Very glad I came back to read it all again. This topic is SO covered, I tend to start skimming when I see a familiar intro.
The wikipedia matter is really crucial, I think. Radical transparency rather than a lot of control, transparency is clearly the winning strategy. As it was when science was getting invented!
Very glad I came back to read it all again. This topic is SO covered, I tend to start skimming when I see a familiar intro.
The wikipedia matter is really crucial, I think. Radical transparency rather than a lot of control, transparency is clearly the winning strategy. As it was when science was getting invented!
The other example to look at, Justin, if you do a whole piece on it, is Slashdot. May have been the first "blog" before there was such a word, certainly the first big one. Still going, despite being sold off to owners who only think about money (lost some people then, isn't as good now, but it's still going).
Slashdot lets anybody post anything, but *randomly chosen* members rate stuff up or down. There's no banning, but every rater can "shadow ban" if you will, at least for people who only read stuff with thumbs-up ratings. (Any one rater can add +1 or -1, and ratings go from -1 to 5; lots of people only read "above 3" posts.) It works!
Slashdot tackled the original huge controversies, like PC vs Mac - the rhetoric is so vicious because the stakes are so small - and didn't fold up. It handled global warming, nuclear power.
All without top-down control! Slashdot's success has not been studied enough.
Very glad I came back to read it all again. This topic is SO covered, I tend to start skimming when I see a familiar intro.
The wikipedia matter is really crucial, I think. Radical transparency rather than a lot of control, transparency is clearly the winning strategy. As it was when science was getting invented!
The other example to look at, Justin, if you do a whole piece on it, is Slashdot. May have been the first "blog" before there was such a word, certainly the first big one. Still going, despite being sold off to owners who only think about money (lost some people then, isn't as good now, but it's still going).
Slashdot lets anybody post anything, but *randomly chosen* members rate stuff up or down. There's no banning, but every rater can "shadow ban" if you will, at least for people who only read stuff with thumbs-up ratings. (Any one rater can add +1 or -1, and ratings go from -1 to 5; lots of people only read "above 3" posts.) It works!
Slashdot tackled the original huge controversies, like PC vs Mac - the rhetoric is so vicious because the stakes are so small - and didn't fold up. It handled global warming, nuclear power.
All without top-down control! Slashdot's success has not been studied enough.
Oh, that's a great recommendation. I forgot Slashdot was still around!