![[Home]](wikipedia.png)
History of Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Build Wikipedia|
This is a wonderful opinion piece, and very constructive! I salute you for it! I think this piece is basically making the same points as The Cunctator/How to destroy Wikipedia, but is much more constructive. I wish you had writen this one originally. --STG Of course, I think that both essays are constructive, in different ways. They are both saying the same things, in different ways. The reason that I wrote "How to Destroy" first is because I feel that dangerous, bad things need to be marked as such, without softpedaling. I think doing so is "constructive", a vague word if I've ever heard one. "Constructive" really means "putting together the constituent parts of (something) in their proper place and order". Its vague apposition to "destructive" is a modern usage. When you praise this as "constructive", you're implying that the other is "destructive". But I can't say I'm surprised, as the essays were deliberately titled to emphasize the irony of the concept of "constructive criticism", which usually just means "saying things in a nice way". Talking about problems is always more difficult than talking about positive things. But talking about problems, and calling them such, is not necessarily destructive. STG: I hope you understand why I wrote Destroy first. For one, I personally couldn't have written Build without having first explicitly defined what I consider to be the most dangerous problems in Wikipedia. --TheCunctator :Yep, I do. As I said before, my problem is with the whole tone of the destroy piece: accusatory, hostile and somewhat paranoid. That's what I think is destructive, and completely unnecessary when pointing out problems. --STG It's admittedly accusatory, hostile, and somewhat paranoid. Even if you disagree with the reasons I gave for striking that tone, you should at least recognize that I did explain it. The ranting may be misplaced, but it's reasoned. I admitted that writing this may have negative consequences, but I wanted to be able to be honest about my feelings, opinions, and concerns. --TheCunctator LMS responds: |
|
Some combativeness and dissent helps societies thrive. Many have believed that the preservation of the right to dissent with utter vehemence, even violence, is critical to the legitimacy and health of the state. |
|
Politeness too is a worthy goal. But if calls for politeness come from an all-powerful cabal, which can kick you out, delete your work, etc., well, you can determine what to call that. Fortunately, that cabal doesn't exist on Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
: "Some combativeness and dissent helps societies thrive," yes, but Wikipedia is not a society except in a metaphorical sense. What is it, then? An online encyclopedia project in which the results of our individual minds come together to create something far greater than anything any one of us could produce. In that context, respect and politeness are not merely "worthy goals," they are essential to our staying productive and from stemming mutual alienation. See Wikipetiquette. |
|
This is a wonderful opinion piece, and very constructive! I salute you for it! I think this piece is basically making the same points as The Cunctator/How to destroy Wikipedia, but is much more constructive. I wish you had writen this one originally. --STG Of course, I think that both essays are constructive, in different ways. They are both saying the same things, in different ways. The reason that I wrote "How to Destroy" first is because I feel that dangerous, bad things need to be marked as such, without softpedaling. I think doing so is "constructive", a vague word if I've ever heard one. "Constructive" really means "putting together the constituent parts of (something) in their proper place and order". Its vague apposition to "destructive" is a modern usage. When you praise this as "constructive", you're implying that the other is "destructive". But I can't say I'm surprised, as the essays were deliberately titled to emphasize the irony of the concept of "constructive criticism", which usually just means "saying things in a nice way". |
|
:--Larry Sanger |
|
Talking about problems is always more difficult than talking about positive things. But talking about problems, and calling them such, is not necessarily destructive. |
|
::"Except in a metaphorical sense"? What other sense is there, really? When you have a project that involves people working together, you have a society?. It's irresponsible to ignore the societal ramifications of a project. And I don't think you are. It just seems you're leery of calling the Wikipedia society a society. --TheCunctator |
|
STG: I hope you understand why I wrote Destroy first. For one, I personally couldn't have written Build without having first explicitly defined what I consider to be the most dangerous problems in Wikipedia. --TheCunctator |
|
:::People talking to each other via the Internet doesn't strike me as a society in the full-bodied sense that anarchism really cares about. That's all--just a relatively unimportant philosophical point. --LMS |
|
:Yep, I do. As I said before, my problem is with the whole tone of the destroy piece: accusatory, hostile and somewhat paranoid. That's what I think is destructive, and completely unnecessary when pointing out problems. --STG |
|
::Do you think we can come up with a common language to properly discuss the social dynamics of the Wikipedia project? Or perhaps we need a good entry on "society" which makes clear what the differences and commonalities between a full-bodied society and the Wikipedian society are. --TheCunctator |
|
It's admittedly accusatory, hostile, and somewhat paranoid. Even if you disagree with the reasons I gave for striking that tone, you should at least recognize that I did explain it. The ranting may be misplaced, but it's reasoned. I admitted that writing this may have negative consequences, but I wanted to be able to be honest about my feelings, opinions, and concerns. --TheCunctator |
|
:::Maybe we could. --LMS |
|
|
|
#Write articles on popular topics. See [1] as well as requested articles and the most basic encyclopedia article topics. |
|
#Write articles on popular topics. See [1] as well as requested articles and the most basic encyclopedia article topics. --LMS |