For entirely selfish reasons, I hope this forum remains as open as it
has been. (01)
Many of the members of this forum, I suspect, are (like myself) not
formally-trained knowledge engineers but are quite capable of using
tools, models, and strategies developed, in many cases, by the members
of this forum. Responses to my uneducated questions have been useful.
When other "outsiders" ask questions, they also provoke responses that
increase my understanding of the domain. (02)
Although some participants have said that this forum has a bad
reputation because of its openness, I often cite the forum to my
colleagues as a place full of interesting, meaningful, well-reasoned
exchanges -- often superbly written to boot. I am not the only one who
has a high opinion of the forum, but most of us are, indeed, outsiders. (03)
I also find the periodic deflating of ungrounded and unresearched claims
useful ... and a guilty pleasure, as long as my ideas are not the ones
being skewered. It's a warning to me that I had better do my homework
before I ask questions here. (04)
Phil Murray
Senior Research Fellow
The Center for Semantic Excellence
http://www.semanticexcellence.org (05)
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
>to
> edit, but all edits (perhaps constrained to "all edits on higher traffic
>pages")
> will need to be approved by a "trusted" editor, of which there are many
> (thousands?).
>
> Pure openness was key to bootstrapping wikipedia's content, but now that it
>is
> among the most frequented and trusted web sites, it has become a common
>target
> of spam, pranks, and general maliciousness.
>
> I know there are many in ontolog who prefer a purely open forum, but I think
>the
> 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
>(I
> include myself in this category, you may argue with the "otherwise serious"
>bit)
> - are evidence that the open model doesn't work here.
>
> This forum is not taken seriously because it is too open. I suggest adopting
>a
> 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,
>any
> 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
>person,
> and the quality will increase.
>
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 (07)
|