Another wiki project about contemporary culture
Hey. And let me tell you about another wiki project? It sounds threatening, but oh well ...
Everyone is well (and perhaps not very well) aware that a wiki, like a platform, has a lot of shortcomings, not only technical, but primarily social. And if it is still possible to fight the first ones somehow, patching the engine for patches, the latter strive to bury any project almost from its start. The main reason is that wiki projects can hardly be attributed to the notorious web 2.0, which initially meant filling the project with content by the users themselves. In fact, in any Internet encyclopedia this, although it is postulated, does not work because of the number of restrictions on the subject and the requirements for the literary component of any article. That is, in fact, the entire writing audience of a wiki should consist of specialists who also have practical writing skills. It is clear that with such an approach the number of rules, the level of negative and the number of bureaucratic procedures will gradually increase, and the number of active participants will fall. And this distortion will only increase with time until it reaches a final value of 100%.
')
The main reason for users' negatives for wiki projects is the removal of what they think is useful content and the excessive emasculation of completed articles. Indeed, only historians are able to turn centuries of people's lives into a bunch of interesting facts. With articles in online encyclopedias everything happens the same: sharp judgments are removed, sharp formulations are smoothed, alternative points of view fall outside the framework, and instead of sharp or salty over time, squeezed, filtered and digested.
The main reason for the tightening of moderation and an increase in the number of bureaucratic procedures is the reasonable incompetence of moderators in the issues raised in the articles (with all desire, it is impossible to understand equally well in nuclear physics, macrame techniques and aspects of the political system in the Congo) and the number of alternative points of view that accumulate and scale beyond all reasonable and unreasonable limits.
From the little things - disgusting and not uniform navigation and the inability to find what you need instead of what you consider it necessary to slip.
Armed with the idea of ​​neutralizing these problems, we tried for some time to solve them in one of the wiki projects with established traditions and approaches to moderation. As a result, it turned out a failure repair. It became clear that new approaches to the organization should be done with those who are ready to fool their heads with these innovations. In the end, we decided to make another project in which we could try to cross the grass with the hedgehog and thus solve a number of problems that had slandered.
In an attempt to solve all these problems and in the process of choosing between the options “delete this” and “prohibit it”, we came to the final idea “not to delete anything at all”. At the same time, of course, everyone is well aware that numerous points of view and offshoots of the topic make any article unreadable, which means they will have to be stored, even in close proximity, but separately from the main part of the article. The idea as a whole is not new (hello, tvtropsy), but with its own nuances. In addition to this, a dictionary-type navigation system and an attempt to separate the moderation process from the “like - don't like” categories by evaluating the facts of the phenomenon as such. Simply put, the subject of the article should exist in nature somewhere else, besides the author's head itself - this is the only condition.
So with pride and trepidation we present you a new project - Urbanculture
The main topic of the new encyclopedia was to choose a modern culture (and that’s all, starting from IT parties and ending with rock bands and anecdotes about Putin). Now half of all cultural life takes place on the Internet, and the second half is directly related to it. And all this together is almost nowhere described. In addition, if we really check theory, then doing it on a large scale, and finding a more controversial topic than modern culture, is probably not easy to find.
In this post, in addition to the traditional PR and in every way agitation of potential participants (this is from our side), I really hope to hear all the possible comments and suggestions (and this is from you), which, while the project is new, can still be implemented in practice.
Everyone is well (and perhaps not very well) aware that a wiki, like a platform, has a lot of shortcomings, not only technical, but primarily social. And if it is still possible to fight the first ones somehow, patching the engine for patches, the latter strive to bury any project almost from its start. The main reason is that wiki projects can hardly be attributed to the notorious web 2.0, which initially meant filling the project with content by the users themselves. In fact, in any Internet encyclopedia this, although it is postulated, does not work because of the number of restrictions on the subject and the requirements for the literary component of any article. That is, in fact, the entire writing audience of a wiki should consist of specialists who also have practical writing skills. It is clear that with such an approach the number of rules, the level of negative and the number of bureaucratic procedures will gradually increase, and the number of active participants will fall. And this distortion will only increase with time until it reaches a final value of 100%.
')
The main reason for users' negatives for wiki projects is the removal of what they think is useful content and the excessive emasculation of completed articles. Indeed, only historians are able to turn centuries of people's lives into a bunch of interesting facts. With articles in online encyclopedias everything happens the same: sharp judgments are removed, sharp formulations are smoothed, alternative points of view fall outside the framework, and instead of sharp or salty over time, squeezed, filtered and digested.
The main reason for the tightening of moderation and an increase in the number of bureaucratic procedures is the reasonable incompetence of moderators in the issues raised in the articles (with all desire, it is impossible to understand equally well in nuclear physics, macrame techniques and aspects of the political system in the Congo) and the number of alternative points of view that accumulate and scale beyond all reasonable and unreasonable limits.
From the little things - disgusting and not uniform navigation and the inability to find what you need instead of what you consider it necessary to slip.
Armed with the idea of ​​neutralizing these problems, we tried for some time to solve them in one of the wiki projects with established traditions and approaches to moderation. As a result, it turned out a failure repair. It became clear that new approaches to the organization should be done with those who are ready to fool their heads with these innovations. In the end, we decided to make another project in which we could try to cross the grass with the hedgehog and thus solve a number of problems that had slandered.
In an attempt to solve all these problems and in the process of choosing between the options “delete this” and “prohibit it”, we came to the final idea “not to delete anything at all”. At the same time, of course, everyone is well aware that numerous points of view and offshoots of the topic make any article unreadable, which means they will have to be stored, even in close proximity, but separately from the main part of the article. The idea as a whole is not new (hello, tvtropsy), but with its own nuances. In addition to this, a dictionary-type navigation system and an attempt to separate the moderation process from the “like - don't like” categories by evaluating the facts of the phenomenon as such. Simply put, the subject of the article should exist in nature somewhere else, besides the author's head itself - this is the only condition.
So with pride and trepidation we present you a new project - Urbanculture
The main topic of the new encyclopedia was to choose a modern culture (and that’s all, starting from IT parties and ending with rock bands and anecdotes about Putin). Now half of all cultural life takes place on the Internet, and the second half is directly related to it. And all this together is almost nowhere described. In addition, if we really check theory, then doing it on a large scale, and finding a more controversial topic than modern culture, is probably not easy to find.
In this post, in addition to the traditional PR and in every way agitation of potential participants (this is from our side), I really hope to hear all the possible comments and suggestions (and this is from you), which, while the project is new, can still be implemented in practice.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/136076/
All Articles