I have a topic I have been wanting to post on for several months now but I am not exactly sure how I want to approach it. It deals with some theories I have on mass free source collaborations. I want people to feel free to ream my ass out and call me delusional and then I want to be able to fight back and argue my points.
I am considering the barbecue pit as I think it would allow for more honest and open discussion. I am also considering Great Debates as the civility might allow things to progress further. I would be happy to waive my right to moderator protection against personal attacks if I could do it in Great Debates. I really need to argue against brutally honest opinions.
It sounds like an IMHO topic. You want people’s opinions on how to do something, if I recall correctly. Unless you want to discuss the theories behind your project, rather than the project itself?
Side question - once you’re done with this, could we re-purpose for general use? I have a topic that I need placing as well.
If someone can’t have a discussion, debate, or argument without resorting to personal attacks, then he or she isn’t doing it right. I don’t see why a subject such as “mass free source collaborations” should have to devolve into a clusterfarble of personal attacks and name-calling.
Seriously.
In the world of open source projects, I much prefer Larry Wall’s approach than Linus Torvalds’
IMHO it would probably be good for IMHO. I wouldn’t go Pit unless I had a seriously strong OP in mind. Getting moved to the Pit is almost an honor; getting bounced out of the Pit not so much so.
I am pretty sure it could be repurposed for general use. What I actually wanted to do was see if my theory could hold up against good arguments. It’s no secret that the concept of Mass social media collaborations has been considered by some of our top social media people. They recognize the potential for speed and reaction time as well as raw intellectual and skilled resources available through social media. None of them have figured out how to get it rolling.
This is one of the cases where some great minds have looked at it but possibly from the wrong perspective. I have spent several years now dedicated to this and feel my background although lacking in formal education does lend itself well to this type of project. I feel confident that I have a relatively simple formula that could actually get it rolling. I realize I may have some bias going on as it is a pet project, I have gone to every length to recognize my own bias when I see it and move forward.
I am looking for a reality check basically. I might find out under scrutiny my bias was worse than I thought but hopefully I will find out I am working on solid ground.
The way it is different is that it recognizes the possibility for a much wider base of contributors. It believes in a concept of a “Culture of Collaboration” It more broadly defines what we recognize as a collaboration and it’s primary purpose is not the product of a collaboration but what collaborating offers to its contributors. The wider the base the more potential impact it can have on our daily lives. More about people than the product itself.
A collaboration culture can't exist on its own to any large extent. The act of collaborating is more like a tree that is bearing fruit. It requires fertile ground. Fertile ground would be defined as a large, diverse, group of motivated people that is formed around some common interest. They are motivated by contributing their thoughts and ideas. This could be a general conversation group like the SDMP or any number of specialized forums. Once the group exists the potential for collaborating exists. These groups are well established and have wide appeal. What they lack is a collaboration format.
Strike forth into GD or IMHO I say. I don’t think the Pit is called for. It doesn’t seem like the sort of topic that should fall into name calling. We manage to debate religion and the Middle East (usually) without the Pit. I think we can discuss this.
We already live in cultures of collaboration. Belong to a church, temple, mosque, synagogue, etc.? Tithe to that organization, volunteer time for projects? Then you are in a Culture of Collaboration. Every voluntary charitable or service organization is part of a Culture of Collaboration. What about fan-run conventions like Worldcon, which have paid memberships and not “tickets”, where the fans themselves are the ones that do all of the organization, all of the work, and can sink thousands of their own dollars into it with no financial return. Culture of Collaboration. What about fansubbers and fandubbers and scanslators? Culture of Collaboration. The world is filled with Cultures of Collaboration, and always has been.
Can you describe what you propose without lapsing into “proactively actualize the outside-the-box paradigm” market-speak?
Since the topic is already being discussed in this thread, why not just rename the thread to whatever the topic is and move it to whichever forum it best fits?
IMHO is more “here’s my opinion. And here’s mine. We can discuss why they differ, but it doesn’t really matter.” While GD is more “here’s what I think. And here is why you are wrong. And here is why YOU are wrong.” In theory, at least, as they often overlap.
For what you want, I would think GD would be where you’d want to go. Maybe it will be more like an IMHO thread in practice, but, if you’re wanting people to pick apart your really big idea, GD seems the place where that is guaranteed to happen. While IMHO would be more like, “I’m not sure that would work.”
