DearDiary.2006-07-14
Dear Diary
JimScarver 08:58, 15 July 2006 (EDT) DearDiary,
I am overwhelmed with excitement over the rebirth of WikiWorld as a MediaWiki, the spurt of activity here, the needful magically being done, and the new kindred spirit which has joined.
I feel totally lost in the new structure as I am clueless as to how we should apply it. Change is painful but necessary.
I have been very quiet here through my alternating times of unemployment frantically seeking employment and consulting gigs frantically meeting deliverables. Though much of the time my voice has been active in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/InfoPhysics but it has been silenced even there lately. Truth has power only when its time has come. All that has continued is my life in images at http://whitescarver.com/gallery and a new collaboration zone http://del.icio.us/jimscarver
We were up to 55 rabbits at http://lesLapins.org now down to 45 I think. Too much work still for my honey in serving the least of God's children. She hates people but loves animals. Nobody but me could live with her it seems. Not sure how anyone could live with me :-p
I left stuff for Star on Alli's talk page but he didn't see it. I like WE alternative better than WE. I am conemplating how we employ ConsensusByDefault. We need to add timing constraints it seems. Without a delay element it becomes DictatorshipByDefault or TyrannyOfTheIndividual. We also need, I think, a norm for putting objections in context, to be resolved later by third parties before changing stuff rather than on a discussion page. While we might hope to obey the SocialContract unilaterally, we lack the wisdom individually to do so. I know this is not the place for such talk, but am too confused by change to know where to put anything. PainIsGood. No pain, no gain. There is no blooming without pruning.
JimScarver 09:11, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
Star's Reply
JimScarver, *we* have the WikiWorldCourt for our major disagreements. I don't think the dispute has reached that state. I actually considered taking a poll to see if it had, but since their is currently only the 4 of us active ATM (you, me, Ken, Alle), I didn't see a real need. The only dispute I have with him is over what I see as the loss of signal, and with you weighing in, I think you've effectively put a stop to it, as you are our BenignDictator.
If you like the alternative page better then the new WE, then fix the WE. I liked our *original* WE better then either, although the new one is "Alle approved". He didn't like all of our sideline talk on the WE page, and clipped out half of it (but strangely didn't move the "How I Know" sidebar off the page). I simply refactored the page to the new Consensus. If you disagree, you know the drill--- ConsensusByDefault! Go fix it. Although I thought you'd like my version. Other then it being you know... organized. ;)
ConsensusByDefault isn't a dictatorship. It's a simple time delayed dialog leading to synthesis. It's a message, proprogating into the future for an unknown amount of time. Eventually, it is recieved by an unknown amount of parties. One of those future recievers will then emit a signal in response. 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. No one person at this Wiki can get their way. Well, no one but you, since you pay the bills. ;-)
Did you really say "Tyranny of the Individual"? LOL! Now, that's funny. Why is everything a Tyranny of some kind?
Glad to see you back! Good luck with the steady employment!
---StarPilot 17:00, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
Jim's Answer? JimScarver 11:13, 22 July 2006 (EDT)
I feel like answering each issue in place within your reply. This was our practice, but it has issues. (Link to discussion template related to the text:This is what I meant by raising issues "in context" in an article well in advance of going to WikiWorldCourt.)
This is what Alle 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.
Most ad-hoc stuff needs no "done" information. Only tasks which are projects or steps in projects need more tracking.
Yes, this discussion does not belong here......
WE Definition
WE choose to be part of a CollectiveIntelligence here at WikiWorld and through all our connections everywhere.
How WE Become
WE are emerging CollectiveIntelligence, different from what WE were. Growth requires that we recognize how what may have been right at one time to believe is changing in the evolution of civilization and what truths we are losing that continue to be relevant in the emerging new civilization.
Why WE Become
WE are a multi-national collaboration applying our shared principles, reason and resources toward a better tommorow of sustained growth and populating the MarsFrontier, the galaxy and beyond, such that we may live TheGoodLife in our own way.
I suppose the idea the WE is just everyone is cool because we are all part of the collective intelligence whether we choose to or not. But WE, in the sence I use it, are WE to the extent we are in the act of choosing to act as a collective intelligence rather than as individuals. We are "I" when we act as individuals. Alle and are each using it differently.
I guess as the philosopher KingOfWikiWorld I use WE in the royal sence of speaking for the people. Using "I" as Alle had suggested would be interpreted ambiguously. Using WE meaning everybody adds no value and is unneeded. WE should be defined unambiguously.
I think I add the above to the top of the new WE page. I added the consepts you contributed to some extent but your presentation is indeed simpler to understand. I is just not rigorous enough for my taste.
WE is a multiply defined term
The problem is that *we* use WE in several levels. The WE that is, the ideal WE, and the *we* that are here trying to uplift and change it to the ideal WE. You swap mostly between the latter two in your writing, but you occasionally reference the original. Indeed, its in my foggy memory that you are the one to first use it in the original and second fashion, and that's what galvanized my understanding that there is 3 *we*s here. WE, WE, we! It sometimes take some puzzling to know which of the three you mean, but we try. ;-) I don't think we will be able to make it dis-ambigious though. We is just too common a pronoun.
You've always used the King Of WikiWorld any group including you. often, you are a group of one. But hey, it's still a group. At least in your own mind.
I disagree about "stale on bottom" approach. It would mean we should reverse our dialog order, and that sounds suspiciously like work. Since this is all volunteer effort, that means it will eventually fall in disfavor of the easier (lazier) way, I think. If a page needs refactoring, then go refactor it. That's ConsensusByDefault. Heck, that's what Alle was doing--- trying to learn the information and refactoring the material as he was going. I was complaing because it seems that he was often obscuring the signal further, rather then clarifying/distilling it.
As for your replies, you can go ahead and reply in place, if you really want to. But the lesson I've learn from our longer exchanges is to break my reply out, and the one I'd like you to take away from the change of Wiki software is that in reply notations often lose their definition in changes to software. I've done my best to guess which levels were by whom on the longer pages I've been updating to MediaWiki format, but its hard to know if I really got it correct. I suppose I should track down the WayBack Machine and see if it has old versions of WikiWorld on it to check their formating. Humm... and idea for the future, I suppose.
---StarPilot
JimScarver 13:37, 29 July 2006 (EDT) The old WikiWorld was still running the last I checked at http://eies.net
WRONG CamelBreath
Entertaining but wrong :-p We are all wrong. Everything is wrong. Everybody is wrong.
I am excited that answers are emerging and we are all leaning and changing.
Nobody has the answers. Each issue presents a thesis and an antithesis, both wrong. The synthesis of the thesis and antithesis is the HelgianDilectic and synthesis of knowledge.
I am a very slow thinker. But in time answers come, when their time comes. Answers are begged by thesis and antithesis and synthesis comes when they holders of those views are able to transend the problem.
The direction is becoming clearer, hopefully I'll enter more soon and it may be self evident enough such that WE all agree. You may have guessed it includes quotes in articles signed below and discussions signed with timestamps above.
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.
-- JimScarver