fractalnavel

since i've recently been pretty enthusiastic about the wikipedia, even to the point of introducing a nephew to it for use with a homework assignment, i feel it is necessary to also highlight the caveats when using such a source.  the first couple of links in this k5 article on wikipedia are a good start.  i feel a bit remiss about not pointing out such concerns to my nephew at the time, but his mom reads this blog, so i hope she can take care of it for me ;-) (sorry, mom, i know this is extra work :-( )

in some sense such caveats really need to be observed with respect to any reference material, including pre-internet sources.  the existence of reviewing processes does not guarantee correctness, especially in cases where even the meaning of that the word “correctness” is debatable.

these issues are certainly related to “free” speech and intentional limits to accuracy, the development of new ideas in science, and so on.  there is a balance between conservatism / control and change / freedom where some optimum level of self-organization occurs.  it's the old chaos-stasis thing yet again.  of course.

i liked the point made in one article where the author traces the deterioration of an example entry in the wikipedia.  the mean on his normal distribution could be seen as representing the balance point between the “forces” of entropy and self-organization [within the 'net mind!].  unfortunately, the balance seems to fall unsatisfactorily far on the side of mediocrity.

“control” could be applied to help shift this balance.  and control, really, is a form of self-organization at a higher abstraction level.  some minds / entities have more of this quality internalized than others, and might be seen as more reliable or responsible - and also as stubborn and narrow minded.  two sides of the same coin.

so, while exposing such effects in external efforts such as wikipedia is intended to mitigate the less desirable effects, it has the (equal?) potential of incurring undesirable effects as well.

really off the wall now, but this is banging around in the back of my mind: what if we licensed minds ?  and this is what we really do in so many forms, academic, corporate and so on.  but this system of licensing has evolved - self-organized - in a more fuzzy sea of information and control than we have available to us now.  what if we were to more intentionally consider and constuct a replacement system ?  what are the benefits vs. dangers ? 

think of such a system as applied to the business of science, government, law and “morality”.  

oh, edit, edit:  thoughts: privileges and responsibilities to be associated with levels of mind licensing - ?  and the broken-ness of the monetary / credit system with respect to mediating such things.  what if all life needs were more than adequately provided for by entitlement programs ?  as in, all monies are associated with non-essentials.  what would this do to motivations ?  “obsoleting greed”.  thoughts related to my ongoing readings in social insurance systems.  something forthcoming on that; still finishing various materials.