FuzzyFaq

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

Fuzzy FAQ [theory]

These are only random basic thoughts at the moment and not fully formed. Any additions, comments etc welcomed. I will be updating and changing this as I work things out.

A FuzzyFaq, like a FuzzyCommunity or FuzzyDiscussion, should be an organic thing which evolves, grows, develops and mutates. If there is chaos then order will naturally follow. Do gripe and moan about perceived 'noise'. Add rather than detract to the discussion of FuzzyFaq.

After having some experience of 'conflict' on some online discussion sites on the web I got to thinking [2].

Inherently a major problem I see with some of these discussion sites is how to view the FAQ. Some people see it as a guideline - which is akin to having a society with a law which states: "..we would prefer you not to murder people but, if you do, nothing will happen to you.." On the other side you have the people who see an FAQ as 'the rules' - this is akin to a society which will not tolerate murder for any reason whatsoever.

These two sides consistently come into conflict with each other, have debates but never reach any conclusion because both sides haven't started from the same starting point. Nothing changes. Nothing moves on. Nothing is solved. The discussion site will eventually start to stagnate as changes do not happen.

FuzzyLaws? and FuzzyRules? are not absolutes. They change and shape themselves as society changes. Adapt to current trends and opinions. FAQ's rarely change - except through consensus, but consensus is very rarely reached. Also an inherent problem with a site's FAQ is that it was written by whoever runs the site. It is ultimately upto the sitemaster to change the FAQ - if he does though he could be accused of being a dictator.

But what about a FuzzyFaq?

A FuzzyFaq would be the first step to a FuzzyCommunity.

It would start blank. White space. Empty. People would add to the void, creating something. Anyone can add to the FuzzyFaq and adapt anyone else's rules. All rules, additions, subtractions and modifications, would be discussed by anyone who wants to discuss them [time limited discussion submission?] - and everyone can help to modify the rule to get the most from it. After discussion the rule can be voted on. The rule can be added, removed or modified to suit needs. The main consensus though would be that the FuzzyFaq would be referred to as a reference to supposed rule violations. Through this technique the rules should settle down, change and adapt more fluidly than a rigid FAQ.

At the moment I'm not sure how to fully implement this. If this idea has been tried or mentioned somewhere else then put links here.

How to have a FuzzyDiscussion. -- PaulMillar

I might agree to your statement above if it were stated:

FuzzyLaws? and FuzzyRules? are not absolutes. They change and shape themselves as society changes. They Adapt to current trends and opinions. fair point

If you do not believe in absolutes, try not filing your Income Tax Return and try not paying your Income Tax. Or if you want to use Gotos, expecting goto line1200 to take you to line2312. --anon.

Tax law is not absolute. You could legally challenge a tax law if it were deemed it unconstitutional. For instance, the Canadian Chinese Head Tax is illegal. [1] Even the constitution is not absolute. It's only paper, or ideas, and ideas are malleable. There might be a legal structure that creates impediments to change those ideas, with more impediments for ideas considered more important, but everything might change--even if we need to do it at gunpoint.

A democracy is merely a system that lets those governed by the rules change those rules without taking blood. It's when the impediments become too great that the democracy becomes dysfunctional. This brings people back to violence, sometimes couched in a democratic process like DirectAction. On the Internet, while you may be attacked in the short term, the real threat is people may abandon you if you make it impossible for them to work within your framework. On the other hand, you could understand this and make it part of your resolution strategy. For instance, to take a local concern, if you don't want to UseRealNames nor be anonymous, I (contrast we) feel that you should feel free to leave. On the other hand, we are not so stupid as to cast this rule in iron. I just remain unconvinced.

I don't think this "our (my) way or the highway" strategy works in all but fundamental, constituary cases. Again, real names here isn't just an arbitrary rule, but part of the experiment to see how stable we can keep MeatballWiki without using HardSecurity, as well as seeing how strong a community based approach to governance can be compared to the traditional GodKing role. (NB: if I were the only one in favour of real names, it wouldn't be a rule.) Abusing this strategy will only mean more people are on the highway. -- SunirShah

I think that "fuzzy" is a hype word that carries little meaning (see VirtualCommunity).

This is supposed to be a FAQ? Okay, then, how about if we generate some questions which the community can then reply to with answers?

Q: What is Fuzzy? Is it logic? Is it methodology? Is it religion?