5 ms·

I’m curious, why do you think voting on article versions will make it better?

by 3rd3 12y ago

pan69 12y ago
I think it's voting edits, not articles that's meant here.
- dthunt 12y ago
  Comments > Votes.
Udo 12y ago
Moving towards a meritocratic model would be one of many steps that are worth experimenting with, but it can't be the only one. Culture needs to be addressed specifically, though if the current Wikipedia population stays just where they are that could be a great start. There would of course have to be some technical changes as well.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  How is that not a non-sequitur? I mean, what does voting have to do with meritocracy (usually, its considered characteristic of democracy, not meritocracy.)
  - Udo 12y ago
    Yes, I used the wrong word for that. When I say meritocratic model, I mean a model where content rules based on its merit, not a statelike structure where individual people rule. I'm talking about introducing a way to measure this merit. So I apologize for the misnomer that confused you. However, I'm hesitant to call such a system democratic either, though that might be a closer match. Ideally, I'd like to decouple ego and personality from the act of content creation as much as possible - to the extend that is possible while still motivating people to work on it. So you see why I might describe this as having democratic or meritocratic traits, without actually being a *ocracy. I'm also open to the idea of such a system being distributed, which would solve another problem Wikipedia has. If that's feasible, you might even be tempted to use terms such as adhocracy or federation. My beef with all these phrases is they're describing forms of government, whereas what I'm looking for is more a mode of content curation. But let's talk about actual substance instead of nomenclature. I don't claim it's a silver bullet, but I think those are some ideas that may be worth experimenting with.

I’m curious, why do you think voting on article versions will make it better?

by 3rd3 12y ago

I’m curious, why do you think voting on article versions will make it better?

pan69 12y ago

I think it's voting edits, not articles that's meant here.

dthunt 12y ago
Comments > Votes.

Udo 12y ago

Moving towards a meritocratic model would be one of many steps that are worth experimenting with, but it can't be the only one. Culture needs to be addressed specifically, though if the current Wikipedia population stays just where they are that could be a great start. There would of course have to be some technical changes as well.

dragonwriter 12y ago
How is that not a non-sequitur? I mean, what does voting have to do with meritocracy (usually, its considered characteristic of democracy, not meritocracy.)
- Udo 12y ago
  Yes, I used the wrong word for that. When I say meritocratic model, I mean a model where content rules based on its merit, not a statelike structure where individual people rule. I'm talking about introducing a way to measure this merit. So I apologize for the misnomer that confused you. However, I'm hesitant to call such a system democratic either, though that might be a closer match. Ideally, I'd like to decouple ego and personality from the act of content creation as much as possible - to the extend that is possible while still motivating people to work on it. So you see why I might describe this as having democratic or meritocratic traits, without actually being a *ocracy. I'm also open to the idea of such a system being distributed, which would solve another problem Wikipedia has. If that's feasible, you might even be tempted to use terms such as adhocracy or federation. My beef with all these phrases is they're describing forms of government, whereas what I'm looking for is more a mode of content curation. But let's talk about actual substance instead of nomenclature. I don't claim it's a silver bullet, but I think those are some ideas that may be worth experimenting with.