Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

==WikiNorm| Usage ==

Successful CollectiveIntelligence requires facilitation. Communications software enables the group process but it does not define the process. The facilitation process involves the meta process defining GroupNorms, and their specific employment toward the group objectives as well as the problem domain facilitation.

There are norms for Wiki, both spoken, and unspoken. There are PhpWikiNorms and WikiWorldNorms

See Wiki:WikiSocialNorms

WikiWorld does not observe the standard Wiki norms of MeatBall:UseRealNames and is looser about most restrictions. There is also a wiki norm to not modify the HomePage of someone elses wiki. WE own this wiki and encorage people to improve any page, including the HomePage which can become rather stale.

Our norms are what WE do. To minimize entropy Consistent GroupNorms can be helpful.

==Generally Adopted WikiNorms ==

====Discussion Threads

==

Discussion happens spontaneously throughout most pages. Most discussion type comments are signed.

====Authorship/Ownership

==

Pages generally are not signed or labeled with an author.
Individuals sign content by using the --UserName convention. Real names or nick names are both used.
The system assigns ownership to content based on the sign in name used.
Anyone can use any sign in name.

====Individual Home Pages

==

====<more topics>

==

==WikiNorm|Workshop ==

Add a new topic for discussion.

===How sould summary sections be used?

=

===Should new pages be labeled with an author?

=

==== Every new page is labeled with an author.

==

If the originator of the page wants it to be a collaborative page, the author should be WikiWorld or whatever designation we decide best represents WE. If the originator wants to maintain credit and control over the content of that page then, the author should equal the originator. When the author is not specified the author is assumed to be the collective and therefore free game to any and all editors.

WikiWorld is fascinating and compelling because the tool itself does not enforce authorship or ownership. However authorship and ownership are felt, on certain pages, very strongly. Members/users of WikiWorld may not feel comfortable with directly manipulating a page that has a strong feeling of ownership, especially when they arent comfortable they understand the originators intent. (It seems, the cooperative personality may be overly prone to PoliteIdice.) --DavidSiegel

====Pages should not be labeled with an author.

==

Individuals may sign paragraphs or not but all content of every WikiPage should be considered the domain of the WE and therefore all members/users of WikiWorld can and should modify them directly as they each see fit.

===Discussion Threads in WikiWorld

=

====Having a separate page for discussion can be useful.

==

WikiPedia: uses the suffix Talk for a discussion about a page. We might discuss this in WikiNormsTalk.

'In Wikipedia the major use for the talk pages seems to be PointOfView containment. Would that be the purpose of such pages here? --LorraineLee

'There are other Wikis... such as KmWiki. It does not use 'Talk' to denote a discussion. The WikiPedia needs that to prevent people from posting discussions in the entries. They have set up a whole system just for that.

'Some pages may have a specific purpose, introducing new members/users to WikiWorld for example. In these cases a separate discussion page may be useful. Once a consensus of some sort is reached then WE can solidify it and post it on the main page. A good example of this might be the DeclarationOfInterdependence. WE could edit this main page freely and anonymously and then post specific supporting statements in a separate discussion page. Some pages might be assertions about how things are and what should be done in general terms. These pages would be designed to represent the collective opinion. The discussion page would be a history of how WE got there, or another way to put it, they would represent the collective thought process we used to arrive at a conclusion. --DavidSiegel

As a website devoted to showing the Collective 'WE', is not what we do by definition WikiWorldNorms? At this time, there are only a handful of actual users*. Therefore, the small number of us, we, form (the disproportional) voice of the 'WE'. --StarPilot

===Authorship Ownership Issues

=

What's in a name? As long as we use the same Avatar consistently here, does it matter if you sign your contributions as GeorgeWashington, or StarPilot? Nope. Some have used nicknames based on their real name rather then their digital handle. Besides, some of us have difficulty with spelling, proving just how unnecessary, at this time, such things really are. We can tell who they meant to say they were, cannot we? --StarPilot

Now... who is the Voice of the WE|? Check it and see.---StarPilot

     and many others have written here all here represent all their networks in a collective WE that includes everybody.

See the following searches for more discussion.

[[|http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/FullTextSearch?s=copyright a search for copyright]]
[[|http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/FullTextSearch?s=ownership a search for ownership]]

===WikiNorms General

=

I live in the future SP, WE may be nobody or EveryBody. Among other things, what I'd like to see happen here is the creation of books-- WikiPedia: is a book, on-line and potentially offline. ObjectWiki The Book by EveryBody and Understanding InformationPhysics are two of the books I hope WE can produce. If WE do something like that, norms, or standard ways we employ Wiki will be needed. -- JimScarver

Then shouldn't we open up a VirtualClassroomWikiWorldNorms?

And who is going to explain to everyone that no nicknames are allowed? A nickname is not a real name.

I never use my real name in such a public place. I've been stalked before... I prefer to make it more difficult for stalkers to find me, while still being able to participate. You get stalked and they try to kill you, it changes your outlook on just providing real data that make it easy for them to find you again.

Norm: people do not use real names. People use nicknames. That's standard in the 'WE'. Are you going to change that here? In the true CollectiveIntelligence that already exists? I think not. Want a Wiki example where real names aren't important? WikiPedia.

So what other norms aren't we following? Right now, we are not making a book. That's not WikiNorm, but that's alright. We are civil people, and willing to cooperate.

<offTopic><moveTo WikiWorld purpose, objective, inititives> So... is this a discussion-debate-re-factor type of site? A factual entries only?

If this is meant to truly be the CollectiveIntelligence, then its going to be centered on our primary interests through our collaboration. That collaboration will form the active focus of the site. As individual members, we hang out our thoughts and ideas... those that are of interest to others here, will be picked up on and carried along. Those that aren't...

Look at the InformationPhysics. PubWan. We have primary instigators, and an interest in those. But this CollectiveIntelligence is quite small. We need more people. But more people means more new instigators... and the Internet shows up what the true CollectiveIntelligence is focused on. Getting more... sex and goods. Biological and Personal materialism. Expand this small collective too far, and that will most like become its focus as well. With everything else filling in between those two main foci.

If this is meant to be 'InformationPhysics for Dummies', we need to get to work on keeping it focused. If it's meant to be 'Our Guide To Ways To Improve The World' or whatever else, we need to get to work. You only need 'norms' if this is supposed to be a very focused site with a very focuses goal.

Which is this site? WikiPedia is a focused site... meant to be a free/open encyclopedia for the World. That's why it has the norms it has.

Are we an expression of the world Collective? Or merely a single thought or three of it? --StarPilot </offTopic>

Just a few StarPilot thoughts...

And Form Follows Function, and Function Follows Form... We don't seem to have the Function, so are you trying to create the Function by enforcing the Form? ---StarPilot

I want to do everything Star, my mother spoiled me with unconditional love and my father taught me that the impossible just takes longer.

WikiWorld for me is a place where I can fulfill my desire to do everything. I get so many ideas and sometimes it seem futile to just be recording the ones that happen to strike my fancy when I am at the computer and have time on my hands or am obsessed by the idea.

I am not good with order and organization. I want my system (ObjectWiki) ultimately to facilitate the norms that make the system usable and self evident. Intelligence is solutions. It is processes not just information.

We can have many worlds here. WE can use any rules we want any time we want and where we want. But to actualize our CollectiveIntelligence there must be self evident or simple well defined processes.

Indeed, each purpose will have it's own norms. Some norms may be reusable for many purposes across much of WikiWorld. In any area more usable and effective norms might be found.

Norms are not the Law of WikiWorld, they are templates for processes that WE can all employ and recognize. ---JimScarver

TourOfWikiWorld