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

[Larry Sanger]

All,

Well, there was no discussion *whatsoever* of the mail below--which I
interpret as a negative reaction (along with a goodly helping of "why is
he trying to interrupt my summer vacation *again*?").  So for the time
being I hope that we (Matthias, Howard, and Jon) will have interest
enough to forge ahead under the previously articulated rules, i.e., the
ones here:

http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=How_to_construct_a_debate_sum
mary

I hope we'll make some progress with our prototype in the next few
weeks, but in any event, my plan now is (with Brittney's enormously
helpful assistance) to locate appropriate venues to publicize Textop
generally and the DGP in particular.  We have 40 people on the Textop
mailing list, and most of those are just interested spectators, so we
just need "more blood" if we want to achieve a quorum.

We might review the "more open and less controlled" suggestion after
more people arrive.  That's also when we might start thinking more
seriously about appointing project directors.

This week I'm going to be very busy with DU stuff, so I probably won't
be sending much to the list or working very much on the wiki.  I will do
*some* simply because I don't want to get out of the habit and I want to
make progress editing The Outline.

--Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org 
> [mailto:textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org] On Behalf Of 
> Larry Sanger
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 1:34 PM
> To: 'General Discussion List for the Text Outline Project'
> Subject: [Textop] Shall we make DGP more open and less controlled?
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Textop mailing list
> Textop at lists.dufoundation.org 
> http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo> /textop
>