[MD] The (new and improved) MOQ Wiki

[ian glendinning]

David, DMB, (and Squonk, and  Ant, et al)

I can see where DMB get's the suspicion concerning the Q&A sources ...
at some level like David H, I think they do have some value, but the
words do seem sadly familiar (naming no names here.)

This brings up in microcosm something I see as a massive issue for the MoQ.

I have for some time been looking at "positive promotion" of MoQ,
something more than critical debate and free-for-all. Some lines in
the sand ... as I put it previously.

A wiki is about a MOQish as it's possible to be, an MoQ-Wiki even more
so. The evolutionary nature of a wiki means quality will out -
eventually. I keep saying evolution requires nurture (and
determination) as well as nature. Pirsig wrote his own books, he
didn't throw out all his words and say make up your own story. An
issue with a wiki is that it is self-selecting on who is prepared to
play the wiki game, and can be "manipulated" by those prepared to play
- it's game theory in practice. (Even the US government has spotted
this one, and exploited it to it's own ends, as well as complaining
about Wikipedia.)

Some of the more free-spirited MoQ'ers seem to value anarchic absence
of "organisation" as a wholly good thing, except when "bad stuff"
makes it to the top of the pile. My view is that the anarchistic bent
does require positive, sympathetic "management" too. (Whether it's
Horse on moq.org or Ant on pirsig.org, or whatever)

Cue debate on quality systems of governance ... ?

Ian

On 8/13/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> dmb said to David Harding:
> I clicked on "questions", for example, and found a series of ridiculous
> questions that look a lot more like mockery than anything else. Looks like
> maybe even the hoaxters of Liverpool wrote them. And if the purpose of Wiki
> is to provide descriptions and definitions to those who are not yet
> familiar, then the site will mislead people just as they're being introduced
> to the MOQ. Bums me out, man.
>
> DH replied:
> Firstly.  I can tell you I'm the only person to have edited the MOQ Wiki in
> possibly more than six months.  I can also say that while I did not ask the
> questions on the Questions section I saw nothing indicating to me they were
> folly (a good perspective to take) and so responded to them according to my
> own understanding.   I claim no moral authority on the MOQ and understood
> while I wrote my answers that if someone didn't agree with what I had
> written they could simply change it themselves or complain about a response
> on the Discussions page for that page (every page has one).  The last and
> worst option would be that someone not participate at all.
>
> dmb says:
> You claim no moral authority and you saw nothing wrong with the questions?
> Yikes. Now I'm even more worried. I don't mean to be cruel, but if you put
> that site up then aren't you responsible for the content to some extent?
> Shouldn't you be able to filter out pranksters. I mean, how could you fail
> to notice how awful those questions are? Why should any legitimate question
> about a philosophical system contain any reference to Janet Jackson's left
> breast? And who wrote that nonsense, anyway?
>
> I'm not saying you should be a control freak about it, but come on!
>
> Its not too hard to see that part of your response is to basically say, hey,
> if you don't like it, then go ahead and change it. But I wonder if I can and
> I wonder how much time that would take. And I wonder if I'd then feel
> obliged to keep an eye on it to see if any pranksters have returned.  And,
> man, if I had the time for all that maybe I would have put up the site
> myself. But I don't, so I didn't.
>
> Okay, maybe here is where I cross the line. But I gotta say it. If you can't
> manage the site, then shut it down or hand it off to somebody who can. I
> mean, imagine how you'd feel if you were the author of the MOQ. Imagine how
> you'd feel if your life's work was pointlessly associated with Janet
> Jackson's (lovely) tits? And how do you suppose visiting philosophers would
> take it?
>
> DH said:
> Anyway, if you like I'll remove the Questions page altogether if that's what
> you want?  Or the offending questions?  Or have you got some questions you'd
> like on there?  Actually, please tell me questions you'd like on there!
>
> dmb says:
> Here's a question for you about Wiki rather than the MOQ; who is supposed to
> answer the questions?  I guess the idea is to have a wide open thing so
> anybody can answer them (or ask them). This is the part that worries me.
> There seems to be absolutely nothing in place to protect against dishonesty
> or incompetence. Freedom is one thing, chaos is another, you know?
>
> DH said:
> Not having attended the first ever MOQ Conference it appears a shame to me
> that the events of more than a year ago now, are going to hinder what I see
> as something with as yet completely untapped potential.
>
> dmb says:
> If you mean to say that it would be a shame to let hoaxters messed up the
> site, then I'd certainly agree. I think they already have. But it would
> hardly matter if the author of those questions was completely sincere,
> because they're ridiculous regardless of the creator's motive.
>
> For whatever its worth.
> dmb
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>