Talk:Thinking about our Social Contract
Violating the SocialContract
Overview:
2 - According to StarPilot this means refining the SocialContract
4 - StarPilot pointed on the fact that a person can violate the SocialContract.
5 - Alle asked StarPilot to correct this overview, if he thinks it is necessary
Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren
Alle van Meeteren 01:39, 8 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Violating the SocialContract
StarPilot, I know a person can violate the SocialContract. But that is not the point here. The point is that someone suggested not to mention the SocialContract, presenting the WE, because that SocialContract can become an obstacle for the purpose of this WikiWorld. That is my reading of the remark. I put it down in the extract, above. Please, will you - in our collective effort for understanding eachother, replace that extract by your reading of the discussion? I think that will be very informative.
StarPilot 16:33, 7 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 01:39, 8 July 2006 (EDT)
As the WE is everyone, it is very easy for the individuals in the WE to go against the SocialContract of the WE. The SocialContract is discussed on several levels, including what an ideal SocialContract should be. By viewing world events, on the macro (national) as well as the micro (city) and nano (individual) levels, we can see that there is room for improvement, with our own actions and with our fellow members of the WE as well. At its heart, WikiWorld is about how small smart groups or even individuals can effect a change for the better in the greater collective. (See: SmallWorld, NetworkTheory) --
Alle van Meeteren 10:01, 7 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot 16:33, 7 July 2006 (EDT)
- I cannot imagine our collective effort violating our SocialContract. WE are the product of the SocialContract. Of course, there is a bigger society around this WE. One can imagine (hardly, if I speak for myself) that the social base of this bigger society can be violated by our collective effort. But, that is quite another question.
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 10:01, 7 July 2006 (EDT)
This would suggest that the SocialContract needs to be refined. By the WikiWorld principle ConsensusByDefault, the SocialContract that WE agree to should be the true SocialContract of the WE. Yes? Isn't that what we effectively went through on the AnewGo NewLaw issue?
User unknown
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot
Should we include a link in the See Also section to SocialContract? What is the reasoning for this inclusion? It seems unrelated to how a small WE can have global effects, for instance:
- if our collective effort violated our SocialContract, could if be good?
- see discussion Objective criteria
Are you sure you are interested in dialog?
Alle, you really don't seem to be that interested in dialog. You seem much more interested in filing and organizing.
Note that you take on average some 20 changes to just make your changes. On big efforts, you take almost 70 edits to get the page ordered and filed to your liking. I'm not against someone refactoring a page, but these long lists of changes are having the knock off effect of making it difficult to use the local history and global Recent Changes. That blocks the maintainence of the site (checking page changes to making sure they haven't been vandalised) as well as tracking pages of somewhat interest to people (but not so much they have placed it on their watch list).
While this is a text world and therefore allows us an opportunity to communicate in non-standard formats, we still need to be able to actually talk. All participants need to be able to follow the dialog and to follow the changes in between their visits. If you want to make 8 seperately themed comments to something, please do so. But if you scatter them about in your own system, you cannot expect others to actually find them and reply (the problem with non-standard systems is less people can use it). If you spend 4 hours re-filing a page to your system, you are also limiting your own ability to read and respond to other pages that have changed.
If taking 20 edits to bump things around to your liking makes you happy, that's great for you. But if you end up spending all your available time on only one or two pages, then you aren't getting a chance to further synthesize WikiWorld into a more intelligent consensus. It seems to me that your system is keeping you from participating--- and that's against our SocialContract here, you know. ;-)
Try to have some fun while you are here!
---StarPilot 13:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)