Egoless Wiki

Verb

The process of adding unsigned comments to the WikiWikiWeb.

Noun

Alternatively, EgolessWiki is the recognition that all contributions to Wiki are owned by no-one, but belong to the entire WikiCommunity. Mantra: ItsNotMyWiki. This is very similar to CollectiveCodeOwnership.

EgolessWiki practices:

If you find yourself getting mad over a deletion or change, take a deep breath, go away, and come back to it later when you're not angry. LetHotPagesCool.

Let us not forget that the WikiNow last decades, not seconds. Patience, patience.

Of course. Ever the shifting sands on the beach of Internet discussion, Wiki is in a state of PerpetualNow. However, this does not relieve us of the duty to, well, not punish, per se, but certainly not reward the kind of Bad Behavior® that results in long established practices being ignored. For instance, there are those visitors (certainly not Wikizens, since they are not contributors in any sense of the word) who periodically delete humor pages or pages of marginal interest to the C2 Wiki community at large. Many Wikizens are willing to let such deletions happen as a natural by-product of having such a wide open forum. Some of us are less willing to see this kind of brutality and outright boorishness persist. DeleteOnceRestoreOnce is a good general principle, but it fails in practical application in the face of such Bad Behavior®.

What is wrong with having an ego?

Nothing, in and of itself. However, the goal of this wiki isn't recording ego-laden ThreadMode conversations, it's the creation of a repository of knowledge through a ThreadMode/DocumentMode cycle of discussion and refactoring. Investing ego in a contribution (signing, writing in first person, etc) can inhibit refactoring.

Also, occasionally contributors' pride in their contributions overwhelms their appreciation that Wiki is a collaborative medium. This "Don't touch that! It's mine!" attitude can lead to contention. See comments to this effect on DeathOfThePage.

Discussion

In some cases, especially where the contribution is controversial or inflammatory, this could be considered SpinelessWiki instead. If in DocumentMode, contributions are probably best left unsigned - flames and the like can be merely deleted. In ThreadMode discussions, signing your name is a good thing - a good rule of thumb is that if you won't admit to saying something, think twice about saying it. Sometimes, anonymity is a good thing; sometimes, it's little more than a cover for HitAndRun?. -- ScottJohnson, who signs this paragraph under the latter theory - if this gets refactored into DocumentMode, feel free to delete the signature.

I disagree that "especially where the contribution is controversial" that a contribution is "SpinelessWiki". Especially in the case of controversial topics, the signing of a post may carry overtones and baggage which may not be warranted in just "looking at the facts". Shouldn't you care more about what I say than that I said it? When this page is refactored, no concern will be necessary for either the retention of what I say, especially since I did not sign it. The page should stand on the merit of its content, not the merit or reputation of the poster. -- AnonymousOnPurpose

It's desirable to have an EgolessWiki, however, when a page is being rapidly worked on by a number of parties, knowing who the authors are provides a way to conduct metadiscussion (via HomePages, email, etc) without spoiling the page in question.

There are other ways to do this, also.

Are you referring to temporary meta-pages? I can't think of any other way, save that.

We all know that the Internet supports two protocols, or methods, of traffic: TCP & UDP. The first requires a steady response to data sent -- "acks" or acknowledgement packets, the second just sends the data out like water from a fire hose, lacking the code to handle an ack -- even if one is sent.

Some people are content to work in a UDP protocol, content to be a WikiGnome without thanks or even an acknowledgement to their existence. Others need the occasional "ack" packet to keep their interest in a Wiki -- either to criticize or praise: they function in TCP protocol. An Egoless Wiki only works when the UDP protocol works to benefit everyone; however, most people contribute best in TCP mode.

And I admit that I, too, function best in TCP mode.

So does Bill the Cat. AAAAAACK!

I don't think this will work because humans are inherently ego-driven creatures, for good or bad. We are merely apes that can talk and think in symbols. Further, knowing the author speeds understanding a given perspective rather than re-invent context each time. And, without the budget for real science, we have to accept, or at least consider anecdotes to some degree, and these are tied to people, not self-proving ideas. If this was a math wiki where proofs can stand by themselves, then the idea may carry more merit. Further, PsychologyMatters (WetWare), and this includes dealing with human egos. -t

"The process of adding unsigned comments to the WikiWikiWeb."

The above statement is sooo silly as can be. It is not a fact at all, is pure opinion. Omitting the signature is nothing else than foregoing any responsibility for ones addition. See RealNamesPlease! If one really got 'no' boosted up false ego than one would rather not state his opinion but corrects typos and does ReFactoring or correct links, sets useful CategoryTags? and the like of WikiGnoming?, which is the work that ego laden people never like to do. --ManorainjanHolzapfel, the man with an ego and proud of it, because ego is essential to human mind.

Please don't insert what is obviously ThreadMode discussion into the DocumentMode area at the top. "The process of adding unsigned comments to the WikiWikiWeb" is the "verb" form of EgolessWiki. That's what it is called here; it's just a definition. It is, therefore, a statement of fact. You might not like EgolessWiki, but EgolessWiki -- which simply means posting without signing -- is what the term means whether you agree with doing it or not. That makes your contribution an opinion rather than a factual summary, so it should be down here rather than up there.

Note that WikiIsNotYourBlog and see NoNamesPlease. Anonymous posting aka EgolessWiki is allowed, whether you personally agree with it or not.

And You DaveVoorhis, note that DeleteOnceRestoreOnce is part of this and You got quite an unsigned ego here. -MH

DeleteOnceRestoreOnce is not intended to preserve misunderstandings or mistakes.

Sure not! Your majesty declares it a mistake and already it is out of the domain of DeleteOnceRestoreOnce and You can reverse, delete whatever and think of You ar not ego. -MH

I think you meant, "Thanks Dave! I misunderstood EgolessWiki and thought the top line was a directive with which I disagreed, rather than a definition."

Your interpretation was wrong, as usual. I also would not see the difference between directive and definition in terms of that I would treat it diffeently if 'wrong'. -MH

The difference is simple: "Beer is a fermented beverage" is a definition. "Drink beer with every meal" is a directive. Where do you think it would be appropriate to put "I don't like beer"? Under the first? Or the second?

If the 'Definition' was "Beer is good for Your health", where should I post my disagreement? If it was "Beer is made from apple juice.", where would I have to edit this?

Definitions can be wrong.
Directives can come in the guise of definitions.
DaveVoorhis habitually uses disguised directives. -MH

"Beer is good for your health" isn't a definition, so you can respond to it. "Beer is made from apple juice" is wrong, so you should correct it. Directives can come in the guise of definitions, but that isn't the case at the top of the page.

Where have I "habitually" used "disguised directives"?

CategoryWiki