User talk:Alle van Meeteren

From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Complain about StarPilot Alle van Meeteren 02:56, 29 July 2006 (EDT)

StarPilot,

I mailed the following to Jim Scarver:

Jim,


Can you find time to act as referee between StarPilot and me on WikiWorld?

You have to decide if there is a difference between article-pages and talk-pages. For StarPilot there is not a difference, for me the difference is essential.

You also have to decide if StarPilot has the power to change back my edits, without declaration or whatever. He did that on the KISS-page. How do I react within the ConsensusByDefault-principle?

Alle

Jim Scarver

Answered partly in DearDiary.2006-07-14 -- JimScarver

Alle van Meeteren 14:15, 29 July 2006 (EDT)

Jim says a part of his referee-decision can be can be found in a Dear Diary. I found three relevant fragments:

fragment 1

"I like WE alternative better than WE. I am contemplating how we employ ConsensusByDefault. We need to add timing constraints it seems. Without a delay element it becomes DictatorshipByDefault or TyrannyOfTheIndividual. "

and in:

fragment 2

"I feel like answering each issue in place within your reply. This was our practice, but it has issues.

This is what I meant by raising issues "in context" in an article well in advance of going to WikiWorldCourt.

This is what Alli objects to, and he has a valid point. Our discussion quickly became so interrupted by dialog with so many threads that the network of interactions exposed linearly without time global ordering became unintelligable.

Yet sometimes, adding "notes/questions" in context is desirable. But when the issue is finished by the default of becomming stale after some period, it is probably better to move it to a discussion page.

Other issues are when to put stuff at the top or move stuff to the bottom. We want current information, summaries and news at the top, stale information, and stuff marginally on topic either down low on the page or moved elsewhere. "

and further in:

fragment 3

"The issue of discussion ordering is not resolved, but what do you want, I am slow... or perhaps I should say WE are slow too."


fragment 1: I suggested some changes on the existing WE-page. StarPilot refactored the WE-page after my suggestions thoroughly, without taking notice of these suggestions. I restored the former WE-page as WE alternative. Jim favours the former WE page. He did not give his reasons to do that, but if we have to read a partly answer on my complain above, it is a hint that StarPilot must not change article pages merciless.

fragment 2: Jim summerizes my point perfectly. Discussion tend to become incoherently, and unreadable. If this is partly an answer on my complain, I read a support for my struggle to find a better way to organize our discussion. StarPilot sees a lot of work behind this system. He is afraid that will scare others away. But I rather have a good discussion with a single person, than a social talk with a lot of people. And, besides, after the system is settled, much work can be handed over to the machine and its software. Perhaps it can be read also as a choice to make a difference between an article-page (stable, more or less) and a talk-page (more dynamic).

fragment 3: If it is an answer, the answer is that Jim did not made a choice still between the existing system (direct discussions on the article-pages, organized in time-order) or my proposition (discussions on the talkpages, organized according actuality, but with a short table of contents in time-order, links between the contributions). This means at least that StarPilot can not claim that there is consensus (minus my person) about the existing system.

Alle van Meeteren 14:16, 29 July 2006 (EDT)

StarPilot,

you answered to Jim on Dear Diary 14-07-2006 the following:

"ConsensusByDefault isn't a dictatorship. It's a simple time delayed dialog leading to synthesis. ... There can be no dictatorship, because all can recieve the signal and all can respond with their own signal. A chain of signals may be lost to entropy now and then, but it still isn't a dictatorship."

The signal that you gave by restoring the KISS-page without noticing the contributions I made, is - in my eyes - the signal of a dictator. You are the one who decides, without consultation. What happens when I bring my changes back? Will you start a discussion about those changes then? Or will you find me a nuisance once more? According to the sentence above, you will accept an action like that. But I do not trust my interpretation. You are not acting according your words.

my 2 cents JimScarver 11:33, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

I think we need issue pages for each issue. I feel pretty lost still. We need an official page with links to the issues or I need to know where it is if it exists. Sometimes I like to consider issues deeply and then report whatever synthesis that emerges by my actions, such as my updates to WE and KISS rather than direct replies.

We do need to keep things WikiSimple as I am behing the curve on using the features of this new wiki. I guess we need a MediaWikiVirtualClassroom or something.

This begs the issue of articles verses discussion. I have been hesitant to take a stand on the issue. I do think it is important that individual views are expressed in articles. I think this may be accomidated by encouraging quotes from individuals in articles.

another issue is wiping out others changes.

another is ordering of discussion comments. I think there should be some sort of synthesis at the top, which could be presumpted by a newer synthesis added before it. But perhaps new comments should always be added at the end, so that the ordering is not confusing.

another issue is moving stuff around. This can confuse and lose people but may be the right thing to do.

My suggestion is to add a task before doing anything which may be controversial. Wait a reasonable period and if there are no objections then make the change.

We need to talk, the old guard is upset with the new blood and there is risk of losing both. I do see painful positive progress being made but it should not be quite so painful.

While we think we are a very small group, there is a larger silent majority which we serve.

Perhaps WE need a place for ChildishBickering too


We are growing Alle van Meeteren 12:57, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

Jim,

I agree with you that a page where one can find what discussions are going on is helpful. Will special:tasks do the trick? If we decide to have are discussions on talk-pages, and/or we give the discussions a special sign, says [d], all actual discussions will be summed up on that special page.

I like the way you act in our discussion, not a reply by way of words, but a reply by acting. Such an act is more telling, is more directly an answer. It is just the technic I think is needed for our article pages. Such an act makes the meaning concrete. But of course it must not end in an endless act and counter-act. After a few acts the issue will be clear, than the discussion in words has to start.

In the issue of articles verses discussion, you were hesitant. You think it is important that individual views are expressed in articles. What is the importance of those individual views there? Perhaps an article page is more lively, if there sounds now and then an individual voice, like the way some authors start an article with some quotes. But the article becomes hectic when too many voices are heard, and when that voices have no clear relation with eachother.

You mentioned the issue of wiping out others changes. I propose a strategy on the page ConsensusByDefault. Did you read it already? In that strategy everyone of us can change what he likes, as a beginning. If some one opposes that change, he can change further, with an eye on the first change, but he may not change back. If he want to do the last thing, he had to start a discussion. If the one who started the changing does not agree with the further changing, he himself can change furtheron, but he has to give a declaration for his change.

You agree with me that a synthesis at the top of a discussion is a good thing. I propose that the person who is reacting on a contribution gives a short summary of that contribution on headlines. Working on such a summary is a good preparation for his own reaction. For the time being, I will no longer stress on the ordering of the discussion along the actuality. It seems too confusing.

You suggest to add a task before doing anything which may be controversial. I think it is better to start a discussion, but perhaps that is the same? A problem with your suggestion is that is difficult to decide what will be seen as controversial. Most of the time that will be crystal clear.

For people to learn, it has to start simply StarPilot 18:16, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

In teaching, you cannot start at the most advanced idea, nor at the most complex and refined level of knowledge, and expect anyone to ever learn the material or concepts. You need to trick them into percieving the material as simple and easy, and because they believe it is, they simply learn it without difficulty. You need to start as simple as possible. If it looks simple, that will build the impression it is simple, and aids in the students learning of the material. Remember, while you presume the site exists for your amusement and pleasure, the man that pays this site's bills presumes it exists primarily for the betterment and improvement of the world, and exists secondarily for our own amusement and pleasure (so, being easy to learn the ideas and concepts is the priority here). I believe you've got a hard sell on your hands getting him to buy into your system. (Link to discussion start simple related to the text:)

I say your system seems to be failing not because there has been a loss on my part to pursue knowledge, but that there has been a noted loss by others that they cannot find what they are seeking. Organization does not work if people don't know where to find what they are looking for. How do you envision people doing that? Apparently, the normal TOC is failing in this ability because it isn't containing useful information.(Link to discussion traffic signs related to the text:)

KISS does not dumb things down. It's simply the least level of knowledge required to understand a concept. Remember, e=mc^2 looks simple, but it took a lot of work to get to that simple scientific concept. Things start simple, grow, and get refactored as necessary under most Wiki standards. This is something we agree to in principle here, yes? (Link to discussion where learning starts related to the text:)

I keep saying that the collective is the voice of all, not of any particular one, because the way you communicate about the "we voice" implies otherwise to me. (Link to discussion the we-voice related to the text:)

start simple

Alle van Meeteren 03:50, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:16, 27 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot stated (in the first paragraph) that a teacher has to start his teaching on the level where his pupil is. That is true, but beside the point of our discussion. I am not teaching anything on the moment, but developing a system that matches with certain principles. My experience is that discussions with the use of internettexts often have lack of clarity for a third party, often they are too extensive for a third party, or exist only in fragments. The partakers in the discussion leave many things implicit,or give to much attention to their favourite topic, without interaction with the other partakers. First there have to be solutions for those problems, than we can try to make the system as KISS as possible.

traffic signs

Alle van Meeteren 04:15, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:16, 27 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot judges the organization of the discussion I propose as failing, because some persons could not orient themselves in the discussion.

That will be a transitory problem. When there is a change, people need time to get used to the change. Our objective has to be to have a good discussion between ourselves, and not to show our discussion to the world. StarPilot measures my (our) experiment with the possibilities of a presentation to the world. It that is the measure there will never be an experiment at all.

where learning starts

Alle van Meeteren 04:36, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:16, 27 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot wrote: "KISS does not dumb things down. It's simply the least level of knowledge required to understand a concept. Remember, e=mc^2 looks simple, but it took a lot of work to get to that simple scientific concept. Things start simple, grow, and get refactored as necessary under most Wiki standards. This is something we agree to in principle here, yes?"

I am at the beginning of a road, trying to find a good system for our discussion. StarPilot is at the end of that road. His concern is how to sell that system. He points out that it took a lot of work to formulate e=mc^2. But he sees the start of the formule in its simplicity. That is not the case,of course. Things do not start simple, they grow simple. Our wiki is more simple than HTML, HTML is more simple than programming directly.

the we-voice

Alle van Meeteren 04:39, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:16, 27 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot doubted is I understand the concept of the we-voice well enough.

Unless we orchestrate our voice in a big shout together, someone of us has to articulate for us. He is our representative on that moment. In a ConsensusByDefault anyone can take that position on any time, so long there is no proof of lack of consensus. I do not see that a consequence of this opinion about the relation between the individual voice and the we-voice is, that the we-voice is misunderstoond.

There is no difference between articles and talk pages in writing StarPilot 18:55, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

There is no difference between the WE on an article page and anywhere else! (Link to discussion the difference between an article-page and a talk-page related to the text:{{{text}}}) This is what you fail to grasp. WE is WE is WE is WE is WE is WE is WE is WE is WE is WE. Doesn't matter if its Alle's talk page, or War. It's the same, everywhere! Most "articles" on WikiWorld are nothing but talk and discussion!

ConsensusByDefault is merely the mechanism *we* use to examine the mind of the WE.

You give two contradicting signals in your contribution. 
* Be conservative in rewriting a page, and 
* in this WikiWorld every rewriting is important information, 
because it there is consent by default. 

This isn't contradictory. Be conservative in rewrites, to preserve the signals/knowledge, and to be respectful of others (it's a wiki social norm). (Link to discussion respectful to others related to the text:{{{text}}}) It isn't consent. You do not have my consent to change what I saw. Heck, you don't even have my consent to disagree with me. So far, you haven't shown you have any useful knowledge in your head. I'm sure it is there, I just haven't seen. =-). And I'm definately a HumanAnimal as well as an butt head. Until you show me that you know more then I, I presume you know as little as I, and so naturally distrust your statements. =-). Now, smilies aside, we are creating a consensus--- the best opinion(s) we are able to. Opinions are like, well, you know. Our functionality on determining opinions is the same functionality as the very neurons in our head. The more nodes that are firing in support of an opinion, the stronger the consensus.

Your system isn't ConsensusByDefault. That's what the others have been gently telling you, and what I've been not so politely telling you. Why? Because article pages are the same as any other page here! We only choose to make a distinct in a small number of particular cases (ie, user pages).

Jimneny-freaking-crickets. You are proposing changes in:

  • how we treat everything
  • how we should write and
  • how we shoudl behave, and most importantly,
  • the site's purpose

(Link to discussion proposals related to the text:{{{text}}}) That's why the group continually keeps telling you "no freaking way". Until you can sell the others on it, you are just wasting everyone's time.

Why can't you sell me? This page is why. This page so far represents your system at its most advanced, and its very finest. (Link to discussion communication needs at least two persons related to the text:{{{text}}})So far, you have failed on this page to demonstrate that your system has merit to anyone other then you. If people can't follow the conversations, they aren't going to buy into your system. I bet our other long term contributors at WikiWorld couldn't come to this page, and figure out what comes when and in relation to what. This is what you are trying to sell WikiWorld on? Think it through. If the new reader cannot follow the convo (conversation), they won't be able to participate. If they cannot participate, there won't be new ideas and activity. Without that, WikiWorld won't grow very well. Without that, the people can't learn the knowledge, concepts, and philosophy that are encapsulated in this site. And if they can't do that, this site fails. *We* don't want that.

I'm *not* saying "go away". I'm not saying "this can't ever work". But so far, you haven't persuaded anyone that you have the inside track an a great idea that would work well for WikiWorld. Maybe we are just too dumb to see it at the moment. Or maybe, you don't see that our concerns are valid requirements for any system that is employed at WikiWorld. If its the latter, you'll be the one disappointed in the end. Remember, future readers are at least as important as you are.

Now, do you want to take another try at this?

The difference between an article-page and a talk-page

Alle van Meeteren 05:19, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:55, 27 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot stated that there is no difference in WikiWorld between article-pages and talk-pages. It is all discussion.

I am thoroughly aware of the fact that StarPilot sees no difference. I presume the PHPwiki, formerly used, did not have the facility of talk-pages under a tab. When we started to work with MediaWiki, with that facility of special talkpages, we have to think about the way we use that facility. So far, I only met StarPilot with an opinion. He sees no difference.

But why there cannot be a difference? I see good use for a difference.

I agree with StarPilot that the article pages are also related to our discussions, but according to me that is another relation than the talk-pages have to our discussions. In my opinion the talk-pages contain our direct discussions from person to person. On the article pages our collective itself is talking. The underlying discussions are hidden. On an article page I (Alle) do not agree or disagree with another person. On an article page we tell the world our opinion. If we do not share the same opinion we tell that some of us have opinion X, others have opinion Y. That is quite a difference. It will be good for our collective to express us in that way.

respectful to others

Alle van Meeteren 05:19, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 16:16, 26 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot gave the advise to be conservative in rewriting a page,along with the concept of ConsensusByDefault, wherein rewriting is essential. In Alle van Meeteren 16:49, 26 July 2006 (EDT)) I told I see a contradiction in the advise and the concept of ConsensusByDefault. In StarPilot 18:55, 27 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot says there is no contradiction. One has to be conservative in rewriting to save existing signal and knowledge. But that is precise the point where the advise contradicts the ConsensusByDefault. If afterwards it shows that there is no consensus, the former signal (and knowledge) has to disappear, it was a wrong signal. StarPilot claims also there is no contradiction because one has to be respectful to others. I agree with him that we have to be respectful to eachother. But we do not show respect by leaving our collective text just the way the other left it. Than it will be a compilate of individual texts and never a collective text.

communication needs at least two persons

Alle van Meeteren 05:45, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:55, 27 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot says my organization of the discussion fails, because my user talk page is confusing.

StarPilot,

You gives the system a real chance, if you try it out yourself. Then it would be much less confusing for you. You shall know where to expect an answer on your posting and so on. Your remarks on the system would become more convincing for me, and we can make a better system together.

Alle

proposals

Alle van Meeteren 15:49, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:55, 27 July 2006 (EDT) StarPilot complains that I propose changes on many fronts.

According to StarPilot I am proposing changes in how we treat everything, how we should write and how we should behave, and most importantly,the site's purpose.

The site's purpose can be found on the home page (unless there is a hidden purpose). On the homepage is written,

"This is WikiWorld where WE can all create and modify webs. Login NOW! and WikiWiki!

Remember, YOU are WikiWorld.

WikiWorld is a place to synthesize our knowledge, connect ideas, and voice our thoughts. "

My proposal is only a proposal for a certain style of writing. In that style knowledge will become better synthesized, ideas better connected, and our thoughts will have a more clear voice. My proposal rizes out of six year thinking about the subject (how to use internettext for a good discussion), on a foundation of two academical studies (law and philosophy), so I know what I am talking about. Here, in WikiWorld, I found THE place with the right atmosphere for my ideas, with the WE concept, the SocialContract, the ConsensusByDefault.

One should realize that every newcomer in a collective changes that collective, certainly if that collective is about sharing ideas. One has to become used to eachother.

Jim Scarver called StarPilot the devils advocate. It is indeed painstaking to handle his criticisme. StarPilot is very impatient. He is defending the former WE, or perhaps his own position in the former WE. Sometimes, his critic look likes a personal attack. There is no benefit of the doubt, no testing of my ideas. But, in doing so he is closing the collective for newcomers. That is contrary to the general atmospere on central pages like the Home Page, the WE-page, the ConsensusByDefault page.


I wonder StarPilot 18:15, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

I wonder--- why haven't you taken the time to learn how we do things? Is it that the site is so simple in its concepts and arrangements, you understand them easily, if not intuitively? If so, then the site meets its requirements, and has no reason to change. Is it that you are completely unconcerned with what was before, and just want to experiment somewhere tolerant to exploration, experimentation, and discovery? Why is it that you are so unconcerned with showing people what you ask they give you? You ask us to give you time to teach us your system and allow it time to prove itself. You don't think that if your system was superior, that we wouldn't have seen that already? You've certainly given us multiple examples since you've arrived. (Link to discussion learning and teaching related to the text:{{{text}}})

You claim that all this confusion concerning your system is transitory--- it will only last until we *learn*. So, you imply you are teaching. How can you expect people to learn, if you haven't set out the system?

Things do start simply--- they grow more complex over time. They don't start complex, and then grow simple. This process is called diversification. In digitial ecologies, diversification is followed by refactoring--- a collaspe of diversity--- becuase when things become too complex for people to use, it stops serving its purpose. Once a digital creation stops serving its purpose, it is abandoned and ceases to be, or overhauled to make it usable. Without use, there can be no justifying the cost of maintaining a digital object. Fitness for survival in the digital world, requires that the person paying for it sees it as worth continuing to pay for it (worth its expense to him). If it is something meant to be used (and practically all digital creations are)--- and isn't used--- that object or entity becomes unfit. Evolve or die always follows.(Link to discussion things do start simply related to the text:{{{text}}})

Your clean up of this page went well. Are you happy with it? Do you think it is easy to create such a format? Is it quick to do?

There is no problem with leaving pages half done, with things done inclusively or half formed. Why? Because people that want to know more will simply ask. If something isn't simple enough to be understandable, if it isn't in a good format to learn or dig up related info that is helpful, then attention should be brought to this, so that those concepts and pages can be refined. Ask JimScarver, if you don't believe me. He's already stated that twice now since you've started participating at this site.

learning and teaching

Alle van Meeteren 01:27, 29 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:15, 28 July 2006 (EDT)]] StarPilot asks Alle why he did not spent time to socialize.

I arrived on a moment of change. WikiWorld started to use MediaWiki. I am the owner of the wiki, Ankervoorfilosofie for several years now, and a learned a few technics. My concern with this Wiki was to find out a good way to communicate in Newsgroups. Lately, a newspaper in the Netherlands started a wiki called http://wethepeople.nrc.nl. The purpose was to create a text as a collectivity. It became a mess after a short time, because everyone was riding its own hobby-horse. The texts did not intertwine, and a collective text has to do that, will it be a collective text. So I thought out the steps to edit a text to change a text where a particular person is speaking, to a text where the collectivity is the spokesman. In WikiWorld I found a place where it is also the purpose to create a collective text. I thought that my experience would be welcome here. The pages sounded openminded enough in sentences like: YOU are WikiWorld, we have ConsenusByDefault.

I saw that the talk-pages where not in use. Discussions are found under an article page. You seldom sees when a discussion started, sometimes it is even not known who is talking in a discussion, they are fragmented. Reasons for me to introduce my method and to develop technics to make it easier to use this method.

StarPilot asks some penetrating questions and has some penetrating suggestions: "why haven't you taken the time to learn how we do things?" WikiWorld was in change. The talk-pages were unused. I am a experienced user of Wikis, a long-time thinker about communication using internettexts. I found here the idea of a collective text, without the necessary editing steps. There was a need to find a light procedure to edit those texts. I developed such a light procedure. A question for StarPilot: Why do you not give me the time to develop my system?

And other suggestive question of StarPilot: "Is it (the reason why I did not take time to learn how we things do) that the site is so simple in its concepts and arrangements, you understand them easily, if not intuitively? If so, then the site meets its requirements, and has no reason to change." 1. I wonder if easiness is really a requirement of this site. Had it to be easy to to synthesize our knowledge, connect ideas, and voice our thoughts? I find it difficult to synthesize my knowledge with the WikiWorld, whose spokesman is StarPilot, to connect my ideas with that of his WikiWorld. StarPilot is the one who thinks he can voice our thoughts. If these are not my thoughts I must leave the WE, because there is no way to intertwine my thoughts in the thoughts of StarPilot to a common voice. 2. I found a site in change, shattered by this change. Three active persons, one of them very active. Invitations to contribute, openness. I found empty talk-pages, the rests of deficient discussions. Discussions organized the way I found them elsewhere, difficult to follow for a third party. No editing proces for the collective pages. Reasons enough to propose an editing proces for the collective text, to propose an other organization of the discussion. 3. Perhaps I am a quick learner?

A third suggestive question of StarPilot: "Is it that you are completely unconcerned with what was before, and just want to experiment somewhere tolerant to exploration, experimentation, and discovery?" I do not know where I earned such an impertinent question.

A fourth question: "Why is it that you are so unconcerned with showing people what you ask they give you? You ask us to give you time to teach us your system and allow it time to prove itself. You don't think that if your system was superior, that we wouldn't have seen that already? You've certainly given us multiple examples since you've arrived." The system is a communication system. It can not prove itself when only one communicator is using it. You cannot learn the way in a strange city if you never visit that city.

And a fifth: "You claim that all this confusion concerning your system is transitory--- it will only last until we *learn*. So, you imply you are teaching. How can you expect people to learn, if you haven't set out the system?" People can learn without a teacher, by own investigation. Why does StarPilot not investigate the other organization?

things do start simply

Alle van Meeteren 01:38, 29 July 2006 (EDT)

In StarPilot 18:15, 28 July 2006 (EDT)]] StarPilot claims that things do start simply. Of course it is a reaction on a contribution of me, but I cannot place it.

My proposal for the organisation of our digital discussion is counter-intuitive. I am aware of it. IRL a discussion deploys from the start till the end. In writing the start is upperleft, the end right-down. A discussion IRL would be written in that way. But that discussion will be complete on the moment it is written down. The virtual discussion we have is not complete. If we organize it the way such an IRL-discussion is written down, we give the history the prominent place, and the actual contribution a less prominent place.

It looks simple to react under the former contribution, and complicated to place a reaction above the former contribution. But, IRL it is the last speaker in a discussion who gets the attention.The past of the discussion is gradually disappearing in the time, that past is only memory. An actual discussion that starts every time again with the past, becomes complicated, because that past will hinder the actual development of the discussion.

Another reason why it is better to place the reaction above the former contribution, is that it stimulates to integrate that former contribution in the reaction, itself. There are always interpretation problems. How did the writer of the reaction understand the former contribution? By integrating his reading of that former contribution in his own reaction, he is more clear about his interpretation.

So, what intuitive looks simple (time-order), is in fact complicating the discussion.

Archive

User talk:Alle van Meeteren archive

Destroying the signal

July 2006 Overview:

1 - StarPilot: signal is destroyed.

2 - Jim Scarver: StarPilot is a good, but severe housekeeper.

3 - Alle: Is it true that everyone who acts on an articlepage acts as a representive of us?

4 - Alle: What kind of signal is lost?

5 - StarPilot: Alle's system does not meet the needs of this wiki, and it costs too much work.

6 - Alle:What signal should be saved? Work shall become easier.

7 - StarPilot: A signal that is lost can be recovered

8 - Alle: So it is a temporary problem. Signal lost is not the same as knowledge lost.

9 - StarPilot: If the page is not maintained knowledge will be lost if the signal is lost.

10 - Alle: Signals with no one to read and to understand them are useless. The signals has to be interpreted all the time by the actual WE.

11 - StarPilot is not against re-editing pages, but he thinks one has to be conservative with that, because otherwise signal will be lost. Also, he recognize that re-editing is important in the ConsensusByDefault concept.

12 - Alle sees a contradiction in the advise to be conservative (signal sparing) in re-editing and the ConsensusByDefault concept.

Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren

MetaPage

Overview:

1 - Our writing-process should stick to the KISS-principle.

2 - Alle asks what the relation is between KISS and CollectiveIntelligence.

3 - StarPilot answer is about CollectiveIntelligence and Burocracy.

4 - Alle questions about the KISS-principle

5 - StarPilot answers

6 - Alle: what is the relation between the KISS-principle and the CollectiveIntelligence. Is a KISS-principle interfering with the learning capacity?

7 - KISS is required so that other persons can understand what is said.

8 - KISS is a lazy principle

Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren


Time to refactor

Overview:

1 - StarPilot thinks it is time to refactor this talk-page and WE is something different from the SocialContract.

2 - Alle explained why this talk-page is organized the way it is organized.

3 - JimScarver let us know that the only means to uphold this collective is to obey the SocialContract.

4 - StarPilot disagrees. Violating the SocialContract does not have any consequences.

5 - Alle pointed out that the behaviour following the SocialContract also has rewards.

6 - StarPilot answered with a practical remark. If one cannot find a new contribution on a page one will stop activity.

7 - StarPilot asks why he should find a new contribution in the middle of a page.

8 - Alle claims there is a system in his ordering of the dialog.

9 - StarPilot: If you make it difficult to find a response you are not interested in dialog.

10 - Alle: A good organization of our dialog is good for the dialog. An organization in time-order only is not a good organization. A reversed time-order is better, because the last contribution should have the prominent place. It is good to link the different contributions. Of course there are growing-pains.

Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren

TIME Jim Sarver

WE need time to digest change.

Consider spedding more time adding content rather that moving stuff around so much...

I wish I had more time....

Time-slices Alle van Meeteren

I suggest from now on, you take the lead in the investigation and discussion about my proposals.

01:00, 2 August 2006 (EDT)

Personal tools