New Feature: CF Christian Wiki!!!

[Swart]

*bump*

 

[Annabel Lee]

You have totally missed the point of what I am trying to say. You are discussing the examples. To avoid the polemics, lets change the examples.

Say Microsoft was running a forum that was open to both Microsoft and non-Microsoft Engineers and decided to make a wiki on their site. However, they decided to exclude non-Microsoft Engineers from contributing to the wiki. Of what value would you place the "Open Source" entries on that wiki? What if some of the MS Engineers said "That's okay, just PM me if there are errors and I'll correct them, I'm not biased."

The problem is that we are ALL biased to one extent or another no matter how dispassionate we try to be. This is a recognised fact in many other areas of life; we recuse ourselves due to conflicts of interest and to avoid the very appearance of impropriety. The foundation of a wiki concept is that it doesn't matter if we are biased as long as everyone can contribute. The wiki is self-correcting due to the participation of all concerned parties. If participation is denied to some, it is no longer a wiki. Encyclopaedia Brittanica may take strenuous efforts to be unbiased, but it is not a wiki. It's checks and balances come from internal rather than external forces. It succeeds or fails on a case by case basis. A wiki is by definition completely unbiased not because it holds directly to a NPOV, but because the NPOV is enforced by the interested parties. Remove an interested party and by definition you lose the NPOV.

That's the crux of my argument: CF has three choices:

1) Remove all entries about unrepresented parties
2) Open the entries to all parties
3) Don't call it a wiki, call it CFPedia or something else, because as it stands it is NOT a wiki.

I don't care which option is taken. Personally, I think option 3 will be the one that is opted for. If it wasn't called a wiki I wouldn't even be discussing this. Wiki has a definite meaning in the Open Source world and OS is something I am passionate about. As I said, it is something you either get or you don't.

This discussion reminds me of Noam Chomsky's defence of Fourisson's right to free speech. Fourisson was a Holocaust denier that was gaoled for his beliefs. Chomsky spoke out for his right to free speech. Many people that didn't understand the concept of free speech assumed that Chomsky must have been defending Fourisson's thesis. They were simply incapable of understanding the concepts of free speech. If you are in favour of free speech, then you are in favour of it for precisely the points of view you despise, otherwise you're not in favour of free speech. It is the same with the wiki concept, if you support the concept, then you maintain that all voices have a right to be heard and that all arguments deserve to have a hearing, otherwise you don't support the wiki concept.

I have had wiki participants PM me and offer to post my contributions as their own. The argument is that this will keep it fair. This is the same argument that was used against women's suffrage. It was argued that women didn't need to vote because their husbands would represent their wishes for them.

Once again: You either get the wiki concept or you don't. The example I have given here is the Microsoft example. If you want to discuss issues, take them to UT. Discussing LDS issues here only demonstrates you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

PS:
AM = Anti-Mormon

Swart is right, CaDan.
Number 1 and 2 would obviously be the most fair but that's not likely to happen on this website.

How hard would it be to change the name?

1) Remove all entries about unrepresented parties
2) Open the entries to all parties
3) Don't call it a wiki, call it CFPedia or something else, because as it stands it is NOT a wiki.

 

[CaDan]

Swart is right, CaDan.
Number 1 and 2 would obviously be the most fair but that's not likely to happen on this website.

How hard would it be to change the name?

Sorry for the delay getting back to this.

I don't know how hard it would be to change the name. I have no control over that stuff. I just work here.

In general, Swart's points are well-taken. The CF wiki project (or whatever you want to call it) shares the same flaws as the rest of CF. General Theology is a poorer forum because Swart cannot post there. The Soteriology forum is a poorer forum because it is against the Roolz to argue for universalism there.

The CF wiki project is a poorer example collaborative writing because some are excluded from it by Rool.

Given all that, what to do? Shall I let the perfect become the enemy of the good? Shall I become the RMS of CF and not post here at all if the Roolz are not perfect?

 

[Swart]

General Theology is a poorer forum because Swart cannot post there.

The CF wiki project is a poorer example collaborative writing because some are excluded from it by Rool.

By point is that it is less that a poor example. Granted - it is a collaborative effort. History is full of one-sided collaborative efforts. Mathematicians will be familar with how far Mathematics was set back because of the Royal Society's exclusion of the followers of Laplace. Many of my friends are amazed at how uptight I get about certain historical events - like the burning of the library at Alexandria, the Albigensian persecution, the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, the fourth Crusade, the Eureka Stockade, the vandalism of the Sphinx etc etc etc. In every single case you can point to ignorance as the motivating factor behind each incredibly stupid action.

One thing that wiki's do is totally clamp down on one sided viewpoints. As soon as we allow exclusivity to dominate, the free-exchange concept is diluted. This is why some of the 'soft' OSS licences are so hotly debated. The proliferation of them is threatening the OS concept - hence the slogan "Free as in speech, not as in beer."

By calling the CFpedia a wiki it is claiming to be something it is not. Regardless of how well it is done it will be biased. How well would you trust the entry "Christianity" on AtheistForums? Even if they said - oh, we're not biased. How authouritative do you think Stormfront's wiki is? http://wnwiki.ath.cx/index.php/Main_Page

I realise this is an extreme example, but I hope it illustrates my point: when you are on the "in" group, then you wonder what the problem is. If you wonder what the problem is, then you don't have the full picture and probably never will. In this example, STormfront created their own wiki because they thought wikipedia was biased. By definition, a wiki cannot be biased. Those who fear the dissemination of information they don't agree with are biased.

Like free speech, you either trust the concept or you don't. You are either confident that your beliefs will withstand rigorous examination or you aren't. In Stormfront's case, it is obvious that their racism doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, hence their distaste for the free expression of wikipedia. Their need to establish a 'wiki' as a safe haven is a testament to this.

Given all that, what to do? Shall I let the perfect become the enemy of the good? Shall I become the RMS of CF and not post here at all if the Roolz are not perfect?

RMS?

I'm not talking about posting, I'm talking about calling a spade a spade. If you want a closed shop for Groupthink, don't misrepresent the wiki concept by claiming it is a wiki.

If - on the other hand - you embrace the wiki concept, then either open it to everyone or limit it to comments on groups within the circle - ie only talk about people that can comment.

At the very least, there should be a wiki entry on "What is a wiki?" where you can state that technically, CFwiki isn't.

I hope I'm getting my POV across. I'm used to attempting to explain to people why commercial software patents are an evil blight on society.

 

[Scholar in training]

By definition, a wiki cannot be biased. Those who fear the dissemination of information they don't agree with are biased.

Are you calling Erwin biased or "fearful"? Remember that he is the one enforcing this rule, at least for the time being.

 

[Swart]

Are you calling Erwin biased or "fearful"? Remember that he is the one enforcing this rule, at least for the time being.

You need to read my previous posts. Yes, everyone is biased.

As I said, it's like free speech - you either understand the wiki concept or you don't.

 

[Scholar in training]

You need to read my previous posts. Yes, everyone is biased.

Everyone is "fear[ful of] the dissemination of information they don't agree with"? Including you? Lol.

I think it's fairly obvious that you were implying people who are "arguing for" the current ruling are fearful and possibly dishonest. I hope I don't have to explain why that is fallicious.

As I said, it's like free speech - you either understand the wiki concept or you don't.

Bad comparison. Free speech allows a person to make incorrect or "biased" statements. You're arguing that the Wiki shouldn't be "biased".

 

[Swart]

Everyone is "fear[ful of] the dissemination of information they don't agree with"? Including you? Lol.

You are joining together two statements that don't have a direct connection.

Yes, I am biased. No, I do not fear the dissemination of information I don't agree with - but I do demand the right of reply.

I think it's fairly obvious that you were implying people who are "arguing for" the current ruling are fearful and possibly dishonest. I hope I don't have to explain why that is fallicious.

The only thing you that's obvious from this statement is that you don't understand the wiki concept.

Bad comparison. Free speech allows a person to make incorrect or "biased" statements. You're arguing that the Wiki shouldn't be "biased".

Go back and read what I have written about the wiki concept. Here's an excerpt:

The problem is that we are ALL biased to one extent or another no matter how dispassionate we try to be. This is a recognised fact in many other areas of life; we recuse ourselves due to conflicts of interest and to avoid the very appearance of impropriety. The foundation of a wiki concept is that it doesn't matter if we are biased as long as everyone can contribute. The wiki is self-correcting due to the participation of all concerned parties. If participation is denied to some, it is no longer a wiki. Encyclopaedia Brittanica may take strenuous efforts to be unbiased, but it is not a wiki. It's checks and balances come from internal rather than external forces. It succeeds or fails on a case by case basis. A wiki is by definition completely unbiased not because it holds directly to a NPOV, but because the NPOV is enforced by the interested parties. Remove an interested party and by definition you lose the NPOV.

 

[CaDan]

Again, Swart, your points are well-taken.

The CF wiki--or whatever you want to call it--project has inherited the flaws of its parent organization. Like the rest of CF, it has a watchful Staff enforcing a brand of orthodoxy. Like the rest of CF, it has a fundamentally flawed definition of "Christian".

In the context of the flawed power (in the Walter Wink sense of the word) of CF, the current structure is the best I can do. I am not privy to the secret councils of Staff unless someone either leaks them to me or I am told their results.

Tell me how CaDan--non-Staff and serving at the pleasure of the webmaster--can fix the core of CF and I'll deliver you a wiki without flaws. Until then, I will not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

 

[Swart]

Tell me how CaDan--non-Staff and serving at the pleasure of the webmaster--can fix the core of CF and I'll deliver you a wiki without flaws. Until then, I will not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

The only thing I can suggest is to have a 'wiki' entry about CF 'wikipedia' explaining what a wiki is and then explaining that technically, CFwiki isn't really a wiki.

If CF would simply change the name, I wouldn't have a problem. Calling it a wiki is like Microsoft lcaiming they are OS.

Me; I just might call it 'Pravda'.

 

[Swart]

The only thing I can suggest is to have a 'wiki' entry about CF 'wikipedia' explaining what a wiki is and then explaining that technically, CFwiki isn't really a wiki.

If CF would simply change the name, I wouldn't have a problem. Calling it a wiki is like Microsoft lcaiming they are OS.

Me; I just might call it 'Pravda'.

Anything further on this?