imported>Import: Imported current content

2026-01-28T11:54:25Z

Imported current content

New page

Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

==[[WikiNorms|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>
====
----
==[[WikiNorms|WikiNorm|]]Workshop
==

Add a new topic for discussion.

===How sould summary sections be used?
===
<enter view points here>

===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 [[RecentVisitors|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]]

WikiNorms - Revision history

imported>Import: Imported current content