Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20/Plan Infrastructure Scalability

Explaining the Hegelianism
"What Why How" appears to be a derivative of the so-called Hegelian triad (Thesis, antithesis, synthesis). As Hegel's thought was adapted over the centuries there are a variety of applications of this triad, such as David Icke. If you review that last wikilink, look at reference 151.

The problem with this form of thinking was outlined by C. West Churchman in his Inquiring Systems. A more basic illustration is the Dilbert cartoon where the pointy-haired boss and the various staff members frequently talk past each other. The different epistemological frameworks and problem solving systems involved are at least partly to blame for this.

So, my response is, "how would this read if it were not written in Hegelian epistemology?"--Such as, how would this article look if it were written in the Lockean, Lebnitzian, or Kantian forms as outlined by Churchman? (as an aside, there are also other forms of thought he did not analyze in his work)

I'll work through the first paragraph: "Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt" appears to be a restatement of Piaget's Assimilation and Accommodation (Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development). As Piaget was a philosopher, this was something he took straight out of Hegelian thought current during his time period. How could we discuss these processes in either more neutral terms, or in ways compatible with non-Hegelian traditions?

Now for the paragraph as a whole:

Thesis: "meet the needs of Movement stakeholders and the goal of sustainability"

Antithesis: This is supported by the recommendations ‘Coordinate Across Stakeholders’, ‘Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt’, Ensure Equity in Decision-Making’, and ‘Innovate in Free Knowledge’.

Synthesis: This recommendation proposes the idea of planning for infrastructure upscaling on a continuous basis

How would this paragraph look like if it were written by say, an engineer? A farmer? A grammaticist? A mathematician? etc. There are different ways of structuring thoughts, and if one wants to avoid talking past the bulk of your audience you need to either

A. structure your content either in the form(s) that other party uses B use some sort of analytical system (such as Churchman's) to negotiate between the different forms of thought C. structure your content, your problem solving, and your methods in a very basic way (this is often not possible) D. structure everything to be read two ways so that everyone can agree to disagree without explicitly admitting as much (this is often not possible)

A good counter-argument to this is that people often due talk past each other, and that maybe the other side should just deal with it. My response to this is that we need to avoid this sort of issue to prevent a Dilbert-like dysfunctional culture, outright schisms, alienation of large groups of people, and the resultant might-makes-right outcome of rampant communication failure.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)