User:OneKarma/Forum: Difference between revisions

From wiki.occupyboston.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
(No difference)

Revision as of 16:01, 15 November 2011

User:OneKarma/Wiki as Forum

This page is meant to host discussion of the following proposal: Establish within this wiki a centralized, equal-opportunity forum for Occupy Boston.

Please see also the Wiki as Forum proposal.

Premise

There must be a central information resource provider to support the Occupation. Current modes of communication, especially mailing lists, are not only varied in effect, but also cumbersome in use. There is a huge lack of clarity and unity because of communication difficulties.

  1. Mailing lists 'force' un-filtered information upon individuals, but a wiki simultaneously hosts the most pertinent information (and its discussion) while being navigable per content. A wiki represents a tree of knowledge; it should be organized and coordinated as such.
  2. The front-information on a wiki may change frequently due to broad intelligences, but the front-information in a mailing list is only the most recently updated (responded-to) conversation. Changes on a wiki should be seen as evolution, but updates in a mailing list will never be more than converstaion.
  3. A wiki hosts updates right away, but mailing lists require hours of waiting for a response. There have been many queries within the mailing lists regarding whether messages are being received or not. The wiki would not have this issue, because everyone can see that their contribution has been published when they save a page.

Proposal

Issues

The major issue with using a wiki seems to be understanding the process of contribution, which is, in my opinion, much easier than reading and replying to a number of massive email lists. Becoming familiar with editing functions, navigation tools, and special pages can be daunting. We should therefore post guidelines proposing a specific structure and method that can be scaled and adapted to the many sizes and specialties of groups. We should unify to determine our ideals and the best methods to attain them. We should host a fully public, round-table discussion to determine the first steps of action. This discussion cannot cease until a central forum has been established.

If the Occupation appears to the mainstream to lack unity, clarity, definition, or priority, it is because the Occupation has failed to create the pathways that maximize the efficiency of crowd-sourced social evolution. At best, unity in the Occupation is extremely vague, and can generally be summarized in a single word: discontent. Indeed, the Occupation has barely agreed upon a few 'official statements'. The discussion is limited by the structure of the forum, or lack-thereof.

Concepts

There will be a much larger foundation of voices if all contributers are able to navigate the forum. By following the basic structure of topics and their nested discussions (a natural aspect of every wiki) we may build a professional feel upon the face of the wiki, and individuals will be able to quickly find and discuss the issues of greatest personal interest. A wiki is meant to crowd-source information - I suggest we use OccupyBoston's wiki to crowd-source a revolution.

Any organization of dedicated individuals can maximize efficiency by coming together as a whole to agree upon goals, methods, and tasks. This should be a first prioroty of any organization, and the discussion should be 'alive' as long as there is anyone in support of the forum. The Occupation movement has reached a massive scale, but it does not present a navigable structure, so the whole is more of a chaotic mob than a committed organization. The mess of communication methods shared by contributors has led to a lack of definition. Each medium should represent a specific function within the goals, methods, and tasks that is determined by the whole via round-table discussion.

Goals

The ultimate goal of the Occupation (and truly the ultimate goal of any compassionate act) is the creation of (or evolution toward) a perfect society. Rather than acheiving perfection, the most difficult task is defining perfection. Coming to a working agreement on 'perfection' would allow us to determine pathways for acheiving that perfection. After conceptualizing our goals and sorting out the best potential methodology, it would be necessary to create tasks which could be delegated to working groups. This process establishes ultimate authority within the people, leaving no room for modification.