User:Marjan Tomki SI/WikiMedia Philosophy

As I see it now Template:TOC limit

Main Goal
To help all people have all possible knowledge available free of charge

Some problems on principle level

 * Some accepted/standard procedures are not in accordance with goal set. To be listed. Reasons to be analysed. Task permanent (even after I die).
 * Environment (physical, economical, legal etc...) problems. Same proc as above.

My principles to follow
They might be usefull with all Wikimedia stuff (as I found it usefull elsewhere).

As verbalized

 * 1) Don't cause pain to anybody (including yourself) without a good reason.
 * 2) Don't cause damage without a good reason. If you cause it unintentionally, repair it /help repair /let somebody that can repair it know about it and do your best to help.
 * 3) If you see someone needs help, is willing to accept it, and you can help (without violating both previous rules), help

General and background
These rules were learned from observing (and participating in) play of both human and animal young. They all like to play, but immediately refuse to play with anyone that causes pain or damage, and a little later with someone that doesn't help when they need help.

They were verbalized when I needed so in 1914, when I accepted to geting native people of a Dalmatian Island Vir, that had almost no such tradition, interested in sailing (see [|//www.morjeplovec.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14267], in Slovenian). I had a feeling that - if I perform well - people (and young the most) could in time become a kernel of a sailing club, and I wanted to leave good foundations if that happens. Part of that was integrating this three laws in what I did, but also be able to tell them.

Idea of three rules/laws was from Isaac Asimov's books (together with the idea that a law higher than first might be found necessary).

They might apply anywhere where similar processes and relations exist (natural or designed), not only with humans.

No pain without good reason

 * 1) Pain is not inherently bad. It helps one to prevent causing damage to oneself (or others) without knowing it.
 * 2) Misuse of this mechanism is bad. Failures in function of this mechanism are dangerous (often fatal).
 * 3) Both previous statements apply both to individuals and systems (inside and outside of individuals).

Examples of good reasons for causing or allowing pain
 * if something paintful has to be done to prevent mayor pain (and/or damage): necessary surgery after accident, transport to medical facility after accident etc; pain should be as minimized as possible withoud causing/allowing damage
 * if someone is causing pain/damage to someone else, pain might be needed to it/her/him to understand what it/s/he is doing ind make it/her/him stop. Se above.
 * when pain prevents causing damage or more damage: e.g. a kid should learn to be wary of hot things by being allowed to touch very (enough, but not too) warm object (hot drink in a mug or similar); that experience should be used for warning about fire, "hot" wire (under eletrical power), dangerous (and/or irritating) chemicals etc etc. From one such example kids (not human only; I became aware of that one from dog puppies and their mum) understand, accept and extrapolate - usually faster and better than adults.

No damage without good reason
If someone is hurting or trying to hurt you, or someone you care about, with a gun or a slingshot, to damage those implements as to cause them not to function, or not to be available to that someone, is usually OK.

The same can be considered if it works also if you care about the whole world.

Don't help, if it causes pain or damage

 * Help should be offered, not forced upon to somebody. This applies also to psychological help; in a way this applies heavily also to recent (e.g. XX century), and current (early XXI century) health care industry, general commercials, etc.
 * People should be helped to learn to do things, not "helped" by unnecessarily doing things for them as to make them unnecessarily long term dependant (not self sufficient). That especially applies to rehabilitations (and disabled), but applies at least as seriously to groups (and societies, and whole civilisations) (even when - or even more when - they seem bo bring local short term business profit: see drug trafficking, organized crime, Enron, pyramid schemes, and the same pattern of behaviour anywhere even when/if not yet made illegal; see opium wars in XIX century in China, and War on drugs by US in XX/XXI century).
 * A disabled person in such a situation can loose her/his job, With that cash inflow stopping also his/her economical foundation disapperas at the same time that her/his finances get burdened by costs of the help (s)he needs. (S)he also becomes a burden of public financial support and services at the same time it can no more make profit from which tax could be assessed and payed, so it is damaging not only to personal, but also to national economy financial situation. Both also have similar effect on self-esteem (personal and national respectively).


 * Try not to teach/develop abilities without empathy, and ethics how not to misuse them (complex, lifetime and longer lasting task)

Conclusion
This should get shortened, when/if possible.

Noli nocere
From latin: don't cause damage, don't hurt. Standard warning, that education for medical practice trains people to keep in mind. Elaborated a bit: Don't knowingly cause "bad".

Nocere: to cause "bad". Problem is that understanding this needs ethics (what's good, what's bad) and it is neither simple nor easy. And further, inaction (doing nothing) can also cause "bad". So, a simple sentence, but a lot of background work if you (individual or other) want to follow this "rule", and no simple and easy way (known to me) to enforce it.

Normalization
If possible link what is it and why and when it is good, and possible unwanted side effects

Efectiveness
Good, when not against three laws of child play

Murphy's Law
Murphy's law (and John Paul Stapp - check data on WP if OK)

No orignial research on WP
To be rigorously reviewed against three laws above; side effects as well (and against Murphy Law also).

Infological Model of Wikipedia
Problem: data change; descriptions and cathegorise of data also change.

Point of view on data can change in such a way already acquired data becomes unusable (doesn't fit into model any more).

Possible solution: a systematical acquisition o knowledge about the problem and information needed about it, before we acquire and manipulate data, so that we don't need to change model in a way that would force us to lose data. Infological analysis, conceptual model.

Conceptual model
Simplified, brainstormed:
 * about what we should know something: object type, object instance : Item in WD structured data
 * what should we know about object: properties
 * where and how should we get the data
 * when object instance gets born/created?
 * to what other objects types can it be related?
 * what can happen to it: changes of properties, changes of relations, changes of relations properties...
 * when object instance vanishes/perishes: what happens then (change of properties, changes of relations... - does it disappear/gets forgotten - ever/disaster/planned or timed amnesia?

I am mixing two levels together that should probably be better to be used one after the other. To be thought out later.