User talk:Panic2k4/CrossTalk

Meat puppets
Should address the subject of meat puppets and address historical problem that existed not only on Wikibooks but in sister projects. I'll try to hunt down all that I said on this subject of parallel or "back channels", I prefer the last definition as it indicates the secondary place on any off site forums. --Panic (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Cabal, WP:CABAL and DefendAgainstParanoia say more than I ever could say about this proposal. I disagree with the intent of this proposal and suggestions of adding wording about "meat puppets" and/or "back channels". This proposal sounds like paranoia to me. --dark lama  03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To address an issue one must start by identifying it. All of the realities you mention do exist and are part of the human status, arising from our tribal orientation and social structure. I've yet to read the text as it stands but for me it will only be of importance that it states several warnings so to protect the privacy of parallel discussions, the value/relevance they may have on our local discussions and identify the problems of expecting Wikibookians to be aware of any information shared offsite this includes for instance discussions on Meta, Wikipedia that may have an impact on our community.
 * Also covering the fragility of such discussions as representative of the community and how they can harm it.
 * This has the ability to be a framework that addresses this issues and provide a common ground of understanding this problems, safeguarding future discussions from the implications.  --Panic (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Other sources/locations
Any discussion of significance or facts can only become valid and constructive if they are reflected on Wikibooks, no expectation can be imparted only because a number of Wikibookians seem to be are aware of them, they must be part of the public record, here, as to validate any expectation of mutual understanding of the problems/subjects. This doesn't mean that providing a simplification/summary of the discussion and a link to a secondary location is problematic, advancing and promoting the Wikibooks project outside of the site should be promoted and providing information and enabling others to participate should be embraced but it must not be expect or consider an obligation. The primary public location to discuss Wikibooks with other Wikibookians is Wikibooks, that is what constitutes the community common basis of understanding and sharing of information any other channel should be seen as secondary and prone to not be accepted as a valid forum for the community interests (at best it will can only claim to represent part of the community) this also raises other problems verifiability of authenticity, completeness (may lack of intermediary logs) and can lead to the problem of promoting group think (ie: us vs they situations). --Panic (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)