From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



最理想嘅威脅係你從來未見過、只係聽返來嘅,而你自己就唔信,但你知道第啲人會信。- this allows you to report it neutrally and editorialize a bit since you have no dignity at stake. A good threat would combine multiple weird scenarios and get to the point of the ridiculous.

If you are describing something with evidence, that you believe 'has' already happened to some degree, or has a measurable probability, it is a worst case and 'not' a "threat".

Enter examples of threats that may damage or destroy the future of wikipedia, and absolutely prevent ever reaching m/any of the best cases or visions:

粒子物理發燒友要求用維基百科同標準模型嘅關係來解釋維基百科。任何無咁w:reductionistw:dualist 或者唔可能被一班 reductionist 物理佬用架粒子對撞機否定嘅嘢會被攞走。 w:Eliezer Yudkowsky揾渠班"AI 友"開工, 毁滅咗世界,因為信咗呢種維基觀,行個w:Standard Model嘅實驗,響現實整穿咗個隴,吸曬我地入去。 w:Great Apes never get their chance.

The w:anti-globalization movement decides to postmodernize every article - the thousands of strange contradictory doctrines, each touted by a single academic somewhere in the world, fill up the wiki and render all articles unreadable masses of new age w:postmodernism. Vocabulary expands to 10, 20, 30 thousand English words - w:ebonics, w:bop, w:rap, w:Pig latin and w:Engrish are given full status as legitimate languages. Each article attempts to deconstruct twenty or thirty others, and relate a dozen or more theorists in a complex conceptual map. 維基退化做 google.

As content and usage increases it suddenly becomes apparent to a few that insufficient tools or forums exist for newcomers to impact the collective existing "consensus" regarding procedures and appropriate usage or contribution. This would of course limit the scalability of wikipedia locally and could lead to a fork, mirror or commercial competitor achieving the greater coveted "mind share".

我哋有無種定義咗嘅 "mind share" 來幫我哋規劃網站功能嘅設計同埋內容選擇? (Do we have a defined target "mind share" to help guide site feature design and content selection? )w:user:mirwin

good question, but don't ask it here. In the threats page you should assume the worst and write from that worst. Also I'm not sure that I don't believe that your threat here hasn't already happened, in which case its a worst case. I suggest that you assume that it has already happened, and add to worst cases a mild believable version of that view. And, that you expand your version here in threats to something so bad that neither you nor I would be likely to believe it is possible, but which could reasonably be said to be believable by a "naive third party". Then, remove both your older view and this guidance, replacing it with the threat. For illustration's sake you may wish to link over to worst cases as well, to demonstrate the differences for others. Also, there are not enough best cases, it would be good if you'd add a case there too. This exchange can be left in the diff or moved elsewhere but please don't leave it in threats. Thankx, 24