The traffic into the ontology wiki can hardly be compared to wikipedia.
I think that at most 3 people are contributing. I am just copying and
pasting from the forum so I am not really even an author just an
unqualified editor. (01)
The forum is not the place to control dialogue. Skip the stuff you are
not interested in and try to get something out of the rest.
Don't foster the silly "I am smarter than you" arguments, by not
responding to them. (02)
Use reasonable subject titles if you want to elevate the discussion away
from the above mentioned silliness so that people will see that a new
more enlightened discussion is starting. (03)
The forum is a place to try out ideas and see if they have traction.
The wiki is the place to document the ideas that are starting to make sense. (04)
Closing the forum to open discussion will just kill it. The backlog of
messages will drive everyone to individual messages and eventually to
Censorship of bad science has hardly ever been a good thing in history.
Bad science tends to die a natural death or to become enlightened
thought depending on how the future rolls out. (05)
If you want to elevate the discussion here, add some well known truths
to the wiki and let people know that you have done this and see what the
reaction is. My dream is that someone will either add a supporting fact
to your opening discussion or write a counter argument with supporting
That is how wikipedia achieved the success and standing that it has. I
long for the day when the ontology wiki is looked upon as an important
resource worthy of vandalism or spoofing. (06)
As Bill Gates said when he was asked why Microsoft placed so much
emphasis on marketing in China, when the rate of piracy is so high, "If
they are going to steal someone's software, I want it to be mine." (07)
Chris Welty wrote:
> As many of you have no doubt heard, Wikipedia, aggressive bastion of open
> collaboration, is strongly considering finally giving in and closing its
> editorial process somewhat. The new model being proposed and supported by a
> majority of wikipedians, including its founder, is that anyone will be able
> edit, but all edits (perhaps constrained to "all edits on higher traffic
> will need to be approved by a "trusted" editor, of which there are many
> Pure openness was key to bootstrapping wikipedia's content, but now that it
> among the most frequented and trusted web sites, it has become a common
> of spam, pranks, and general maliciousness.
> I know there are many in ontolog who prefer a purely open forum, but I think
> failure of SUO and the continuing nonsense in this forum - which make it the
> butt of many jokes and keeps a lot of otherwise serious ontology people away
> include myself in this category, you may argue with the "otherwise serious"
> - are evidence that the open model doesn't work here.
> This forum is not taken seriously because it is too open. I suggest adopting
> model like the one Wikipedia is considering, in which we establish a sort of
> active editorial board - a group of trusted moderators rather than just one,
> of whom can approve a post and thus the flow of information will not be
> significantly slowed, power and control will not be in the hands of one
> and the quality will increase.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)