Guilds: A History Lesson

Mykola, you are really on a roll this week huh? It's been a long time since I have seen anyone compare the likes of guilds to news website accountability systems.

I have issues with the proposal however. While I encourage people to become friendly, to check in on each other and to form bonds of trust I don't think what we need are obligitory mini-corperations forming which simply feud as our media feuds today. I'm not sure it would go this far, but look at it in terms of we will ignore you, you will ignore us; where is the interactivity of differing minds that come together and achieve a result. If people only ever met others like themselves then we would never brauden our minds, never open to other possibilities and I don't think this is what we are trying to achieve here.

Sadly, while there is a division of associated press and citizen journalists there is also a seperation (for the most part) of what each group can write. Sadly most citizen journalists are forced into a corner where only ediorials are achievable (ironically something many of the memeber of the associated press would kill for) while the AP are going to continue to have an advantage in breaking news stories. While this continues we are being forced further and further into a single mindedness and need be forced no further.

Yet, oddly, I still like the idea however. I smoke, I know I shouldn't, I'd quite like to quit I think... If only I knew how when it came to it; it's not as easy as it appears. Keep up the good work Mykola; I am enjoying these debates.

Just commented on your other article and saw a note in the comments section that you were dropping this one down too. I have a small bit of offering for this discussion too. Check out Meme Streams for an example of what you're talking about. They presented a bit at PhreakNIC 9 about their ideas on this very topic. Anyway, they have a "social net" that is supposed to verify integrity. It doesn't look like it's been implemented yet, but their plan was to create groups just as you would suggest that would then provide ranking and social assurance in that net. So, if I recommend an article you've written, then you get a little bonus. If somebody has recommended me and I recommend your article, you get a bigger bonus. Then they apply it to a group so that users can catch news just from groups that they think are credible. That's all sort of true to making a group just with the social net, because if a specific pattern of recommendations occurs, then a group will start to form. If you've got an account, you can see the social net in respect to yourself which really defines the idea a little bit better.

It sounded a lot better at the convention than I can describe from memory, and it's sort of disappointing that they haven't actually implemented the functionality yet. I'd REALLY like to say (95% sure) that the video of the talk is Information Warfare for the People if not, it's surely available at phreaknic.wilpig.org.

This would make newsvine a user / group oriented website instead of a newssite. The latter is the one it wants to and should be. (Group) collaboration features would be really great, but I really don't see why there should be internal private newsgathering.

It shouldn't be about rating eachother and being friends and such, but about creating good news. In my opinion all features should only have improving reading, seeding and writing news as a goal. The rest will not only make it bloatware, but will have a negative impact on the quality of the news.

I think perhaps Guilds in terms of 'focused skills' would be much better--IE the Tech Guild, the Entertainment Guild (not necessarily with the 'guild' label, and all).

Much like class/trade guilds of yore (and of modern rpgs ;P), those who favor a certain category or excel at it could find helop and start from those guilds.

It would also probably make things a little more organised--just a suggestion though. One thing I think should be avoided is making it like a game--we don't want a "Gaia Online" here.

I'm not that knowledgeable in the background behind the guild idea but the main problem I could envisage is people going to certain guilds for their news.

For instance if a certain group had high ratings and 'the best' writers, or rather the writers that suit people they would mainly gather news and opinion from that group rather than a cross section approach. Similar to how people stick to reading one newspaper.

I just feel it would nurture a slanted and more closed approach. I like the idea, but putting trust in the users to still be balanced and interested in the news not the competition between guilds might not work.

In terms of the specialisation and 'focused skills' as parkbench puts it. I think the current format works just fine. Categories and keywords provide sufficient filtering and within sections the top seeds, top wire and featured writers allow interested parties to peruse efficiently.

I feel that if groups of people need to actively bond together to produce competition and motivation then it is not really the news and facts that is driving them to be part of the community. Plus it's not exactly hard to keep track of your friends and 'colleagues' or interested parties using the watch feature. So that communicating between yourselves for collaboration and critique purposes can be achieved.

This is a great idea... partitioning the community in an openly accessable way into intrest groups will aid the purpose of Newsvine. I had just suggested it to the Newsvine Team recently. Keep the good ideas flowing.

This is a great idea... partitioning the community in an openly accessible way into interest groups will aid the purpose of Newsvine. I had just suggested it to the Newsvine Team recently. Keep the good ideas flowing.

Just be honest and call it gangs.

I came here to discuss politics not play politics. Screw your gangs.

Damn power-tripping kids like you keep trashing forums and making intelligent debate impossible.

You bet I read it. You want to have your own gang, be the top dog, and start gang wars. Do it in your own kindergarten this place is for adults. We don't come here for social climbing or rooting for a gang like a bunch of soccer hooligans. We have enough of that crap in real life.

Your words Mykola, not mine: "I think it's a good way to breed a spirit of competition and debate - you want to get a high rank as an author and you want to bring prestige to your name not only so that you as an individual can be successful, but so that your guild (or vineyard or whatever you want to call it) can be successful."

WTF does "successful" have to do with anything? What happened to accurate, truthful, informed? You don't need guilds or gangs for that. All you need is right here: A board and google.

The very fact that you think a news board is comparable to a game shows how cueless you are.

The suggestion that partitioning the board somehow makes it more "accessible" is ludicrous. The words "partition" and "access" are antithetical. Partitoning just breaks it into bite-sized chunks that are easier to manipulate.

The suggestion that groupthink from anonymous people with unknown credentials and qualifications can somehow ensure "integrity" is equally laughable.

I trust you have some notion of what peer review is, such as that of Wikipedia. Even that is very imperfect but to think that Joe Blow's vote somehow makes a post "credible" is nonsense.

It's worse than nonsense it's an invitation for Pentagon-hired bloggers, young republicans, and ever single group of organized fanatics on the net to come here and slug it out to silence each other.

You whole games-and-business-oriented approach suggest complete insensitivity to freedom-of-expression and -information issues.

I personally agree with what parkbench added concerning this whole idea. That is, having topic-related "guilds" or groups. A whole bunch of people from a Technology "guild" (just using the word so that it fits with this whole discussion) could get together and talk of new, or use collective discussions to write articles. I've played MMORPGs, and have seen the benefits guilds bring. They organize people to a common goal, help to accomplish tasks in a more quick and thorough manner, also to give people something to look for. I completely knew where Mykola was coming from in this article, and I think that maybe agitpapa didn't. Of course I don't know this for a fact, I can only guess. Having a first-hand experience, I've seen large benefits from groups of people - in terms of guilds. Of course some tweaking to the specifics would have to be done, but the idea as a whole is really well thought-out and it was rightly spoken.

Sean

I know what you D&D guys do, it's not rocket science. What I'm saying is that you people may not be aware of the political implications of your guilds. Guilds were the medieval equivalent of cartels, which are both basically gangs aimed at excluding outsiders and furthering the interests of insiders.

The internet should be democratic and not a gangland where "guilds" or whatever you call them slug it out for each others' territory, rolling over anyone who is unaffiliated.

Calvin read the section on the "fall of the Guilds" in your own link. This is what I mean when I say you people aren't aware of the political implications. You have no idea of the negative, reactionary role of guilds and cartels (which are capitalist guilds) in history.

From what I've seen so far the vine is generally not terribly concerned with impartiality, freedom of expression, journalistic standards, and that sort of thing. So I'm not surprised that you favor turning it into a gangland.

Calvin don't duck. You arrogantly pointed me to a wikipedia article as if I didn't know what guilds were but you haven't even read it yourself.

Don't change the subject. I'm not talking semantics, I'm talking about the political implications of guilds, which history has shown to be pernicious.

If the implementation of guilds isn't up for debate then why this thread? Just so we all say "yes boss, anything you say boss?"

I think if you're going to peruse wikipedia it might be a good idea to look up "moderator."