Except that wikipedia is very far from being an example of radical transparency.
a) there is a mailing list with which the inner sanctorum of the wikipedia high level official decide things.
b) wikipedian administrators delete material taking it also away from the history. They can do it, and they do it.--Pietro 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- "a) there is a mailing list with which the inner sanctorum of the wikipedia high level official decide things." we have that here too... just thought I'd point that out. Symetrist 05:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it is comparable, however. Anyone may join our list without approval, and anyone may read the complete archives of the list. Additionally, we are in startup mode. As soon as we have a stable version of Metascore, we intend to move from the list and the wiki over to Metascore as our governance mechanism, and we intend complete transparency there as well. — Ed Pastore 15:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence Lessig has a piece about that dangers of [naive] radical transparency, namely that transparency without context can be worse than no transparency. In other words if there is not sufficient context for the information to be received and interpreted by an educated user, the user can draw conclusions which are actually opposed to the spirit of the intention OR alternatively, the intent can be so buried within a mountain of information as to make the intent inaccessible. Personally, I view his objections as something like Churchill's "Democracy is the worst from of government, except for everything else." Also, more eyeballs, and better tools for collaboration eventually must solve the issues raised, less transparency is not a good option. Marcos 05:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)