Prompted by “Is Wikipedia’s Popularity Causing Its Decline?”: http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/12/31/1547259/is-wikipedias-popularity-causing-its-decline
Put down that New Year’s hangover (if possible) and let’s go on a brief journey here — and yes, this post leaves you well beyond Wikipedia.
Open collaboration systems like Wikipedia need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors in order to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years, and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause. This paper presents data that show that several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention.
Let me repeat the terribly important part for emphasis…
Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention.
I often leverage the power of Wikipedia and wish them the very best in resolving their problem, but that problem isn’t just limited to them. It’s a matter of human fundamentals (currently lost among the raging and continuous warfare of personal agendas putting society at severe risk), and that places the ball firmly in the court of yours truly, so let’s play ball.
Anyone reading my journal understands that judicial regulation (as opposed to voluntary regulation from better education towards responsibility) makes my blood boil (thankfully only metaphorically), because judicial regulations are merely feel-good entrenchments that are never concretely proven to provide a net-resulting reduction in overall tragedy (not just one area of tragedy reportedly by spin statistics).
Our nation embraced judicial regulations like embracing a great flood (nationally obligatory and unalienable right to liberty undeniably be too often damned to the delight of those seeking to selfishly abuse law itself to secure unethical comforts to “protect the children”).
Thousands of judicial regulations towards “gun control” (like thousands of like-minded regulations towards “business control”) leads to the press for even more regulatory reach by way of relatively rare examples of abuse.
When will that reach end? When nobody gets hurt in a reality demonstrably inherently tragic? What logically is the end game of the complexly judicial regulatory reach? When does the unhealthy stress (logically the actual source of abuse) ironically from that reach come to righteous consideration among proponents of equality and/or morality by way of that questionable reach?
It’s (not really) funny how too many of us irrationally keep leveraging law to prevent people disrespecting law from engaging abusively (e.g. mass shooting against innocence), while ironically abusively disregarding unintended consequences from that mass rights-infringing law (a chaotic form of metaphorical mass shootings clearly unworthy of mainstream media acknowledgement).
Sure a certain prominent traditional leftist politician raises public concern over the victims of gun abuse (after all, any form of abuse is obviously worth addressing). But what about the victims of disarmament (and other regulatory) abuse? Do they also count in the bid for judicially regulated equality?
A “gun free” zone is an ironically inviting sign to sociopaths pleasurably feeling the power of mass slaughter. One well-placed and properly used gun to stop a mass shooting situation could save many lives, and it’s impossible for the police to respond quickly enough to match that use.
What happens if the person capable of that salvation is disarmed due to “gun free” zones, or simply being on the waiting list for oligarchical approval (the perfectly clear second amendment explicitly stating the right to bear arms without exception be damned)?
There’s no doubt that Wikipedia has a genuine interest towards quality control (as do I with my nascent open entertainment project concept btw — more on this in later postings), and though it makes sense (on the one hand) to set firm rules detailing that control, it obviously comes at a serious cost — stagnation (like a deer trapped in headlights).
Now that the five has become a six (a slight change to form one connection and pure curvature), we inquisitively look forward to the empty slate of the new year.
Is this the year when grand stagnation (e.g. from the illusion of reasonable economic recovery by baseless credit injection) bursts upon the purely energetic need of reality? To clarify, mainstream physics only concludes that reality is purely energetic, and energy obviously never settles. Stagnation is an energetic bubble, which can either be responsibly diffused (reality permitting) or some style of chaotic release (inclusively against innocence given the broad and powerful stroke of that chaos).
Is this the year when the masses finally understand (by the pain of oppression reaching critical mass for too many people) that the oligarchy doesn’t really care about their health beyond being merely subservient cattle defending oligarchical comforts and pleasures, so further empowering them (in either the private or public sectors) is obviously publicly unwise?
More of the same (the only solution applied so far) leads to — drum roll — more of the same.
Is this the world you desire for you and any applicable yours?
Are you really ready to submit to mass defeat?
Either we continue allowing the wildly subjectively defined laws that actually exist to preserve oligarchical dominance (and the serious conflicts arising from that wild), or we find and mass-apply an alternative.
Conveniently there’s only one logical alternative — replace wild subjectivity with maximum objectivity.
The scientific method has worked brilliantly in technology, so objectivity is clearly realistic. We know certainties exist in worded language (e.g. liberty is the condition of being free from restriction or control), so we know objectivity can exist and logically grow to improve the clarity of language itself — naturally improving law, education, science, and health (i.e. society).
We know objectivity is required for fairness, and therefore justice, so there’s no good reason to avoid this righteous press for a just rule-of-law.
To avoid rigidity strangulation requires the embrace of responsible flexibility (synonymous with an unalienable right to liberty).
Staying healthily loose is necessary for voluntary regulation by improving individual responsibility (a healthier mind naturally likely makes responsible decisions), and the overwhelming complexity of reality demands relying upon natural law (not complexly human-defined law) for optimal protection.
You (for prime example) are much better positioned to understand your technically complex unhealthy stress signature by the power of sensation, so you logically should have the most power to best resolve that dangerous stress press.
That requires the flexibility only possible by way of an unalienable right to liberty (i.e. liberty limited only by the right itself without any possible “slippery slope” starting exception).
That naturally and thankfully compels society to maximally objectively define harm.
There really is no harm in pure energy, so that’s why I say maximally objective. It won’t be perfect, but neither is technology. It will, however, be vastly superior to the muddy constructs from wild subjectivity dominance. The society that gets this right will have a logically serious advantage in the competition to dominate societal structuring.
We cannot solely rely upon a voting lever (and relatively weak public lobbying against very powerful self-interest lobbies) to prevent an abusive oligarchy.
We need judicially responsible flexibility to form mass structures unpredictable by those abusers.
We need a global communications system (e.g. Internet) allowing the public to freely broadly and deeply organize against oligarchical abuse.
We need small businesses successfully growing by responsibly competing against unhealthily large businesses causing mass damage. That offsets the extra and obscene regulatory burden upon already-very-busy small business owners.
People really interested in the “people’s right to know” must turn away from news sources refusing to decouple impressive looking tragedy from boring and lame judicial tragedy that has a dramatically more serious negative impact against us all (e.g. illegally judicially redefined Commerce Clause and effective disarmament of the ninth amendment logically upholding our fundamental rights).
Relying (especially strongly) upon the impressive looking variety of tragedy forms a serious and unavoidable conflict of interest benefiting the consistent source(s) of newsworthy information regarding such tragedy — our government (especially law enforcement). In short, the people’s right to know is grossly diluted on behalf of oligarchical dominance to effectively form state-run media in the land of the supposed free press.
We need to replace the logically deprecated British common law with objectively defined (i.e. just) law, so no more judicial opinions forming law (especially by the dangerous entrenchment of “slippery slope” based legal precedence). This means the threshold of science against liberty must be conclusive (e.g. murder, assault, theft, and defamation are 100% rights-infringing), so never suggestive (as it currently wildly is).
We need you to apply an actual solution.
We need you to find purpose in taking a demonstrated stand.
Sound reasoning in a complex world is not fiction, despite the proclamations by reason abusers to their selfishly supporting contrary.
Sound reasoning is the understanding of humanity (a real foundation), and that’s pure (and possibly growing) leverage against the spin doctors and such “successfully” leveraging the power of a society with no foundation — e.g. ours.
Let’s explore and build that logical foundation together.
That’s what Liberty Shield is freshly all about, and that open entertainment project will preferably need to address the same quality control due to its hopeful popularity with your support.
Liberty Shield is definitely not more of the same (including discriminatory nonsense).
Liberty Shield is carefully designed to be the epitome of liberty experimentation in an entertaining context with oceanic possibilities to accommodate literally anyone. Whether you prefer to just wear a t-shirt to express appreciation for simplistic recognition of liberty defense, through the policy and/or language geek ready to dive into the full depths of reason to help evolve language and law, there’s a role for you, because liberty is about everyone (not just the elite too often lying to you for their greed, etc.)
By “well beyond Wikipedia” as I stated at the beginning of this post, I meant well beyond the wildly complex subjectivity dominance routine spanning all history with basically flawless momentum during this authorship, so we can understand the need for (and healthily proudly build) that fully logical foundation for actual mass leverage on behalf of (and to best protect) us all.
That inevitably leads to a better Wikipedia and well beyond to include your life.
Regardless of the complexity, nobody can ever righteously abandon the basics.
If you disagree, then what basics (if any) do you feel should govern society?