[cap-talk] [cap-conf] Systems and people and papers

[Jed Donnelley]

On 2/1/2008 11:08 AM, Bill Tulloh wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2008 1:36 PM, Jed Donnelley <capability at webstart.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I think most of the information I have is still too immature for
>>> Wikipedia.
>> I respectfully disagree.  Have you looked recently at what is
>> on Wikipedia on the capability security page?
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Now tell me again about "immaturity"?  Truly anything that
>> you could put there (IMO) would be better that what is
>> there now - as long as you don't offend anybody by
>> removing their favorite system.  I think even just this
>> list of dates and systems that you've put together would
>> be a vast (!) improvement over what is there:
> 
> Perhaps I'm just being old fashioned, but I am still a bit reluctant
> to start putting up a lot of what are essentially notes up on
> Wikipedia. I have in mind a place that differs (from my limited
> conception of) Wikipedia in at least two ways. First, I see it as a
> staging ground where I can put up stuff in various degrees of
> completeness that the "greater cap community" can add to. As this gets
> filled-in, we can create/modify the relevant Wikipedia articles.

The above doesn't make sense to me.  From my perspective that
approach creates huge amounts of additional work while providing
a net negative to the community.

With regard to:

> Second, I see it as possibly a place where people who were involved
> could add their first hand accounts and recollections, stuff that
> doesn't quite fit into Wikipedia. Perhaps helping to meet  your
> desires for a separation of concerns between the gathering of history
> and the conference proper.

The above is where, to me, the "self interview" data collection
comes in, e.g. see:

http://www.eros-os.com/pipermail/cap-conf/2008-January/000026.html

where I describe an example of a "self interview" set
of questions for people to use with a home video recorder.

>> I disagree.  In my opinion Wikipedia is the best place
>> for us to work to get our facts straight.  Even their
>> conflict resolution mechanisms might be useful at some
>> point.  I find it difficult for this community to
>> run afoul of those mechanisms.  If that were to happen,
>> then that would be a time to move the content to
>> something more "local" like the erights wiki.
> 
> Well, I am certainly willing to be persuaded, especially if this seems
> like the consensus.

Please - though of course I'm still open to other thoughts.
Using Wikipedia for this purpose seems a multiple win to me.

>> I still prefer Wikipedia.  I can't seem to get to wiki.erights.org
>> right now, but hopefully that is temporary.  If you feel uncomfortable
>> with Wikipedia and really want to do something relatively out
>> of public view/scrutiny to begin with, that's OK (thought I
>> might just post it to Wikipedia myself to improve what is
>> there), but I hope you will carefully consider the compatibility/
>> translation issues.  E.g. is wiki.erights.org a Media wiki?
> 
> I agree that wiki-erights.org in its current situation is not reliable
> enough. A lack of a good alternative may also steer me (reluctantly)
> towards Wikipedia.

Thanks Bill!

--Jed  http://www.webstart.com/jed/