| Revision as of 03:46, 1 October 2004 editSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits Is there a place where the philosophy of wikipedia is discussed?← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:47, 1 October 2004 edit undoSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits →Is there a place where the philosophy of wikipedia is discussed?Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| 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. | 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". | 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". --] 03:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:47, 1 October 2004
Is there any middle ground between communityism and encylopedianism? ] 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 :)
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)