User talk:Quickwik/wiki-government

Moved from government for unobvious but reasonablely abstruse reasons :)

This is not a criticisim of the "wiki way" but I still can't see any coherant thery of how this system is or should be organized. I have been bumped around in the various dustbins looking for pages which are mysterioously removed, and, while I agree it's always at the mercy of the guy with his hands on the plug I would like to organize both a better description of the elusive wiki way and a theory of what evolutionary cource it could or even should take.

Systems such as this quickly develop status quo ism and I am not trying to disturb the feifdoms; but, if those who are in control are interested, I know things that could greatly streemline and help.

I will also add this wizeism.. Every time you craft a new sentense, you have comitted "origional research" . A little thoughtfullness might really make this better.

Knowledge Erosion
Wikipedia:erosion is the problem that anythign you write on wikipedia will eventually be overwritten by some fool while you are'nt looking. It's a nice experiment but how do you plan to make it work?

The inclusions need to be based on "revisions" and those need to compete on the basis of clarity, brevity and accuracy..

The alternitive is to simply have a system that get's trolled everytime you turn yout back. It's cyber grafetti presently.

What is needed is a way to have the alternitives float to the top rather than simply hiding those you hate and letting the rest float in a sea of chatter and entropic decay. The history system works nice but it does'nt really allow any kind of voting.. it's still a sophisticated power graphitti..

This is a real thing. wikipedia:erosion exists.

Comments?

see also: self organizing, systems, collective intelligence, consensus

See also: Social_organization_of_cyberspace, E-consensus, erosion