Yes, it is ok to edit this page. This is a wiki. So edit it! :-)
Status:. Technically, I only still do the occasional #editfri. Typically not on Friday.
(OTOH, with vim support installed, I may actually edit usefully from time to
time, just for old time's sake :-). Now, all new, sometimes anon edits from IPv6.
This is stuff that is relevant to wikipedia in some way. Some is by others, some by myself. (page history will show when I have :-P). I don't believe in top posting: Newest links at the end!
The digital ice age <- however, the solutions proposed here can at times be illegal. (except if you were backing up most wikipedias, of course. Except en.wikipedia, technically.)
User:Demi/SuperTextPopupHistoryAnnotate. The name sucks. The description of the idea sucks. But if you manage to read it anyway, the actual described concept rocks. I wonder if I could try this at some point? USC now has implemented something...
that might interact in an interesting way with this - USC's system color-codes an article according to the "trustworthiness" of its author as determined by how long that author's edits tend to last... Demi's proposal would change the dynamics of how long an author's edits would tend to stick around, so watching the interactions between the two systems would be terrifically amusing. <- mel's writing ;-)
who runs wikipedia , rereading some of Aaron Swartz's writing. His thoughts are spot on. :-)
effect of voice chat on games - "Those who used text-only chat experienced 'drops in trust and happiness' amongst their fellow players; those who used voice chat did not.". This also works in other online communities. Mediation becomes a lot easier with voice available.
OODA_Loop, I often try to work quicky, and get inside other people's decision cycle. Originally this is a method designed for warfare to confuse people and force them to mis-react. You can also turn it around and use it to enlighten people, and cause them to react well. I worry that sometimes perhaps I don't quite manage to pull that off.
User:Zenwhat/Sandbox Ooh, very pretty, I hope it shows up in mainspace. How many people put that much work into anything? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Awwww, where did that go?
Why rating is not a good idea for an encyclopedia: "How many bits in a gigabyte?". (See: Gigabyte) the correct answer is either 8 000 000 000 (decimal version) or 8 589 934 592 (binary version, "gibibyte"). If you look at the opinions listed on the yahoo page, see if you can answer the following questions ;-)
What would the yahoo answer have been on the basis of simple majority (a vote?)
what do you predict the answer would have been had they done a negotiated consensus?
What did the programmers do RIGHT?
How could the programmers have coded yahoo answers differently, to allow a more accurate answer to emerge? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
[[1]]. Wonderful example of persona behaviour. I must comment sometime!
Plan-Do-Check-Act also known as the 'Deming cycle, is a business version of the OODA loop. Whichever version you use, Wikipedia needs to continue to use iterative processes to stay afloat in the 21st century. (see also: Wikipedia:Consensus )
