I am interested in music, art, human evolution, science, complexity theory, media ecology, foresight and futures studies, and technology. I am also interested improving and enriching the existence humans through spreading knowledge and helping to build common places where we can store, share and improve what we know as a species, and how we use it.
Sam Rose Social Synergy
Thanks for rolling back the spam, Sam. Just so you know, we use EditCategories to hide such edits from the casual MB community: the WikiSpam page explains how. (That's what the checkboxes just above the RecentChanges listing do.) Don't worry too much about it, of course — far better to have no spam visible to the casual reader! -- ChrisPurcell
Chris, thanks for those pointers. I had not actually paid attention to the check boxes in RecentChanges, but now it makes perfect sense. So, thanks. Also figured out EditCategories, and tried it out on three spam rollbacks.
Chris, sure thing, I threw my name up there. -- SamRose
Sam, motivated by TedErnst, I left a comment for you at: http://www.aboutus.org/UniversalWikiEditButton#Good_Enough_For_Version_0.1, mirrored on my blog -- [fridemar]
Sam, thank you for showing your public consense for the Universal Edit Button. I noticed, that you didn't use your influence as an active Meatballer yet. You can vote for all the wikis, your are actively participating. If you and other active peers here enter the public poll, this would make the voice of MeatballWiki more representative. -- FridemarPache
Fridemar, I think the point of the process of ConsensusPolling is not to coerce everyone to come to your conclusion, but to understand why enough people are not coming to your desired conclusion, then to work together towards creating a solution that enough people can say "Yes" to. This means acknowledging the reasons behind the "not yet" vote, instead of asking people to just get over it and vote "Yes" already. In my case, I decided to say yes, because folks were already starting to use the button on some widely adopted wikis. Although, I don't believe that means that others should say "Yes", unless they decide they are ready to. In the meantime, to make the ConsensusPolling process work, we should be respectful of participants, and ask them to help change the proposed idea to something into something they are satisfied with saying "YES" to. Coercing people to say "YES" when they don't really mean it will very likely produce negative blowback, regardless of what is being discussed. -- SamRose
Thank you Sam for the open feedback, that helps structuring the field. Let me put it in words of a small story:
"Once upon a time there were three waves on the ocean, reflecting on their kind of actions. The middle wave thought out aloud, I am the centre of all action. I push the wave in front of myself and I pull another wave behind me. The first wave responded: this is not the case. It is me, who pulls you behind me. Now the third wave cried, you both are wrong, because I can feel it clearly, I push you two in front of me."
We are all in a field, that organizes itself. Some peers stimulated campaign action, e.g. to "keep on rockin`" [AboutUs:User_talk:Fridemar] others stimulated to calm down. Meanwhile I am on your course to calm down. This way there is more energy available for Creating And Sharing Wealth. ;-) -- [fridemar]
I think you are doing really good as far as spurring people to stay engaged with the whole process, so your energy is great and appreciated. It's cool that you want to promote a particular outcome. I just personally hope that the process can work to benefit from the feedback/collective intelligence and insights from everyone. If people want to speed up the process, I humbly suggest engaging "NOT YET" people based upon their reason for "NOT YET". -- SamRose