For wiki to work - really work, not simply function - contributers need to trust that everyone will work in the best interest of the wiki. TrustInTheWikiWorld, as trust off the wiki world, is earned by action, and needs to be maintained.

Trust works from common ground. In the wiki world , some topics are created to define common ground:

* the StyleGuide defines some common ground in the way of actions held in common
* so does CollaborationConventions
* some wikis use purpose statements or mission statements to establish common ground
* We have WritingTheWikiProject as a common purpose
* We have BlogsAndWikisWikiFAQ

Signing your contributions is part of creating and maintaining trust.


Trust is earned over time and can be monitored by TheCommunity, but not established by them. But trust does need to be established because TheCommunity knows in a hurry if their neighbors are trustworthy when adding their TwoCentsWorth to the project. Trust is also a collective file of many people's experiences. While it may take years to establish trust, it can be wiped out in an instant. Wikis are a good tool to monitor the workhabits and the intent of the writers of TheCommunity. You have to remember that there are a lot trusting souls throughout the wiki, but every community has its unfavorable toxins.

CommunityWiki has something to say about trust in [http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/NoSuddenMovements NoSuddenMovements]

It might help to fill out common ground:
* ways of thinking in common
* ways of behaving held in common
*


* What factors impact what we post?
* Can a non trusting person use a Wiki?

Trust should come naturally, not something to ponder and ask, "Should I be honest this time. If someone has a serious contribution to make, or a glaring error to correct, it's okay to go in and make the changes. If it's constructive criticism and not just wanting to make a change for the sake of change, then, okay. But you can't have an EvilThoughtProcess when working with a wiki. One wrong word or phrase could bring down a worthwhile project and enrage not only the WikiCommunities but also the WikiMasters. It's very bad Karma to be screwing around to be funny. Yes, a non-trusting person can use a wiki if they hold themselves back from being a jerk and for once in their lives want to be making a ConstructiveContribution to the WikiWorld.

Without trust in at least the idea that changes will be made for the better, a person's use of the wiki will almost necessarily be stunted for fear of contributing anything worthwhile, because someone else may come along and change it. Heck, that might keep most non-trusting people from even bothering to post in the first place.

That's like saying you'll never ride an airline because you're afraid it will crash. Heck, if you think like that, then, you might as well stay home and not walk outside....because you may be hit by a car. You don't know who to trust, unless you experience first-hand that troulbe is on-line. If trouble is on-line, then, you have to weed out the troublemaker. But everyone deserves a chance to use the wiki, and to have the power whether or not to use it for good or [evil].

Rebecca Blood said it right when talking about trust. You have to have outside sources or links when you start to spout off facts and figures. You are intellectually dishonest if you don't. It's impotant for everyone in WikiCommunities as well as readers to know they are working with validated facts and figures, and not just "fly by night" configurations which sound good but have no depth or meaning. Truth is what we seek. There is more value to taking part in blogs than in posterity. Everyone wants to add their TwoCentsWorth, so it might as well be the truth. Especially if the subject has his/her name on it.

There's something to be said about SuddenMovements and how it relates to TrustInTheWikiWorld. You don't want to screw up someone's idea by miscalculation with editing. If you remove a word or sentence, you could change the entire meaning of something that was written. If posisble, it's probably a good idea to just jot the change down and ask for approval of TheCommunity. Things can be deleted as fast as they are put up. But TrustInTheWikiWorld is a necessity.

If you don't have TrustInTheWikiWorld, then no one will take part in the project and it will die because people are worried what they say will either be misinterpreted or changed for no real purpose.

The best thing to do is to slowly make the changes and tell TheCommunity why they were made. If TheCommunity trusts you, then they know they can rely on you to make solid and factual changes, and aren't making the changes for the sake of changing.

IntellectualDishonesty.

The killer of many a good blog.

It's just too easy to for bloggers to publish. They have to know the difference bewteen blgging and personal publishing. They have to understand what amateur journalism is all about. The best thing about blogging as Rebecca Blood seems to say, is the hypertext used. It summarazies blogging journalism and puts it into a quick text. Links to primary texts are used. This is impossible with the print media to accomplish.

Unless you can purchase many other newspapers, a journalist can not comepete on the same level as a blogger. Bloggers can put you into another text that compliments and strengthens what they are writing about. A blogger can put you on-line with any source, which is great because there are always times when you want to look at another writer's look at a subject. That means one has to put down the source they are currently engaged in and go into another source. A lot of shuffling of papers can be eliminated.
But Blood makes another key point that if a blogger doesn't link to other sources to strengthen their idea, they are being intellectually dishonest. You have to be accountable for your information and this is what journalists are. She also says, "it's the practice that defines the practice."

Journalists go through a lot of hoops to get their story...an accurate story. A blogger doesn't go through the time nor patience of fact finding. They just come out with an opinion and that's that. Blood adds blogging will never replace the mandate of fair, accurate and the complexity journalism has. It's these three things that's understood by the audience that makes journalism what it is.


In blogging, eyewitness accounts are also the big thing. This is where things get a little dicey, too. A blogger puts their first impressions down. The excitement may get in the way of finding out what really happened. Accuracy is blurred. A journalist has to look at all the facts. The whole story and report and both sides. A blogger produces just their side of the story or event. Journalists have to go through an editor, while weblogs don't necessarily have to have an editor that goes through a story with a fine-tooth comb. This is a big difference in blogging and journalism. A journalist's story is refined with editing to present order, while a blogger has no one to go through the story for details that were left out or put in that should have been left out.


The journalist has a a much better flowing story than the blogger.
Bloggers are like writers of the Letters to The Editors, who write opinions. Journalists speaks to witnesses and experts. These are usually not available to bloggers, who have to second-guess in their stories.


Blood defines blogging versus journalism as blogging being "participatory media". Bloggers are involved, but not as much as the journalists. Blogegrs don't usually provide original journalistic writing. And journalists are always edited. They work for a company, while most webloggers work for themselves. As Blood said, "Weblogs will mainstream journalism, but you just can't apply the same standards to journalism and blogging."
The big thing for journalism, though, is that bloggers will be able to analyze what's being spewed through the mass media and will be able to supplement this information.


Blogging will be the new journalism in respect to reporters not having to work on laptops or in the office. Everything will be sent to the paper electronically. Eventually, we may not even see paper. We may be buying newspaper subscriptions on the television and reporters, after going through a blogging manager, will be viewed on the screen with constant updates. We no longer will have to wait for the afternoon or evening edition of the paper, or have to watch the evening news. The news, literally, will be coming at us the moment it happens and is reported.

IntellectualHonesty is all about keeping high standards and living up to the expectations.

IntellectualDishonesty is not living up to the expected standard, and this might happen because of lazyness and other "lesser" evils. However, when these evils move into other fields such as science, engineering, etc, they are qualified as IntellectualDishonesty because in these fields everyone is expected strive for higher standards.

Intellectual dishonest is different than simple dishonesty. Of course, the term only makes sense in the context of an intellectual pursuit. Science seems to be heaped with examples like this.

How about IntellectualDishonesty on Wikis or in WikiCommunities:
*How about an anonymous coward deleting an argument they had no response to, which changed the character of the position they argued against to something which they did respond to.
*Or someone saying they would continue to use terms which had been proven to be inaccurate and meaningless. He said something along the lines of "I don't care about any arguments, those terms are useful to me".

An interesting article on IntellectualDishonesty recently appeared on IntelelctualDishonesty:http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrinciplesVsSociabilityDiscussion


/WhyPost
There are no comments on this page.
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki