5 ms·

Thus turning the original wiki into something non-editable? If it can't be maintained as a wiki, the experiment is already over, right? Ward Cunningham isn't un

by inimino 10y ago

Thus turning the original wiki into something non-editable? If it can't be maintained as a wiki, the experiment is already over, right? Ward Cunningham isn't under any obligation to provide static archives, and these already exist elsewhere. Edit: turns out this was already the case. What I really want to say is that we should respect Ward Cunningham's choices in maintaining the site how he wants, in whatever way works for him.

Karunamon 10y ago
It hasn't been editable for a long while now
- inimino 10y ago
  I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the clarification.
ktRolster 10y ago
I think the problem was that useful comments hadn't been added to it in a while, and most new comments were just spam of some sort or another.
dpark 10y ago
> we should respect Ward Cunningham's choices in maintaining the site how he wants, in whatever way works for him This is an unhealthy attitude and I'm continually surprised that people say things like this. Having respect for someone does not mean that they are above criticism. It doesn't mean silent obedience. You can respect someone and still say, "hey, this thing you're doing is a bad idea."
- inimino 10y ago
  Where did I say "above criticism" and what does "obedience" have to do with this? (Is Mr. Cunningham bossing you around?) The attitude that actually is unhealthy is when someone graciously provides a service to the community for years, and then stops doing that, and people whine as though they are entitled to the continuation of that service. Respect in cases like this should mean to appreciate the work done to keep the thing running until now, and if someone decides to stop doing that work, respect that choice, even if you don't understand it or agree with it.
  - dpark 10y ago
    You very much stated and continue to state that no one should complain about Cunningham's choice here out of respect. This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain silent. This is painfully obvious from your last line. You say "respect that choice" and clearly mean "accept it and shut up". I don't think it counts as "whining" to ask if there is another way (e.g. switch to static content) to address Cunningham's concerns/costs without outright taking the wiki down. In no way do I think Cunningham owes the community continued indefinite hosting of the wiki. At the same time, its removal is a loss to the community and it's unsurprising that some would ask if this could be handled differently.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      > This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain silent. It does not. An alternative explanation: We recognize him as an autonomous adult who does not owe us anything. We trust that if he wants our advice, he will ask us for it. Ward Cunningham has a long track record of doing very smart things. I met him a number of times at the early conferences, and he was consistently sharp, kind, and generous with his time. To criticize his decisions about what he does with his own stuff is a level of presumption that I would be unlikely to indulge in. Just because I don't understand what he's doing doesn't mean he doesn't understand.
      - dpark 10y ago
        Does "we respect Ward Cunningham" mean we should sit silently when we disagree with his decision or not? It's either yes or no and speaking of autonomous adults and smart things doesn't change that. Either respect means we shut up when we disagree or it doesn't. You can't claim that respect doesn't mean we should shut up and then claim that we should shut up in this case ... because of our respect for Ward Cunningham. And I'd like to be super clear that Ward Cunningham doesn't owe me anything and if he wants to turn off his wiki and burn the archives that's his business and I actually don't care too much and I wish him all the best regardless. What I don't like is this frequent assertion that criticizing someone's actions implies a lack of respect, or conversely that respect implies silence in the face of disagreement.

by inimino 10y ago

Karunamon 10y ago

It hasn't been editable for a long while now

inimino 10y ago
I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the clarification.

ktRolster 10y ago

I think the problem was that useful comments hadn't been added to it in a while, and most new comments were just spam of some sort or another.

dpark 10y ago

> we should respect Ward Cunningham's choices in maintaining the site how he wants, in whatever way works for him This is an unhealthy attitude and I'm continually surprised that people say things like this. Having respect for someone does not mean that they are above criticism. It doesn't mean silent obedience. You can respect someone and still say, "hey, this thing you're doing is a bad idea."

inimino 10y ago
Where did I say "above criticism" and what does "obedience" have to do with this? (Is Mr. Cunningham bossing you around?) The attitude that actually is unhealthy is when someone graciously provides a service to the community for years, and then stops doing that, and people whine as though they are entitled to the continuation of that service. Respect in cases like this should mean to appreciate the work done to keep the thing running until now, and if someone decides to stop doing that work, respect that choice, even if you don't understand it or agree with it.
- dpark 10y ago
  You very much stated and continue to state that no one should complain about Cunningham's choice here out of respect. This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain silent. This is painfully obvious from your last line. You say "respect that choice" and clearly mean "accept it and shut up". I don't think it counts as "whining" to ask if there is another way (e.g. switch to static content) to address Cunningham's concerns/costs without outright taking the wiki down. In no way do I think Cunningham owes the community continued indefinite hosting of the wiki. At the same time, its removal is a loss to the community and it's unsurprising that some would ask if this could be handled differently.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    > This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain silent. It does not. An alternative explanation: We recognize him as an autonomous adult who does not owe us anything. We trust that if he wants our advice, he will ask us for it. Ward Cunningham has a long track record of doing very smart things. I met him a number of times at the early conferences, and he was consistently sharp, kind, and generous with his time. To criticize his decisions about what he does with his own stuff is a level of presumption that I would be unlikely to indulge in. Just because I don't understand what he's doing doesn't mean he doesn't understand.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Does "we respect Ward Cunningham" mean we should sit silently when we disagree with his decision or not? It's either yes or no and speaking of autonomous adults and smart things doesn't change that. Either respect means we shut up when we disagree or it doesn't. You can't claim that respect doesn't mean we should shut up and then claim that we should shut up in this case ... because of our respect for Ward Cunningham. And I'd like to be super clear that Ward Cunningham doesn't owe me anything and if he wants to turn off his wiki and burn the archives that's his business and I actually don't care too much and I wish him all the best regardless. What I don't like is this frequent assertion that criticizing someone's actions implies a lack of respect, or conversely that respect implies silence in the face of disagreement.