h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The creator and moderators have done an outstanding job in shaping HB over the last 5 years into what it is today: a dynamic and interesting forum of ideas.
Deletion of ideas is by far the most effective tool of moderation to keep the HB in as close to ideal form as possible. (Other moderating tools
include ‘flaming into submission’ and the ‘laws’ as per the help file). The deletion of ideas is performed by the moderators.
I am wondering whether and to what extent the deletion of ideas should be the exclusive realm of the moderators.
Obviously bakers already have a say in the deletion of ideas (by arguing their point in annotations), but I’m wondering whether this can be taken further.
I admit my interest/motivation in this topic is my disappointment in the deletion of ideas that I liked (yes, including some of my own).
I believe that the members of HB have, on the whole, absorbed the ‘vibe’ of the ‘laws’ and can execute them in a more self-organised manner.
As to whether an idea should be deleted there is usually agreement between the moderators and the general feeling of bakers, however sometimes there is disagreement. And since there is no avenue for appeal, the common baker is left, to a certain extent, disempowered.
And so I propose a different mechanism for idea deletion: voting, majority rules (with maybe a one week voting period from initial post). So bakers would now be voting in two separate catergories: croissant vs. fishbone and delete vs. keep.
I think this will improve the ‘bakery in several ways:
-It will increase a sense of fairness, transparency and democracy;
-The ideas kept and deleted will better reflect the general feeling among bakers; and
-It will reduce the onus on the moderators to make the ‘right’ decision.
It will also allow for the process of evolution of the bakery. For example, I reckon that some of the ideas being posted and not deleted now, might have been deleted a few years ago (and conversely also). So rather than being given the official, immutable decision from the moderators once and for all, an idea may have more chance further in the future. (I am not endorsing repetitively reposting of deleted ideas, rather a kind of appeal process to be executed judiciously (and in the fullness of time) by disaffected bakers).
Will it become anarchy? To quote Kent Brockman: “Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?”
[link]
|
| |
Democracy doesn't work. [-] |
|
| |
Maybe make everyone a moderator? |
|
| |
[xaviergisz] perhaps the person who actually forks out the cabbage for the bandwidth and hardware and hosting could be the one who decides what content is on her site, and perhaps she could decide on a few long time 'bakers, who had a pretty good idea of what ideas don't belong, to help her in this... oh. wait... |
|
| |
croissant=good idea; keep= hmph, okay; fish = bad idea; delete = really bad idea, make the bad thing go away. |
|
| |
Recently been reading 'bad thoughts' by Jamie Whyte. The Will of the People is a bogus authority. To be honest, I haven't noticed the moderators at work, which is a pretty good sign of itself. This sounds like unnecessary complication to me, and I fear it would cause a bit of 'message drift' away from what the halfbakery was intended for. |
|
| |
//croissant=good idea; keep= hmph, okay; fish = bad idea; delete = really bad idea, make the bad thing go away.//aint necessarily so... |
|
| |
Is there such a thing as a good but totally inappropriate idea, then? |
|
| |
Just as not everone is a judge in a democracy, not everyone should be given the ability to delete files, otherwise we would have retributive anarchy. A simple m-f-d suggestion by the members should be enough to flag the moderators' attention. |
|
| |
Long-time bakers have absorbed the rules, but there is such a thing as turnover. (I prefer mine apple-flavored). |
|
| |
If specific ideas have become that important to a person to where an appeals process is wished for, then methinks it's time to pick up a new hobby. |
|
| |
// I reckon that some of the ideas being posted and not deleted now, might have been deleted a few years ago // |
|
| |
This is not the case at all, but the opposite is certainly true. In part obviously because of redundancy, but there are a lot of concepts that would have stayed before that now get yanked because they were overdone in the past (lists and puns are the foremost examples). I recall when word definitions got the shove too, and had been previously allowed. |
|
| |
But I cannot think of a single example of something being accepted now that would have been previously removed. The mfd list is accumulative. |
|
| |
Anyway, lousy idea. For a hundred reasons, one of which being people would vote off ideas because they don't like the author. |
|
| |
//perhaps the person who actually forks out the cabbage for the bandwidth and hardware and hosting could be the one who decides what content is on her site// |
|
| |
Obviously this is true, but HB is nothing without its members (even the ones who aren’t part of the ‘old guard’), surely their opinions/attitudes count for something. |
|
| |
//not everyone is a judge in a democracy// |
|
| |
But everyone can be on a jury. Anyway, I don’t think this ‘argument by analogy’ can shed much light on this situation. |
|
| |
//If specific ideas have become that important to a person to where an appeals process is wished for, then methinks it's time to pick up a new hobby.// |
|
| |
I don’t spend every night crying myself to sleep over deleted ideas, but I readily admit I have some pride/attachment to my ideas posted here. I would be mildly upset if any/all of my posts were wiped. |
|
| |
Is there an old guard anymore? |
|
| |
Your, or anyone's, ideas don't get deleted unless they are mfd and have been sitting around a while. Even then, the benefit of the doubt is usually given. |
|
| |
Democrocy or not, I just voted. |
|
| |
I agree with [bristolz]. Everyone should
act as a moderator for their own ideas.
If it's been done before, don't write it,
correct errors in those ideas that have
been written. If it's lousy, delete it. |
|
| |
Not everyone *is* a moderator, but it'd
help if everyone acted as one. |
|
| |
However, it's not a democracy and I
don't think it should be. - |
|
| |
If you could vote for an idea to be deleted that easily, don't you think a few of the more cherished HB institutions might vanish (read: Vagina Jam). Surely if you vote against an idea you don't think it is any good. If that is the case wouldn't you just vote for it to be removed? Many of the slightly unpopular ideas would soon vanish. |
|
| |
// halfbakery institution // |
|
| |
Now there's something that needs to be explored. A mental home for all of us. |
|
| |
This is not a democracy and I think it's just fine the way it is. Still, I like this idea, it's nicely anti-establishment. I must say I'm a little dissapointed with all you annotators being so serious. I was looking forward to a long list of people voting for this idea, senior bakers in particular, in the firm and comfortable knowledge that [Jutta] wouldn't stand for this anyway. This could have been such a nice laugh. |
|
| |
The posting appears to be sincere and earnest. |
|
| |
Urgh - I forgot all about Vagina Jam. Yay democracy. ;-) |
|
| |
I vote to delete this idea! |
|
| |
Another variation on the idea before I forget: voting would only start after someone has marked it for deletion. |
|
| |
I'm still a little surprised with the lack of faith in the bakery to run more autonomously... wikipedia (another of the great online community experiments) is a good example of how the benevolent far outweigh the mischievous. |
|
| |
You have to admit that it is endearing the way people are rushing to the defence of the 'bakery, and are unwilling to seriously contemplate the idea of changing its base concepts. |
|
| |
//and can execute them in a more self-organised manner// |
|
| |
"Yes. thats right johnson, I said SELF-ORGINIZED." |
|
| |
"ANY MORE QUESTIONS JOHNSON?" |
|
| |
//everyone lives in a utopian community//--quite possibly the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. |
|
| |
What works for wikipedia wouldn't necessarily work here. There, the submissions are just facts to enhance a greater good; here, however, there are elements of ownership of submissions, writing styles and personalities, and some small hints of competitiveness that complicate the social scene. It's a bit like Congress, whereas Wikipedia is more like the March of Dimes. |
|
| |
//quite possibly the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read// |
|
| |
And considering it's only 6 words, the word-to-bullshit density of it must be enormous |
|
| |
//And considering it's only 6 words, the word-to-bullshit density of it must be enormous// |
|
| |
Surely 'bullshit-to-word density', [hidden_truths]? |
|
| |
There might be another idea in here somewhere... |
|
| |
Since this idea (at the time of writing) has -24 points and +3 points, doesn't it (by self-definition) need to be deleted ? ;-) |
|
| |
Remember tht idea deletion isn't about good or bad - it is whether the idea is appropriate for the halfbakery (inventions, supposedly). So the idea, although self destroying gets through: if people had voted in the positive, ie, to adopt it then it would stay because of popularity - but by negative votes the halfbakeryship have disagreed so the idea is not taken up and the idea remains... if you see what I mean. |
|
| |
In any case, this idea hasn't been tagged for deletion with [you-know-what], so the automated searches don't pick it up. |
|
| |