Wiki transition


#22

@RobJF

Do you think every community initiative should come under cardano.org?

already made a case for it a while back, surprised this is new to you. no need for a new thread, one already exists - conspicuously missing your view.


#23

sure. :clap:

perhaps also refrain from passive aggressively taking swipes at others as if what one has had to offer is just sooo perfect, it couldn’t possibly be bettered, or done away with altogether.

just a thought! :thinking:


Site feedback: fragmentation needs consolidation
#24

@Mun7890 I second (or is it third :blush:) the idea that you should just jump in and start adding content. That is the whole point of a Wiki, that there is no central owner and the knowledge is owned by the community. Content evolves by people updating it where inaccuracies are found. I am also looking forward to what you will be contributing.

@misteraxyz just to try and understand your point (and maybe help others understand also) about a sub-domain of cardano.org (e.g. wiki.cardano.org), I get the impression that you are not suggesting the Foundation take over the hosting, management or content maintenance of the Wiki, but as they currently manage the cardano.org domain (as this would need to be centralised to avoid vandalism), they would need to add a DNS entry for the Wiki. Is that correct?

I agree with the sentiment that the Foundation should be an organisation that “facilitates” community initiatives (such as the Wiki) which may include the use of the Cardano brand, rather than acting as an organisation that of “oversees” community activity and only applies the brand to those they are directly involved in.

I am sure there could be a way of opening the brand up more without the risks that may come from bad actors who want to harm it.


#25

yes. that’s one possible way to implement mitigating things as they exist.

alternatively, another environment could exist that is community-centric - with permission protocols. free from the (unhelpful) constraints/limiting barriers.

very valid precaution, but centralised to who? not to accountable trusted(earned) community members? (with established/implemented protocols for various scenarios) if we do some simple maths, weighing the cost benefits, mid to long term things actually aren’t beneficial with the current implementation. i could expand extensively on this, but i’ll limit by just pointing to a simple illustration. if both the wiki and forum lived in the same environment, accounts could be linked. resulting in quality and quantity wiki contributions and conversations - by community members who get a sense of purpose and the rewards from that feedback loop. con-concurrently exponentially improving both the wiki and forum.

:point_up:
:100:

we need to be actively figuring out decentralisation, start severing the umbilical cord - otherwise we’ll forever be in utero, forever stunted, with any autonomy eroded away with escalating suffocating maternal gatekeeping…


Site feedback: fragmentation needs consolidation