User talk:VeryVerily/Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there any middle ground between communityism and encylopedianism? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Presumably. I didn't see need to elaborate moderate versions of each since it wouldn't have clarified much, if that's what you mean. VV 20:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- For the last distinction, I like communalism/bazaarism versus cathedralism, but I might've been influenced by a certain influential paper :)
Contents |
[edit] Is there a place where the philosophy of wikipedia is discussed?
Thanx for this excellant framework for discussion. If wikipedia is an attempt to replicate the dryness of the world book for free and without plagerism (sp?), then wiki is the wrong mechanism. Perhaps the community can develop a culture that adds some order upon the chaotic freedom of wiki, but the choice of wiki should be acknowledged as commiting one to communityism, anti-status-quoism, enventualism and non-authorsism.
In my short time here, I've already seen rapid reversals as "vandalism" of contributions that did not trash the page, but just posted an extreme position guarded by a cogent defensible argument. Dismissing a position as "no one thinks that", is obviously untrue, someone just did think that, and if the status quo is correct, then it should assist them in crystalizing their arguments to be able to cogently respond to the position they view as "extreme". --Silverback 03:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Where do you stand?
For village pump style gossip value, my stance:
- Moderate eventualist; though I agree with some of both moderate immediatist and extreme eventualist positions, so high waffle factor;
- Moderate Statusquoist (established articles are traditions, they have inertia that the wise tackle on the talk pages first);
- Encyclopedist: community is important, but it subordinate to the informational mission;
- Authorist: first providers of content have an understanding of what they have said that normally deserves consideration;
- Rehabilist: trolls should be dealt with decisively, but immature and POV contributors too often get coloured as trolls;
- WikiPacifist: there is never a good reason for breaking the 3rv rule.
And a suggestion: how about anonymism for anti-authorism?
Other stances sought. ---- Charles Stewart 01:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions for "Anti-Authorism"
- Aggrescriptorialism? Aggregatism? Scripto-totalism? Scripto-aggregatism? Aggregationalism? Collectivist Authorism? Just my two cents. --Colonel E 03:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How about "Scripto-communist"? ---- Charles Stewart 17:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Though the "communist" part draws in tangential and mostly undesirable connotations for me, "scripto-communist" is too brilliant a pun not to use. "We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive author of the week!" :-) JRM 23:57, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
Maybe "egolessism"? I've heard comparisons between the wiki way and "egoless programming". Although "scripto-communist" isn't too bad either - but probably not PC. You'd get a lot of flak from both ends of the spectrum. And from different spectrums, for that matter... crazyeddie 06:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
at any rate, anti-authorism is a combination of Latin and Greek forms. Better for a first guess would be contra-authorism. From there, contrauctorism? -Lethe | Talk 16:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
When this dicotomy is applied to genres of literature, IIRC the most frequent terms or concepts emphasize authorial voice in contrast to anonymity. Consider the Homeric Question: does the Iliad & the Odyssey reflect the work of one, definable personality (as some readers claim to have found) or is it the end product of generations of nameless oral poets? -- llywrch 16:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brilliant analysis! Really sums up my experience of Wikipedia so far!
Nice analysis! Reading the Wikipedia definition of vandalism and dealing with vandalism, it does appear that there are a great number of people who like to ban, block and revert changes that are being made in good faith. This does however seem to go against the recommended policies that I have read written by the Wikipedia founder.
I have to agree though, that it's only human nature to feel ownership towards certain things, and to have a resistance to change. One of the things I like so much about Wikipedia is the education I am receiving about myself and people as we analyse these concepts.
--Rebroad 00:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Encyclopedism
Personal attacks are no big deal. Indeed, it is hard to say they're bad at all if it makes an editor who is wrong back off.
I don't see this an an encyclopedic attitude. Or it's an extreme version. It's hostility disguised as erudition. Consider "Some people experience factual evidence as a personal attack, while others lack wit or a sense of irony, but as long as there's no ad hominem or veiled threat, it's their problem."
There is no such thing as a "Wikipedia community". A community is a group of people sharing bodily risk, and social club concerns or annoyances are very petty compared to real-world political problems.
This is also a too extreme, considering that no encyclopedist would deny that all wikipedians are at risk for bird flu, and that for an encyclopedist, an encyclopedia is very much a part of the real world. I suggest "The "Wikipedia community" is a social club whose concerns and annoyances may be very petty compared to communities in the world who face bodily risk in connection with the issues we are writing about." --Munge 06:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Who should be an administrator
Some time back I began to collect some information about past successful and unsuccessful adminships. I had some help but not for long so I did not finish. Any one is welcome to help. Anyway, I scoured the adminships for words used to describe a hopeful admin and tallied them up on a tally sheet that I created. I have some results but there is more work to be done. I encourage anyone to help with what they want to in their free time. RFA Ideology Analysis Jaberwocky6669 16:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
