[Textop] Shall we make DGP more open and less controlled?

[Larry Sanger]

All,

I'm looking at the scant progress we have made on a prototype debate dummary

http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Is_knowledge_possible%3F

and while we *are* making progress, and I am grateful to the three other
guys who have been involved, on second thought I am not sure that it
represents the best editorial model for the project.  It seems to me that if
this were the best model, then others would find it inviting and easy to
join in--but I doubt they do.

In particular, I think the dynamic for many people works like this: "Henry"
(as we'll call an example potential contributor) goes to the page, and the
first thing he sees is a list of contributors.  Right off, he sees that the
work is "proprietary" in the admittedly weak sense that some people are
claiming at least some control over it.  Henry *might* see, at the end of
the "Contributors" section, the note that says "We welcome more
participation in this summary!"  Even then, Henry might wonder how welcome
he really is.  There are "lead summarists" and a "moderator" already.  How
open, really, are these people to more participation?  It's hard to say.
Henry doesn't know.  And suppose Henry knows a lot about this
topic--evidently more than anyone else participating.  Well, then, if he
wants to get involved, it's probably going to be a bit of a "power
struggle."  He certainly doesn't know that it won't be; and given the way so
many Internet projects are, it probably *will* be.  So, Henry asks himself,
should he spend his valuable time pursuing the risky possibility that people
will step aside and let him work up to his potential?  He will probably
conclude "No."

(It is very important, when planning out projects like this, to try to put
yourselves in the shoes of your potential contributors.  *They* often won't
tell you what the problem is: you've got to have the imagination and
judgment to figure it out for yourself.)

As you can probably tell, I am now leaning *against* having moderators and
lead summarists, and even against *named* contributors at all, for the
Debate Guide Project.  (We can just use the page history, as Wikipedia
does.)

The question then is how we can manage to "keep things in line" in the
Debate Guide Project.  Let me clarify and propose the following:

(1) Real names will have to be used on the wiki, by convention.  This will
eliminate at least some of the potential troublemakers that plague
Wikipedia.

(2) You may edit either side of a debate, but what you may *not* do is edit
a position's arguments so as to make them *weaker*.

(3) There *will* be rules and standards developed, and as with Wikipedia the
entire community working on DGP will help enforce them.  Furthermore, I (and
future DGP directors) will remove troublemakers "with prejudice."

(4) In time and as necessary we will select editors to help resolve disputes
in ways that are authoritative and stable.  These will be selected from
among participants.  But these editors will not be officially assigned to
any one article and will be interchangeable.

(5) There will not be any official Debate Guide development process, as
there is now on "How to construct a debate summary."  Each summary develops
as and when people want to develop it.

This scheme would make *me* feel freer about and more comfortable with the
whole project.  I'm sure I would feel much more motivated to do stuff, and
the project would get a lot more out of me.

I suspect you all would feel the same--but tell me if you feel otherwise.
What do you say: shall we make DGP participation more open and less
controlled than originally proposed?

--Larry