -- [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 11:16, 23 Feb 2004 (EET) | ||
::No, it wasn't. Because the distinction between what is "subjective" and "objective" is up to the [[faction]] obviously. Does it take one [[troll]] to dispute something "objective" into subjectivity? Two? Six? Fourteen? It is a bogus distinction. One of the [[open questions]] is what form of [[w:consensus decision making]] should be assumed? And when we say something is "no longer an opinion but has become content" do we really mean "it isn't disputed by anyone editing here?" Or not by trusted people, or by significant numbers of trusted people? Is it right to say that the bureaucracy in a gov't handles "content" and the politicians only handle "opinion"? I think it isn't. | |||
::The name [[signal wiki]] just matches [[Consumerium buying signal]], "[[buying signal wiki]]" would be even clearer. The name [[research wiki]] just admits that the opinions we share here are just as valid as the ones one might find in [[Wikipedia]], probably more so, since we really care about solving a [[user-land]] problem, and they don't. That leaves the [[development wiki]], which is an obvious name used in many other projects. Also the fact that we are doing both "R" and "D" in this [[mediawiki]] for now, is acknowledged, that just becomes two functions when we go to a [[pilot]]. | |||
1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]]. | 1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]]. |