It would be possible to use a semi-agile approach like we do for ProleWiki, though we still have some thin hierarchies. In true agility, everyone is free to engage in what they like, but the keyword is “delivering the most value [with what we have]”. So you could have people talking in the name of the whole project when they’ve been on it for 2 days only, and that’s something we’re not quite ready to give yet lol.
I personally have no interest in collaborating with neocons (which such a broad wiki would necessarily require) but certainly someone can try this project out, put it into practice, and we’ll know if it’s a workable idea or not. I always say that ideas are great but putting them into practice is better, and you can’t really have one without the other.
The very real conditions behind ProleWiki (same as Conservapedia, same as Wikipedia) is that you need to find people to help you out and they all have a vision. I would rather find Marxist-Leninists to help with ProleWiki than finding neoliberals to write their version of the Joe Biden article, why would I help neoliberals get more exposure when I’m at the complete opposite of what they stand for? (And they more easily get funding for their projects than I could)
Alternatively there could be a service that scrapes and pulls from different independent wikis into one instead of being like a big coalition, but someone still has to make it 😁
Alternatively there could be a service that scrapes and pulls from different independent wikis into one instead of being like a big coalition, but someone still has to make it 😁
Yeah, that’s how I was interpreting it because neither Wikipedia, ProleWiki, Conservapedia, etc. would have any desire to integrate that natively, and each would have good reasons
There are good reasons to want to collaborate with ideological enemies.
Conservatives are generally good people, and are right about many things. They are just misguided on a few economic points. I know many people like this. They just haven’t read widely enough, or can’t think creatively about economics, or have never heard any other theory convincingly expressed.
People will generally stay in their boxes and read only their own wikis. Conservapedia people will remain conservative and misguided forever. But maybe you want to influence people outside your box. That’s where you want to share a space with other groups. If it’s equally easy to read any perspective, people people might read a few and change their minds about what the truth is. This is a good thing for a very niche but very true perspective like marxism.
For this to work, the new shared wiki has to be widely read. That means it has to become bigger than wikipedia, to supplant wikipedia.
The most important thing is to make it obvious to close-minded people that there are always different valid perspectives on every issue. If the go-to encyclopedia has this concept built-in, many people will start to understand it.
It would be possible to use a semi-agile approach like we do for ProleWiki, though we still have some thin hierarchies. In true agility, everyone is free to engage in what they like, but the keyword is “delivering the most value [with what we have]”. So you could have people talking in the name of the whole project when they’ve been on it for 2 days only, and that’s something we’re not quite ready to give yet lol.
I personally have no interest in collaborating with neocons (which such a broad wiki would necessarily require) but certainly someone can try this project out, put it into practice, and we’ll know if it’s a workable idea or not. I always say that ideas are great but putting them into practice is better, and you can’t really have one without the other.
The very real conditions behind ProleWiki (same as Conservapedia, same as Wikipedia) is that you need to find people to help you out and they all have a vision. I would rather find Marxist-Leninists to help with ProleWiki than finding neoliberals to write their version of the Joe Biden article, why would I help neoliberals get more exposure when I’m at the complete opposite of what they stand for? (And they more easily get funding for their projects than I could)
Alternatively there could be a service that scrapes and pulls from different independent wikis into one instead of being like a big coalition, but someone still has to make it 😁
Yeah, that’s how I was interpreting it because neither Wikipedia, ProleWiki, Conservapedia, etc. would have any desire to integrate that natively, and each would have good reasons
There are good reasons to want to collaborate with ideological enemies.
Conservatives are generally good people, and are right about many things. They are just misguided on a few economic points. I know many people like this. They just haven’t read widely enough, or can’t think creatively about economics, or have never heard any other theory convincingly expressed.
People will generally stay in their boxes and read only their own wikis. Conservapedia people will remain conservative and misguided forever. But maybe you want to influence people outside your box. That’s where you want to share a space with other groups. If it’s equally easy to read any perspective, people people might read a few and change their minds about what the truth is. This is a good thing for a very niche but very true perspective like marxism.
For this to work, the new shared wiki has to be widely read. That means it has to become bigger than wikipedia, to supplant wikipedia.
The most important thing is to make it obvious to close-minded people that there are always different valid perspectives on every issue. If the go-to encyclopedia has this concept built-in, many people will start to understand it.