5 ms·

"A conventional wiki, says Mike Caulfield, is "a relentless consensus engine." A federated wiki may eventually yield consensus, but it promotes what Ward Cunnin

by hga 12y ago

"A conventional wiki, says Mike Caulfield, is "a relentless consensus engine." A federated wiki may eventually yield consensus, but it promotes what Ward Cunningham calls a chorus of voices."

est 12y ago
wow, I was trying to quote the exact same sentence! It's the key of the whole article.
- pen2l 12y ago
  I don't see what's wrong with that, though. For the most parts, relentless consensus (by Wikipedians, who usually are smart folks) is reasonable information.
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    Nothing wrong but maybe Ward Cunningham wants a platform that does not converge toward consensus too much.
    - pen2l 12y ago
      Why is it bad to converge toward consensus? Or rather, consensus from the scientific community (which more often than not is the wiki-writers).
      - agumonkey 12y ago
        Just found that : http://i.imgur.com/rTt5qiP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/rTt5qiP.jpg 'Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjMO_ewZxIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjMO_ewZxIQ
      - pbowyer 12y ago
        In a field with some form of rigorous proof underlying it* converging towards consensus is good, though I still enjoy reading the outliers (not the cranks, the ones who could be the next Pauli). But imagine if you're trying to converge towards consensus about a historical event. Every historian has their own interpretation and different emphasis. The facts should be the same for all, but the reading of the event and its meaning isn't. And for that reason, support for tracking diverging views would be very useful. * For various definitions of science
        Turing_Machine 12y ago
        I still enjoy reading the outliers (not the cranks, the ones who could be the next Pauli). (emphasis added) Yes. If everything operated on a pure consensus basis, progress would come to an end. This doesn't even have to be at the fringe; for decades, just about every textbook claimed that normal human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes. The correct number (or maybe I should say the currently-accepted number) is 23. This was even stated in textbooks that had accompanying photographs that clearly showed 23. Consensus is a useful tool, but it's not infallible, and sometimes it goes spectacularly wrong.
        Retra 12y ago
        Well, everyone can agree on the facts, and opinions are just facts about what people have said. So consensus can still be reached on what the opinions are.
misuba 12y ago
But one of the big reasons wikis are unpopular (with those who aren't already fans) is the chorus of voices. The relentless-consensus part is seen as just a symptom of that larger disease. I guess it's still not clear to me what the real use case is for Federated Wiki.

by hga 12y ago

"A conventional wiki, says Mike Caulfield, is "a relentless consensus engine." A federated wiki may eventually yield consensus, but it promotes what Ward Cunningham calls a chorus of voices."

est 12y ago

wow, I was trying to quote the exact same sentence! It's the key of the whole article.

pen2l 12y ago
I don't see what's wrong with that, though. For the most parts, relentless consensus (by Wikipedians, who usually are smart folks) is reasonable information.
- agumonkey 12y ago
  Nothing wrong but maybe Ward Cunningham wants a platform that does not converge toward consensus too much.
  - pen2l 12y ago
    Why is it bad to converge toward consensus? Or rather, consensus from the scientific community (which more often than not is the wiki-writers).
    - agumonkey 12y ago
      Just found that : http://i.imgur.com/rTt5qiP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/rTt5qiP.jpg 'Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjMO_ewZxIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjMO_ewZxIQ
    - pbowyer 12y ago
      In a field with some form of rigorous proof underlying it* converging towards consensus is good, though I still enjoy reading the outliers (not the cranks, the ones who could be the next Pauli). But imagine if you're trying to converge towards consensus about a historical event. Every historian has their own interpretation and different emphasis. The facts should be the same for all, but the reading of the event and its meaning isn't. And for that reason, support for tracking diverging views would be very useful. * For various definitions of science
      - Turing_Machine 12y ago
        I still enjoy reading the outliers (not the cranks, the ones who could be the next Pauli). (emphasis added) Yes. If everything operated on a pure consensus basis, progress would come to an end. This doesn't even have to be at the fringe; for decades, just about every textbook claimed that normal human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes. The correct number (or maybe I should say the currently-accepted number) is 23. This was even stated in textbooks that had accompanying photographs that clearly showed 23. Consensus is a useful tool, but it's not infallible, and sometimes it goes spectacularly wrong.
      - Retra 12y ago
        Well, everyone can agree on the facts, and opinions are just facts about what people have said. So consensus can still be reached on what the opinions are.

misuba 12y ago

But one of the big reasons wikis are unpopular (with those who aren't already fans) is the chorus of voices. The relentless-consensus part is seen as just a symptom of that larger disease. I guess it's still not clear to me what the real use case is for Federated Wiki.