A wiki list of guidelines, expanding the pyramid of debate

submitted by Wanga from self.IdeasForSaidIt

The pyramid of debate is good, but we probably need other guidelines as well.

I think it would be helpful to have a list, always one click away (in the footer), so we could point out specifically why/how people are pulling the tone down.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel; LessWrong and Wikipedia have laid a lot of the groundwork here.

Wikipedia has aims (see Five Pillars in the link above), and these shape the policies.

Parallel to this is a means of creating and editing the guidelines. In a word: governance. Wikipedia does this by consensus. Most sites do it by monarchy. Another option would be to vote in a board of governors to rule on decisions where consensus is not clear.

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Wikipedia is NOT something worth measuring ourselves to. And I'm a Wikignome who likes half of it and despises the other. I avoid most their "community" as much as possible.

Fuck all the hierarchies everywhere. Flat as possible! Right now we have one benevolent ruler and his trusty side kick. That's more than enough. If they want help they can ask.

There's only one exception. If you want to build a coder army to build things for M7D3 to review and implement then I'll support that.

[–]Arundel 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

SaidIt is less democratic than Wikipedia.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Depends.

Do you prefer the tyranny of the mob (of paid trolls, deep state actors, and brianwashed SJWs)?

Wikipedia forbids folks from organizing to get things done on Wikipedia. For example, if a bunch of truthers wanted to get together to improve the wildly inaccurate 911 Truth Movement article they'd all be bannished. ONLY the admins are allowed to form mobs. That's hardly democratic.

There are ample ways to be democratic on SaidIt. You can come up with ideas in /s/IdeasForSaidIt and then openly draft proposals in the wiki and then when you or your pose feel that's ready to go you can post it in /s/SaidItSurveys.

If people like it they'll comment or they'll ignore it. I don't know if it'd "democratic" for you but it sure seems fair to me.

There are only 5 rules:

  1. By the Terms And Content Policy, "If a person is caught repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate, they will be removed."

  2. No vending of weapons, drugs, and stolen goods, nor discussion about, nor links leading to illegal things.

  3. No pornography. It's too much trouble to monitor and there's no shortage elsewhere.

  4. No astroturfing or artificial amplification of your free speech voice. For example, do not upvote yourself or others using alternate usernames or sock-puppet accounts.

  5. One sub per week per user.

[–]roc 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wikipedia is a great example of people from many different backgrounds coming together and creating something of great value. As a community that is currently a lot smaller than Wikipedia, let us learn from them (but not blindly copy).