(moved from WikiNode)
Mattis I hope you don’t mind me removing the encyclopedia section [from CommunityWiki’s WikiNode]. In the end it would just list what everybody knows (Wikipedias), or it would list many unrelated entries. I don’t think encyclopedias are “neighbours” for CommunityWiki.
Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia. It’s also people (internet-users). And people are neighbors to people in fact. No matter if in the flat besides your flat or on the other side of the earth, all people are neighbors as all potentially can communicate with each other. Not all do, but potentialy they can.
Some use wiki to do so. They make communities which are based on their communication only. No T-shirt exchange like in realife, communication only. We do so here, jamming about whatsoever here (and I like our “music”), others write an encyclopedia. Pretty many actually do, the very most part of wikiusers does.
‘Neighbors’ is not precise enough. It is used in two different senses. You meet someone somewhere by accident for the first time, find out you both live in the same neighborhood and say:” Ah, I didn’t know we are neighbors.” In this context ‘neighbor’ means ‘the people living in your neighborhood’. Hundreds or thousands of people probably (depends on if in the Bronx or in Antarctica). From these thousands of “topolocic neighbors” you wouldn’t call very much more than a dozen your neighbors (I’m german btw) in the common sense of the word: “People living in your neighborhood you feel a positive affection to”, “neighbors you like”, “appreciated neighbors”. When you say to a friend on the phone: “My bloody neighbor is getting on my nerves with his permanent noise” its the ‘topological neighbor’ again. The group-expand unconciously shifts with positive or negative affection attached to the term.
You pretty likely make an offer to the person you say “Ah, I didn’t know we are neighbors” to. Precisely you say “You obviously are my ‘topological neighbor’, you might become my ‘affectional neighbor’”. If you are an open person you would.
Community-wiki itself is an open group of openminded people. When community-wiki meets another wiki somewhere by accident it shows open to make this wiki an ‘affective neighbor’.
Dunno much about wikipedia yet. I’m trying to get an idea of it as a community, as well (but less) as trying to get an idea of the sheer common product, the encyclopedia itself. I’m learning. When wikipedia started there were hierarchical stuctures already predefined (by nupedia). The project strongly hit a point in people, who obvously loved and still love to make an encyclopedia. I myself think it’s great, thanks to all who contribute to it and I whish I had more time to do so myself, but I haven’t.
So: Wikis are people. They consist of persons. To asure that you treat every person in a wiki with respect and dignity you have to treat the wiki itself like a person. A wiki is about quite the opposite of what is described in the recent movie “The Corporation” (Michael Moore kinda stuff). Corporations are zombies wikis are real beings. They are human creatures. The less predefined restrictions a wiki suffered during its growth the stronger and the more of an integrative colloborative character it has. Wikis shape their characters themselves (nowadays, there might develop more of a [WikiFamilySense? wiki-family-sense] in the future).
Wikipedia is a human creature. I called it the TRex before. I realize this was wrong, I appologize. It’s human.
I followed #de.wikipedia and #mediawiki these day. Definetly human .
I made a wikinode on de.wikipedia. I was loaded with prejudice against wikipedia from critics and trolls and I expected it to be deleted after 20 minutes. I did my best to explain on #de.wikipedia and see: It’s still there - de.wikipedia: wiki-node (this is the link Alex removed above). Among the wikipedians there are many open people interested in other wikis than just wikipedia itself. There are also some others who are not, ok. But nobody’s perfect. Wikipedia is somebody. Wikipedia is a person. A topological neighbor, like all wikis are.
What kind of a person is wikipedia? What kind of a childhood did wikipedia have? Who is wikipedia?
First of all: It is an interesting person. Very intelligent, but a little weird. Like teenagers get a little weird when they grow and mature so fast: pimpled 15-year-old computer-nerds almost exclusively being willing to communicate about computer-games or the respective make-up-styling-clothing teen girls with similar communicative restrictions. Though superintelligent. Maybe wikipedias is such a teeny? All people who went through their teenage-days have been teens. Teens are a little weird sometimes. That’s normal. A phase you go through.
Maybe even wikipedia is no teen anymore but it still talks lipstick all the time? Anyhow. It’s superintelligent. It’s a very interesting and a little weird person.
Wikipedia is kind of permanently wearing a mask and talks about its encyclopedia all the time like it doesn’t want to realize that it’s a person.
People collaborate and organize in hunting and in collecting groups, in tribes, in nations, in society to survive. Alone and without the protection of the group you soon will be killed by sharks and wolves. The initial collaboration between wikis caused by the recent pressure spammers are putting on wikilandia shows this quite clearly.
“Collaborate or fade away”, that’s what’s written irremovalbe deep down in human’s nature as well as in wiki’s code. The same applies for the next level of personality, for the ‘collective person’, for a wiki (which is the next subunit, the next step in approaching the hive-mind): Collaborate or fade away.
Wikipedians might take a look at their wiki-node. They see “community-wiki: wiki-node” there and come here and read our node. And they’ll read more if they feel invited. And they will feel more invited to do so when seeing wikipdia listed here. Simple.
And if it would be called “interesting wikis” instead of “neighbors”?
Then wikipedia should be listed. Not because of it’s community. I’ve not read too much on wikipedia yet but I rather find few traces of exchange, of evolving discussions, of controversial opinon and emotions in it compared the large amount of neutral enzyclopaedic articles. It is not wikipedias contents that makes it interesting. The contents is surely impressive, but it is all pretty descriptive, isn’t it? Wikipedia is not the ideal ground for developing and implementing new ideas, but is very good for descibing existing ideas. Finally it is the popularity of wikipedia that makes it interesting. Wikipedia’s interesting for every other wiki, just because it is more successful than all other wikis together.
We have no NPOV here. We have personal points of view in order to find out about an effective common point of view. I think many wikipedians would love to bbe able to express themselves like that too and I think there could be a brilliant intelligence input coming out of that for community-wiki. We need more intelligence.
Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages. Preventing the danger of getting listed some irrelevant entries here (it take me 15 sec to remove these some minutes to explain why I did it). Gaining more intelligence. I guess it’s obvious that the link should be put back in here, but as now it is in this “war and peace”-long contribution anyway, maybe in a more effective as in a more emotional context alreay, we don’t really need it above anymore.
“Pop-life - everybody needs a thrill.”
I don’t share your opinion. Your analogy with neighbours in a very general and human sense is taking the metaphor too far. I understand it as meaning “related” either because our subjects or our readers overlap. Neither is true for Wikipedia and us. Being “interesting” is also not the same as being “related”. The idea of “inviting” people is interesting, but there is a thin line separating invitations from spam. I’m rather reluctant when it comes to invitations.
Um… maybe this is the wrong wiki for “a list of utility wiki”. Should I move the list to http://wiklossary.nearlythere.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/UtilityWiki ? (… related to WikiNodes:DontLinkUtilities …) – DavidCary