* ''Do you really want a wiki where every author strives to contribute material that nobody might want to delete? Is that a rule here?'' -- EricHodges

That's the only rule here. The only test for content here is whether or not people are willing to let it live, even after the original author has long since left. After all, one day you too will be gone, and then the page will be deleted. Only truly insightful ideas remain. One can only wonder what the sanity is of devoting so much energy to protect a page that is so bad that it requires constant attention to preserve its life. -- SunirShah

''The energy required is very small. What is insightful to one reader may be mundane, offensive or incorrect to another. I don't believe that the set of all statements that no one wants to delete is very large or interesting. -- EH''

Indeed, what is insightful to one reader may be mundane, offensive, or incorrect to another. Since this is Wiki, you are mandated to then collaborate with that reader to build something better. After all, maybe they're right. -- SunirShah

''I don't believe that's possible. I don't believe one can make text "better" by changing it until no one else wants to delete it. Given a large enough population, someone will want to delete any information it might contain. See GroupThink. -- EH''

There is a lot of valuable text on this wiki that nobody has ever tried to delete. -- francis

''True, but there is also valuable text on this wiki that people have deleted. There's also a wide range of opinions about which text on this wiki has value. -- EH''

A few cases of deleting valuable text do not make the pie. I am definitely aware of the wide range of opinions on this wiki, which is perhaps why I've made MeatballWiki a lot more coherent. But that being said, we also make it a priority to integrate diverse opinions and seek consensus, mostly because that is more fun than anything involving the word "war." -- SunirShah

''More fun for some, less fun for others. A few cases of deleting valuable text prove my point. You place a higher value on consensus than I do. I'm too conscious of widely held beliefs that later proved to be wrong. -- EH''

I'm more interested in collaboration. The only consensus that is needed is what constitutes fair behaviour. Your non-sequitur about GroupThink above makes me wonder about you. Are you suggesting that c2 is in danger of groupthink? -- SunirShah

''All groups are in some danger of GroupThink, especially those that make it a priority to "integrate" diverse opinions and seek consensus. -- EH''

Getting diverse opinions to integrate is not the same as getting everybody to agree. -- francis

''I don't know what "integrating diverse opinions" means. Seeking consensus seems to be the same as trying to get everybody to agree. -- EH''

When it's done right, seeking consensus is not the same thing as getting everybody to agree. You'll never be able to get everybody to agree, thank goodness.

The search for consensus is a discursive tool: You look for points of agreement because doing so enriches your understanding of the points of disagreement. If participants are proceeding in good faith, and points of agreement are still hard to find, that means you (all) have a lot of learning to do. -- francis

''The word "consensus" comes from the Latin "consentire" which means "to agree". Learning doesn't lead to agreement. Visit any gathering of experts for proof. -- EH''

I didn't say that learning leads to agreement. I said that agreement (of the right sort) can lead to learning. -- francis

''I have no idea what you mean by that. Above you said that if points of agreement are hard to find that means the participants have a lot of learning to do. That implies that learning will make it easier to find points of agreement. My experience is that no matter how much folks learn, they will still disagree and some of the folks who agree the least are those who have learned the most. -- EH''

* That's an interesting point. On the other hand, in my experience there are things beyond simple quantity of learning (which might be broad and/or deep in one sense, yet still shallow in terms of some other measure of understanding), and those more "transcendent" understandings of a subject matter do in fact tend to lead to agreement amongst those who have such - except sometimes on aesthetic issues which are purely a matter of taste. However, this is perhaps rare enough as to be just a side note. -- dm

There are many ways to agree. People can even agree to disagree. The consensus is only on how to move forward. You have created a consensus by action here, but that is not of the same value as consensus by heart or mind. If I hear you correctly, Eric, you always afraid to agree with someone else if that means compromising? -- SunirShah

''No, you don't hear me correctly. I am not afraid of agreeing with someone else. I'm not sure what you mean by "compromising your own position." Do you mean lying (i.e. saying you agree with someone for social reasons when really you don't )? -- EH''

Sorry, "compromising." So, what is your issue with GroupThink anyway? I've been online a long time. When people mention GroupThink, the real issues are going on under the surface, and it seems to be always about the person rationalizing their inappropriate behaviour. GroupThink on Wiki was Smalltalk bigotry or XP zealotry, but B''''''oogerClub fails to fit in along those dimensions. And the way out wasn't to create a "war" but talk about the issues in a wider, constructive context. -- SunirShah

''My issue with GroupThink is that I'm against it. Limiting one's contributions to information no one will want to delete is a form of GroupThink. I've been communicating with humans a long time. When someone implies that someone else is "rationalizing their inappropriate behavior" the real issue is a value judgement they don't want to own in a more straightforward manner. -- EH''

The value judgment is that the B''''''oogerClub deletion war is inappropriate and infantile. You are talking about GroupThink in vague terms, but you aren't actually pointing to any groupthinking that the B''''''oogerClub addresses. I am concluding that groupthink is not a real issue here, and that accusation is a deflection of the real issue. However, the real issue doesn't seem to be on the surface. 

From your point of view, unless you can make the page endearing to enough people so that there is someone to protect it at all times, the page will be deleted eventually once you leave. The massive effort you are undertaking will be wasted, in some sense, although perhaps you are only interested in entertainment for today and then it is not a waste.

I also think attempts to delete the page when there is someone willing to restore it are futile, and pointless. ControlYourself. People, have patience. If the page is truly useless, it will exhibit its uselessness forever, and at some point it will be deleted once no one is interested enough to protect it. The more it is fought over, the more interesting it becomes however.

Admittedly, I think the page is stupid. Whether or not you care about its impact on your reputation, Eric, is your decision. But here's a cartoon to make my point:

http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df9601/df960124.jpg

Anyway, I'm interested in this discussion mostly because people keep mentioning this page to me. But it seems like it's not a real issue any longer. -- SunirShah

''I never meant that B''''''oogerClub bore some relation to GroupThink. B''''''oogerClub is silliness. I'm talking about the larger issue of what we want Wiki to be. I don't want it to be a place where no one contributes material they think someone else might want to delete. And you're right, it isn't a real issue any longer. My quote at the top of this section was made about 2 years ago (if my memory is correct). Some day B''''''oogerClub will be deleted and I won't replace it, but it's been here for years and it hasn't brought about the end of wiki as we know it. I care about my reputation and have made the conscious decision to make B''''''oogerClub a part of that reputation. Is that foolish? Perhaps it would be foolish for you, but not for me. I wouldn't want to work for anyone who wouldn't hire me because I'm "the B''''''oogerClub chap". It acts as a filter to keep me or anyone else from taking me too seriously. -- EH''

Don't forget half the issue is that "Wiki as we know it" means different things to different people. People like me who've been here a long time know and value something different. Conversely, those who came here when c2 was more like a geekier Geocities have different values. At least people should have respect for those differences, even if they are differences. The only way to transfer values from one generation to another is to teach them and involve newcomers in those values, not shoo away newcomers. Anyway, I think at that point I digress. -- SunirShah

''I don't think anyone is suggesting that we "shoo away" newcomers or stop teaching them our values. But we have many conflicting values to teach them. Don't expect all of those values to be embraced. -- EH''
----
CategoryDiscussion