Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
Community point of view: Difference between revisions
see also
(linking individual bias) |
(see also) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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). | ||
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]].'' | ||
| Line 10: | 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 | |||