![]() |
[ N! : using principles of Mechanism design and Social capital, we [1] designed these two GGTF ci+3d2do Project & Talk pages, such that all your questions are answered plainly in just 2 pages, in theory. If they aren't, then there are problems with our design. Please fix it, or post your questions/ideas here. Thank you. ]
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this 3D2Do.
Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
i saw on the to-do list on our front page that these rules need improvement: WP:CIV, WP:HAR, WP:NPA. What are the specific problems that we should fix in these rules? - Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This Cooperation Index & 3d2do Project is not about collecting information. It's not even about information, really. It's about action. Specifically, it's about coordinating action.
Information in the Wikipedia Community is just dumb dataෆ until we Wikipedians put it to good use. For the purposes ( Goal) of this Coordination Game, we use data to:
ෆ (no offense to data)
ʛ If we were to hold one finger down on just one problem that's holding Wikipedia back, it would be on this one problem: Coordination. We do not have a shortage of Players who want to make Wikipedia better - who want to make The Whole World a Better Place. We certainly do not have a shortage of Projects and Goals. What we suffer from is a lack of Coordination. In short, we have a Coordination Problem.
And it's the simplest kind of Coordination problem - one that we play dozens of times a day: We're strangers, walking down a narrow hallway, toward each other. You step to your left, I step to my left. We go on walking. No problem. [2] Score is tied at 100/100:100/100. We both win, nobody loses. [3] That's a Nash equilibrium. Now rewind. You step to your right, I step my right. We go on walking. That's also a Nash equilibrium. Rewind again. You step to your left, I step to your left, we go on walking. That's my coffee on your suit.
We don't need no stinkin "metrics"
There is only one number that matters in this Game: The Cooperation Index, c. Just 1 number. [4] So simple it doesn't even qualify as a whole "metric" - just the last letter of that word. The whole equation that we use to describe [5] Wikipedian Cooperation is even shorter than the word "metric". It is this: c = b/a [6] Lowest score is 0. Highest Score is 100. There are no Losers. There are no individual "Winners". [7] Only Cooperation gets a score. There are 3 major Winners, but they aren't even playing the Game: (1) Wikipedia (the Encyclopedia), (2) our Readers, who are The Most Valuable Players in the Game (and don't even know it), and (3) our WikiBoys who'd rather be playing with their soldier toys. Best we leave them alone.
... in which case...you're not helping. I'm going to be blunt, constant upheaval at policy pages is not what GGTF is for
We have Zero (0) interest in Wikipedian rules, per se [8] except for these Five (5) which we do hold sacred: 3 which pertain to Content [ (1) neutral point of view, (2) verifiability, (3) no original research ] and 2 that are Behavioral [ (4) be civil - pretend we're collegial editors of the OED - and (5) WIKIPEDIANS! IGNORE ALL RULES! - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ]
The 3 "policies" which I inserted as placeholders onto the current 3d2do for the Gender Gap project are there only because those were the only 3 actionable items I found on the Front Page of GGTF. I'd rather not deal with them at all, but if that's what GGTF really wants to do, then i'd like to know what the specific problems are (ref section above). If you don't want them there, please replace them with something you do want to work on, with others. IMDO, [9] it's best that each project be aimed at producing good Content for our Readers. That's what they care about the most (that, and the toys from Wikimedia and others which make it easier for Readers to read and use the encyclopedia). They don't much care about - even know about - our 10-year obsession with rules. The "Wikipedia problem" is a WikipediaN problem, and no one really cares about us until we mess up.
... and treating policy discussions like games is not a good idea.
Definition of terms in addition those wikified above
One really cool thing about this design? No need for votes. The only "vote" that matters is the X that each free Player casts in favor of an article s/he commits to improve, in coordination with h/er fellow editors. Doesn't matter if an article gets 2 Xes or 200. What does matter is that it's not just one person working alone, or worse, thousands of people trying to figure out where to start. Best of all, IMDO? No need for any more talk, except among cooperating editors, on the specific task of improving a specific article.
Ultimately, these 8:
Systemic bias. The eight major categories of study for maladaptive organizational behavior as they apply to maintaining and supporting Wikipedia are:
Gamification is great, e.g. like what Stack Overflow does. This seems like gamification too, but it seems like a game that encourages tag-spamming of articles about women.
Tell me why I am wrong. Please? Someone? Anyone?-- FeralOink ( talk) 01:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
[ N! : using principles of Mechanism design and Social capital, we [1] designed these two GGTF ci+3d2do Project & Talk pages, such that all your questions are answered plainly in just 2 pages, in theory. If they aren't, then there are problems with our design. Please fix it, or post your questions/ideas here. Thank you. ]
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this 3D2Do.
Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
i saw on the to-do list on our front page that these rules need improvement: WP:CIV, WP:HAR, WP:NPA. What are the specific problems that we should fix in these rules? - Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This Cooperation Index & 3d2do Project is not about collecting information. It's not even about information, really. It's about action. Specifically, it's about coordinating action.
Information in the Wikipedia Community is just dumb dataෆ until we Wikipedians put it to good use. For the purposes ( Goal) of this Coordination Game, we use data to:
ෆ (no offense to data)
ʛ If we were to hold one finger down on just one problem that's holding Wikipedia back, it would be on this one problem: Coordination. We do not have a shortage of Players who want to make Wikipedia better - who want to make The Whole World a Better Place. We certainly do not have a shortage of Projects and Goals. What we suffer from is a lack of Coordination. In short, we have a Coordination Problem.
And it's the simplest kind of Coordination problem - one that we play dozens of times a day: We're strangers, walking down a narrow hallway, toward each other. You step to your left, I step to my left. We go on walking. No problem. [2] Score is tied at 100/100:100/100. We both win, nobody loses. [3] That's a Nash equilibrium. Now rewind. You step to your right, I step my right. We go on walking. That's also a Nash equilibrium. Rewind again. You step to your left, I step to your left, we go on walking. That's my coffee on your suit.
We don't need no stinkin "metrics"
There is only one number that matters in this Game: The Cooperation Index, c. Just 1 number. [4] So simple it doesn't even qualify as a whole "metric" - just the last letter of that word. The whole equation that we use to describe [5] Wikipedian Cooperation is even shorter than the word "metric". It is this: c = b/a [6] Lowest score is 0. Highest Score is 100. There are no Losers. There are no individual "Winners". [7] Only Cooperation gets a score. There are 3 major Winners, but they aren't even playing the Game: (1) Wikipedia (the Encyclopedia), (2) our Readers, who are The Most Valuable Players in the Game (and don't even know it), and (3) our WikiBoys who'd rather be playing with their soldier toys. Best we leave them alone.
... in which case...you're not helping. I'm going to be blunt, constant upheaval at policy pages is not what GGTF is for
We have Zero (0) interest in Wikipedian rules, per se [8] except for these Five (5) which we do hold sacred: 3 which pertain to Content [ (1) neutral point of view, (2) verifiability, (3) no original research ] and 2 that are Behavioral [ (4) be civil - pretend we're collegial editors of the OED - and (5) WIKIPEDIANS! IGNORE ALL RULES! - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ]
The 3 "policies" which I inserted as placeholders onto the current 3d2do for the Gender Gap project are there only because those were the only 3 actionable items I found on the Front Page of GGTF. I'd rather not deal with them at all, but if that's what GGTF really wants to do, then i'd like to know what the specific problems are (ref section above). If you don't want them there, please replace them with something you do want to work on, with others. IMDO, [9] it's best that each project be aimed at producing good Content for our Readers. That's what they care about the most (that, and the toys from Wikimedia and others which make it easier for Readers to read and use the encyclopedia). They don't much care about - even know about - our 10-year obsession with rules. The "Wikipedia problem" is a WikipediaN problem, and no one really cares about us until we mess up.
... and treating policy discussions like games is not a good idea.
Definition of terms in addition those wikified above
One really cool thing about this design? No need for votes. The only "vote" that matters is the X that each free Player casts in favor of an article s/he commits to improve, in coordination with h/er fellow editors. Doesn't matter if an article gets 2 Xes or 200. What does matter is that it's not just one person working alone, or worse, thousands of people trying to figure out where to start. Best of all, IMDO? No need for any more talk, except among cooperating editors, on the specific task of improving a specific article.
Ultimately, these 8:
Systemic bias. The eight major categories of study for maladaptive organizational behavior as they apply to maintaining and supporting Wikipedia are:
Gamification is great, e.g. like what Stack Overflow does. This seems like gamification too, but it seems like a game that encourages tag-spamming of articles about women.
Tell me why I am wrong. Please? Someone? Anyone?-- FeralOink ( talk) 01:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)