imported>Import: Imported current content

2026-01-28T11:54:25Z

Imported current content

New page

[[Talk:Writing on WikiWorld|actual page]]
=== *We* never write using the voice of WE ===
{{extract
|extract =
[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#StarPilot 15:57, 13 July 2006 (EDT)|
1 - Alle laid down some thoughts about I or WE on an article page.
]]
|by = Alle van Meeteren
}}

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 02:45, 14 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = *We* never write using the voice of WE
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = *We* never write using the voice of WE
|former = StarPilot 15:57, 13 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 1
}}
The I voice on a talk page is an I voice speaking for itself, the I voice on an article page is a person representing the we. We gradually develop this starting we in an real we, but not in an open discussion between to I's. The talk-pages are there for that dialog. On the article-pages people can read the result of the dialog for the time being. That is my opinion.

==== [[User:StarPilot|StarPilot]] 15:57, 13 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = *We* never write using the voice of WE
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = Alle van Meeteren 02:45, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
|former =
|nr = 1
}}

You stated that you view I as the start of [[WE]]. I actually agree with this ascertation.

The I voice is part of the voice of the [[WE]]. [[ConsensusByDefault]] means when I say "[[War]] is the physical resolution of disagreements between two or more [[HumanCollective]]s" (that is, sub-groups within the [[WE]]), and [[JimScarver]] disagrees with that, *we* enter into a dialog. To have a dialog, there has to be two viewpoints. You don't have that if you do something in the voice of the [[WE]], because there is only one viewpoint. Unfortunately, that viewpoint is very, very ignorant (consult: [[CollectiveIntelligence]] for those that care). ''*we* are motivated to making it smarter by uplifting humanity, to turning the [[CollectiveStupidity]] of the [[WE]] into a truly intelligent [[CollectiveIntelligence]].'' (This, incidentally, is the mission of [[WikiWorld]]. ;-)

So what's all this mean? You can't write in the voice of the [[WE]]. Anything you'd write is bound to be too intelligent to be the true voice of the [[WE]]. But in dialog, *we* can seek an intelligent voice, an intelligent choice, and an intelligent consensus, that is hidden in the great mass of [[WE]]. Then we can seek to spread that smarter idea to the rest of the [[WE]], and thus try to better the lives of all.

If you see a better way, I'm always willing to listen, consider, and learn. But, until I hear it, I will believe that the voice of I, that is, a viewpoint, is the proper voice for [[WikiWorld]]. It is the starting point of all discussions. Trying to remove the identifying elements of that individual voice can make it more difficult to follow the dialog. It is only through dialogs that we can achieve a more intelligent consensus.
=== Use of I on an article page ===

{{extract
|extract =
[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#Alle van Meeteren 09:44, 12 July 2006 (EDT)|
1 - Alle laid down some thoughts about I or WE on an article page.
]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#StarPilot 12:30, 12 July 2006 (EDT)|
2 - It sounded well in the ears of StarPilot. But it needs some corrections.
]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#Alle van Meeteren 13:58, 12 July 2006 (EDT)|
3 - The I on an article page is the weak start of a WE. The next WE-visitor has three strategies.
]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#StarPilot 15:54, 12 July 2006 (EDT)|
4 - StarPilot points to I-articles, that are not a start for a WE-page.
]]
|by = Alle van Meeteren
}}

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 03:56, 13 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = Use of I on an article page
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = Use of I on an article page
|former = StarPilot 15:54, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 5
}}
StarPilot, The *I* on those pages is not a dialogical I, nor an I, representing the WE, it is an I telling facts, with some personal remarks.

==== [[User:StarPilot|StarPilot]] 15:54, 12 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = Use of I on an article page
|namespace = Talk
|page = Writing on WikiWorld
|next = StarPilot 15:54, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|former = Alle van Meeteren 13:58, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 4
}}
The best example of I voice articles are Jim's works. They are his thoughts about various aspects of deep Physics, signalling to the future. (That's a common sub-theme you'll find around here.) For those, look up the family of [[InformationPhysics]].

Of course, there are lots of others, written as statements and challenges to begin a dialog. The voices of the participants are still quite clear, even once a [[ConsensusByDefault]] is achieved. A walk through the [[AnewGo]], particularly its [[NewLaw]], should be illustrative, IIRC. But it's been a while, so it might be a different article from that family.

--[[User:StarPilot|StarPilot]] 15:54, 12 July 2006 (EDT)

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 13:58, 12 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = Use of I on an article page
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = StarPilot 15:54, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|former = StarPilot 12:30, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 3
}}
StarPilot, in my opinion the I on an article page is the start of a WE, in principle. If the following 'I' agrees with what is written, he changes the I in WE. If he does not agree, he changes the I in 'a person' and takes his role as another representative of the WE. So the *I* voice on a article page sounds like the author's personal thoughts, it is a small beginning of *our* voice.
The next person has four strategies. The former two: 1. change of the *I* to WE. 2. Change the *I* to *someone* and start an other possible *WE*-voice by his own *I* or 3. He can start a discussion on a separate talk-page to discuss the contribution. 4, He can start a page to preparate a change for himself (not yet made).

Can you explain why the article does not have to be our common voice? It is not necessary it has the objective voice as for WikiPedia. An article containing just our discussion is nothing more than a talk-page. We do need pages for our commen voice (like [[WE]], [[SocialContract]], [[HomePage]], [[Help]].

====[[User:StarPilot|StarPilot]] 12:30, 12 July 2006 (EDT)====
{{tosurvey
|name = Use of I on an article page
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = Alle van Meeteren 13:58, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|former = Alle van Meeteren 09:44, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 2
}}
You are close, but not quite all the way there, in my opinion.

The [[WE]] is the sum-total collective intelligence of all humans. That's been made clear in several places by [[JimScarver]], and I like that concept. I am simply one small node in that great network. There is as many *I* in the [[WE]] as there are humans that have or are communicating within the [[WE]].

An article written with *I* voice is clearly the author's personal thoughts. While people may disagree with that and post their own thoughts and opinions, what develops is a dialog of various *I* defining a common viewpoint shared in the [[WE]].

Anyways, my opinion is that the voice of an article does not have to be the common [[WE]] voice. As [[WikiWorld]] works on an article/issue, via dialog and [[ConsensusByDefault]], the voice of the [[WE]] should emerge.

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 09:44, 12 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = Use of I on an article page
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = StarPilot 12:30, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 1
|former =
}}
I am reluctant to speak of myself on an article page. I have the theory that every I on an article page is representing the [[WE]] and that the next of us shall confirm this represenation by changing that I in [[WE]]. But who does share this theory?

As long as the theory is not discussed and accepted, it should be better to claim the representation by speaking of we, where I alone has an idea. Then people would not have the impuls to start a discussion with me.

=== This is a very bad title ===
{{extract
|extract =
[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#User:StarPilot|
1 - StarPilot thinks that the former title of this page was a bad one.
]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#Alle van Meeteren 06:15, 11 July 2006 (EDT)|
2 - Alle changed the title and asked StarPilot why he did not do it himself.
]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#StarPilot 12:39, 11 July 2006 (EDT)|
3 - StarPilot said he did not want to interfere in something he was unaware of.
]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#Alle van Meeteren 09:36, 12 July 2006 (EDT)|4 - ConsensusByDefault means a person can act as long as no-one protests.
]]
|by = Alle van Meeteren
}}

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 09:36, 12 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = This is a very bad title
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = This is a very bad title
|former = StarPilot 12:39, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 4
}}
In my opinion [[ConsensusByDefault]] means that we agree in principle with every act of one of us. Such an act is often more telling then a host of words. If there was a good reason to choose for that special title, it should have been easy to change it again, with the explanation why it is necessary to have that dangerous title. Everyone of us should trust his own opinion.

==== [[User:StarPilot|StarPilot]] 12:39, 11 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = This is a very bad title
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = Alle van Meeteren 09:36, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
|former = Alle van Meeteren 06:15, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 3
}}
I was raising reasons for the *community* should move the page. I didn't want to take unilateral action on this, as there may have been a very good reason for it being under its original title that I was unaware of. [[ConsensusByDefault]] would then had the original author (or someone else) then move it back. This way, we reached a consensus with little trouble, didn't we?

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 06:15, 11 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey
|name = This is a very bad title
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = StarPilot 12:39, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
|former = User:StarPilot
|nr = 2
}}
[[StarPilot]],

I moved the page at your suggestion. But, why did you not move the page? There is [[ConsensusByDefault]], isn't it?

==== [[User:StarPilot]] ====
{{tosurvey
|name = This is a very bad title
|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}
|page = {{PAGENAME}}
|next = Alle van Meeteren 06:15, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
|former =
|nr = 1
}}
This is a very bad title. It needs to be renamed '''immediately''', and I'll tell everyone why.

"Get Things Done" is a major business and life methodology that has a lot of high traffic. It's a way of organizing things so people can manage their life and business needs. This titel will drive up search traffic, particularly being linked multiple times. THEN, someone that understand wiki will transform this page into a GTD topic, and you'll lose your article.

Talk:Writing on WikiWorld archive - Revision history

imported>Import: Imported current content