Criticism of crowdsourcing

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday April 16, 2024
Revision as of 08:28, 9 October 2008 by Paul Wehage (talk | contribs) (→‎Name ideas: adding some thoughts and name ideas)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Consider that Wikipedia Review is now, according to a number of participants there, suffering from various problems of anonymous management and community composition (an influx of Wikipedia apologists). Now may be an opportune time to establish a new forum for discussion of similar matters as posed by Wikipedia Review, but with various improvements.

Let this page serve as a discussion place for this new possibility.

Founding principles

  1. The ownership and management of the new forum should all be self-identifying persons with legitimate biographies that map to real-world authenticity.
  2. Topical discussions need not be limited to Wikipedia. We can discuss all matter of social, political, commercial, and academic consequences of any of the following:
    • Crowdsourcing
    • Free licenses, the "Free culture movement" and copyright issues
    • Wikis
    • Section 230 considerations
    • Anonymity and Privacy on the Internet
  3. Participants in the discussion may elect to do so from behind a pseudonymous cloak, but they will be advised that their opinions and status as participants shall carry less "cachet" (clout, gravitas, etc.) than those who self-identify and participate transparently.

Format

Which format would be most suitable for this new forum? Would it be possible to have both formats? If so, what would be more appropriate to have as the site's major format?

Message board

Pros
Fluid discussions between members
More directly participative than a wiki, as each party may express their side without having to include the concepts already presented.
Cons
Derailment of threads
Appears amateur
More likely to cause conflict, especially between "problem" users

Wiki

Pros
Output is inherently more "polished" and "reasoned" than a message board
The content is more immediately usable for journalists, academics and media professionals.
Cons
Discussion between parties gets lost in "consensus" of page
Using the same format as that of the subject that one is trying to critic may not be a valid way of producing criticism, especially if the same core principles (ie NPOV, "consensus") are used. It's perhaps important to "think out the of box".

Name ideas

What might we call this site?

Criticism of Crowdsourcing
Wrongs of the Internet
Rethinking Free Culture
Wikipedia Analysis (attn: Wikipedia is copyrighted. Can we use this name? ) or WikiAnalysis
WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school...although this might not work for an international audience)

One of the reasons that "The Wikipedia Review" has been so successful as a concept is that the name is precise, yet neutral. A successful name will most likely have a neutral, objective(perhaps scientific), element which will not necessarily be seen as being negative towards the subject. It is perhaps more effective to try to remain objective in our criticism, as to let the objective evidence speak for itself.

Reserved domain names

  • WikipediaMustDie.com
  • GregoryKohs.com
  • MimboJimbo.com
  • MyWikiBiz.com