Revision as of 16:16, 12 July 2008 by Cjl
neutral discussion requested to discover how general users of this wiki want ideas here to be suggested and specified
220.127.116.11 edits this wiki as if policy is: • NO SPAM • ONE PAGE PER IDEA • NO MAKING UP NAMES FOR IDEAS • NO LINKING FROM REQUESTS FOR LINKS and • NO OPINIONS ?is this the official position of the OLPC team or a minority opinion of users of this wiki? if one purpose of this wiki is to solicit ideas to help kids using OLPC 2B1 to "learn learning", maybe a clearly defined idea policy could encourage more ideas?
are commercial ideas completely prohibited here? are "open" commercial ideas any more welcome than "closed" commercial ideas? clearly, spams sucks so: benefit: duh cost: some good ideas might not get here especially if people don't have a clear idea of how you define spam
one page per idea?
one page per idea limits new ideas to one page.. links to other websites are encouraged to flesh out the ideas.. benefit: possible infoglut on this wiki is reduced, in case that is a current problem.. cost: not all such other websites have public feedback loops available.. feedback possibly useful to OLPC is either lost or found, to a lesser extent, elsewhere..
no making up names for ideas?
18.104.22.168 claims making up names is MARKETING and thus grounds for removal of ideas.. seems a little exagerated.. benefit: ? cost: difficult to describe new ideas with old names
no linking from requests for links?
aka "no spamming all over wiki".. there are many pages requesting links to ideas that might help kids use OLPC to "learn learning", but linking an idea to such requests seems futile, as such links seem likely to be removed.. benefit: restrains public from abusing this wiki as means to promote perhaps selfish interests.. (whatever that means).. cost: casual users of this wiki might not learn of possibly good ideas kids might use to learn learning.
restricting articles to facts asserts a strategy that is proven effective for wikipedia, which also bans "original research".. but will "facts-only" bias effectively discover new tools for learners? benefit: facts-only restricts ideas collected here to peer-reviewed-only "safe" information.. no need to sort through "new" ideas cost: some yet-to-be-reviewed ideas may not be considered, even though they may effectively be used to help kids "learn learning".. facts-only might throw cold water on new creative solutions
here a couple of ideas that, in one awful selfish opinion, could B.) benefit from exposure to public feedback using the OLPC wiki and A.) grow to be a lot of fun for kids to learn with:
olpcities describes an idea to provide a fun interface for kids to "homestead" on the OLPC network.. olpcities contributed several pages to specify the proposal, but the supplemental pages may be removed by 22.214.171.124
twext tried to better specify a wixi  proposal for a multilingual language learning interface on a wiki platform.. removed by 126.96.36.199.. a less biased approach is now attempted at talk:language methods
idea policy or whatever you wanna call it might be useful to define parameters to encourage public to contribute ideas on this wiki benefit: get more ideas kids might use (while spending less time weeding out inappropriate ideas or links) cost: a moment to clearly specify how you want this wiki used to collect free public ideas