Voice Of The Wiki

A controversial notion.

Much has been made of the difference between ThreadMode and DocumentMode, and between signed and unsigned discussion. While there is little controversy regarding whose opinion explicitly signed content represents (it's the opinion of the author - this includes use of DramaticIdentities as well as RealNames), there is some question regarding whose opinion (if any) that unsigned content represents - especially DocumentMode.

A couple of possibilities.

The voice of a random contributor, who did not sign. Unsigned content shouldn't be considered special or authoritative; it should be treated equally to something signed by AnonymousCoward or such.
It represents a contributor who a) wishes to remain anonymous; and b) intends to "donate" his/her content to the Wiki at large (so that it may be further edited without concerns of altering someone's statements).
It represents the VoiceOfTheWiki; in other words, such content represents a consensus of opinion (of those WikiZens who care about the matter) on the subject.

It is the latter case that causes controversy.

Obviously, different unsigned contributions may be treated differently. Unsigned inline comments have generally been treated like AnonymousCoward posts; and pose little difficulty. DocumentMode (or stuff that looks like DocumentMode) is regarded by some to be VoiceOfTheWiki.

The essential problem is that some users advocate that posts which are VoiceOfTheWiki (or are likely to be construed as such) should be subject to higher standards than mere "opinion" posts. It is argued that any statement made in VoiceOfTheWiki mode should:

Be demonstrably the consensus of the community (at least at some point in time). Pages where ConvertThreadModeToDocumentMode occurs are an example of this.
Be held to high(er) standards of scientific research/opinion. For example, VOW claims should be (according to this set of beliefs) "traceable" to the relevant scientific literature, or contain empirical evidence, or contain axiomatic proof, or represent the general consensus of the scientific community (or key members thereof; though this last case is disputed by some).
Not contain pronouncements on highly-controversial topics, especially OffTopic things like religion or politics.
Be free of inflammatory and/or insulting rhetoric, and/or abusive comments (though this sort of commentary is in general not welcome anywhere on Wiki, it is even more out of place on VOW posts).
Contain NeutralPointOfView.

It is often claimed that some individuals attempt to "impersonate" VoiceOfTheWiki by writing long, unsigned arguments (diatribes) in DocumentMode style. By doing so, it is argued, these individuals are attempting to pass off their opinions on various matters as the learned consensus of the Wiki community (or the greater scientific community), whereas in reality the opinions are the consensus of nobody but the author. Sometimes, such comments are deleted, moved to an AccordingToPage, or subject to AddTheAuthorsSignature. EditWars have started when the original author(s) objected to this ReFactoring. When this occurs, it sometimes is confirmation that the original author did indeed want to represent his/her comments as VoiceOfTheWiki; or it can indicate objection to the concept of VoiceOfTheWiki.

Others disagree that the VoiceOfTheWiki exists; and see no reason why unsigned pages/comments expressing any OnTopic opinion should be disallowed. To these users, Wiki is a discussion forum, not an online reference - folks seeking authoritative pronouncements on any matter are better off to consult the relevant literature. In addition, some believe that a key value of Wiki is as a forum for dissenting opinions, a type of opinion that VoiceOfTheWiki tends to act against. In addition, the site has long held a preference for EgolessWiki. Unsigned content is good, not because it represents a claim to (unearned) authority, but because it represents a donation of the content to the Wiki. By not signing, the author implicitly gives permission for others to ReFactor his/her words, until it does represent a de-facto community consensus. (In which case it might be useful to distinguish unsigned content which has been extensively ReFactored? by the community, from unsigned content which hasn't been and is newly-posted. The current Wiki software doesn't make that easy). [It should be noted that the author of this page, who has chosen not to sign it; offers this page to the community in this manner. The content of VoiceOfTheWiki, as it sits today, should not (yet) be considered VoiceOfTheWiki. If that doesn't confuse old NormanTheAndroid, I don't know what will.]

Finally, WardCunningham has an interesting take on this issue on the page AnonymousOnPurpose.

A third position is that VoiceOfTheWiki exists, but is not conferred upon a page merely by virtue of being presented in unsigned DocumentMode style. Instead, it only is conferred upon a page when it truly does represent a community consensus - when other WikiZens have read the page, commented on it, ReFactored? it, until a consensus is arrived at by the process of constant revision and critique, much as a river creates a waterfall by slowly carving the streambed. Attempts to engage in VoiceOfTheWikiImpersonation? are doomed to fail, as one cannot manufacture consensus. (Unfortunately, to the new reader who hasn't been here a while, it is often difficult to tell the difference).

"Others" find Neutral Point of View quite sick, and having to constantly reads "others argue" and "others disagree" to be utterly repulsive.

It is annoying, I'll agree. Given the current mini EditWar going on; I am going out of my way to avoid taking sides. And in the case of this page, where both sides of an active argument are being presented, the NPOV is probably appropriate.

It seems that there is a simple solution, which the participants in the current EditWar are ignoring. (OK, it's not so simple, because one person's ReFactoring is another person's desecration...but):

If you post a page comment without signing, you are giving others implicit permission to ReFactor your words. Thus (for example) others should be able to contribute OnTopic content to OperatingSystemDesignPrinciples?, including content which disagrees with the positions of the original/primary author of that page - because that page is (largely) unsigned (or at least the first section is not signed).
If you post a page or comment and sign your name (or use AnonymousDonor), others shouldn't change the meaning of your words. (Content-preserving refactorings are OK, as is moving the content or deleting it if inappropriate; but words attributed to DougMerrit? should only contain the opinions of DougMerrit?; and not of someone else.)

The gotcha in this, of course, is EditWars will still arise when two people consider their contributions/edits to an unsigned section to be more authoritative/correct/appropriate than the other guy's, and feel entitled to repeatedly undo the other fellow's edits and add their own two cents.

Should the content of this page not be on VoiceOfWiki? -- EarleMartin

Maybe, though that page deals with the "tone" of conversations here; whereas this page deals with the authority (if any) that should be inferred in unsigned contributions.

Perhaps it should be renamed SoundOfWiki?. -- EarleMartin