# Liberty Movement > Grassroots Central > Foundational Knowledgebase Project >  Building a Foundational Knowledgebase: Strategy to characterize end goals

## Bryan

*Forward*
This message is the fifth in a series of eight related to the Mission Advancement Framework. For proper context be sure to read the previous messages found here:
Step 1: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ite-initiative!
Step 2: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ment-Framework
Step 3: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ent-Parameters
Step 4: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rk-Methodology

The complete outline of the steps is listed below, these will be released in an orderly fashion. Steps will be released one at a time to allow focusing on one point, to allow for community discussion and to establish points that may alter the start of the next step.

The objective of this message is to establish the parameters of the organizational structure and work methodology to be used in the development of the Foundational Knowledgebase, part of the previously mentioned prerequisite goal. These parameters are subject to debate and subsequent change to achieve the best path forward.

Mission Advancement Framework  Roadmap to Success
Step 1: Introduction of the Mission Advancement Framework, establishment of initial goals.
Step 2: Parameters of the Mission Advancement Framework. Part of the prerequisite goal. 
Step 3: Parameters of the content of the final work product of the Foundational Knowledgebase. Part of the prerequisite goal. 
Step 4: Parameters of the organizational structures used for developing the Foundational Knowledgebase. Part of the prerequisite goal. 
Step 5a: Setting a strategy to achieve Goal 1.
Step 5b: Foundational Knowledgebase Outline for Goal 1.
Step 6: Setting a strategy to achieve Goals 2.
Step 7: Setting a strategy to achieve Goal 3.
Step 8: Setting a strategy to achieve Goal 4.




*MAF Goal 1: Building a Foundational Knowledgebase of End Goals*

The objective of the first goal of the Foundational Knowledgebase is to characterizing the end goals of our Mission.


*Definition of End Goals*
The website has carefully developed a Mission that contains three end goals which have withstood the scrutiny of site members and still stands firm. 
The three end goals are as follows:
...Secure individual liberty
...Seek justice
...Promote honest and free markets
While these are always up for debate they will serve as a starting point for this effort.


*Content Outline - Scope & Organization*
To have a properly functional Foundational Knowledgebase an outline of the entire body of work needs to be developed, this will help assure a logical structure for content to fit within as it grows.

A first draft of an outline is being proposed within another thread.


*Section Development*
The Foundational Knowledgebase outline establishes various sections, each of these sections should be developed in a uniform method to assure consistent results. Each section in the outline covers a different topic, each of those topics may be able to be broken down into different sub-topics and those sub-topics may be able to be further broken down. In following this process all material can be covered if it is within the scope of the outline.

The following workflow is proposed to develop each section:
 Define a list of topics.
 For each topic, determine if that topic can be further split into additional sub-topics.

If a topic cannot be subdivided:
 Describe and characterization the topic.
 Describe disagreements and controversy on the topic.
 Apply all previously developed principles to the topic to develop new principles.
 Develop a list of viewpoints/solutions on how the topic is managed within society.
 As applicable, for each viewpoint identify:
 Adherence to principles.
 Violations of principles and resulting problems.
 Cause and effect associated with the viewpoint/solution.

*Linguistics Development*
Linguistics can be developed in both a pro-active and reactive means, in this way the Linguistics Team can start to develop critical parts of a dictionary immediately but they can also add structure based on the review of development content to clarify ambiguity.


*Section Content*
Each section shall have the following information and features presented:
 Primary content.
 Date of last revision.
 Name of authors and contributors.
 The view count of the page.[*]
 An ability to up vote a section, if a registered user.[*]
 The total up vote count.[*]
 An ability to donate to the section with a micro-payment system, third-party payment systems (such as PayPal, Apple Pay, etc) and/or with cryptocurrencies (such as bitcoin). [Credit to site member Xerographica for this idea].[*]
 The amount of donations received by the section.[*]
 Navigational hyperlinks to allow for easy navigation from subject to subject and to navigate up and down subject matter details.

[*] = designates a road-map features that may not be immediately available due to technology limitations.

Within the primary content, all important words that have a defined meaning within the Linguistics Dictionary must be linked to the defined linguistics information. 


*Content Management System*
There are two solution classes to satisfy the needs of a CMS system: use a commercially available solution or build a new one. Given the time and expense needed for custom development a predeveloped system needs to be used from the start. As a baseline for comparisons I suggest Mediawiki, which is what is used for Wikipedia, more information on the platform can be found here: 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki


*Data viewpoints of the Foundational Knowledgebase*
The Foundational Knowledgebase shall allow for information to be ordered in many different viewpoints to allow for an optimal information retrieval:
 Hierarchical outline format.
 Ordered by alphabetical list of important keywords.[*]
 Ordered by page views.[*]
 Ordered by up votes.[*]
 Ordered by alphabetical list of Authors.[*]
 Ordered by popularity of Author by total up votes.[*]
 Ordered by popularity of Author by total donation.[*] [Credit to site member Xerographica for this idea].[*]
 Ordered by section donation amount. [Credit to site member Xerographica for this idea].[*]
 Ordered by recent changes / new material[*]
Information should also be able to be searched, sorted and filtered in all technical manners possible.

[*] = designates a road-map features that may not be immediately available due to technology limitations.

----------


## Xerographica

> There are two solution classes to satisfy the needs of a CMS system: use a commercially available solution or build a new one. Given the time and expense needed for custom development a predeveloped system needs to be used from the start. As a baseline for comparisons I suggest Mediawiki, which is what is used for Wikipedia, more information on the platform can be found here: 
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki


I've had quite a bit of experience editing Wikipedia.   I've also had quite a bit of experience participating on forums.  

My vote is definitely for phpBB.  It's completely free and all of us already know how to use a forum.  Plus, phpBB forums are relatively easy to completely customize.  You just have to know PHP!  If anybody is interested in learning PHP then you're in luck because so are lots of other people.  The internet is packed with tutorials and videos and you name it.  

Oh, I just clicked the MediaWiki link and discovered that it's also open-source and written in PHP.  I still vote for phpBB though.  

With forums... other members can _not_ edit your OP.  Which is all kinds of wonderful.  They can complain about it... talk $#@! about it... hate on it for days... but they can't edit it.  

On Wikipedia though... other members can edit your "OP".  That's kind of the whole point.  Which is great if the other editors have actually studied the topic that they are editing.  Unfortunately, this is rarely the case.  As a result... there are a ton of really crappy entries on Wikipedia.  They aren't crappy because not enough people have worked on them... they are crappy because too many of the wrong people have worked on them.  

With a forum though... I can create a thread where I define Libertarianism.  Anybody can reply to it and argue that my definition is too narrow.  If I agree... then I could edit my OP accordingly.  If I disagree... then they are more than welcome to create their own thread with their preferred definition of Libertarianism.  

We might end up with a thousand threads that each define libertarianism differently.  Each thread is essentially a product.  How do we determine whose product is best?  Consumer choice!  Members would spend their pennies on their preferred products.  If a visitor to the website wanted to find the most valuable product... then they could conduct a search for "Libertarianism" and sort the results by their value.  

I suppose we could modify the MediaWiki code so that whoever created an entry could decide who else gets to edit it.  Then again... we could certainly do the same thing with phpBB.  

So MediaWiki wouldn't be a deal breaker for me as long as we have the option to decide who gets to edit our entries.  Of course this would also entail the existence of duplicate entries.  

Collaboration/cooperation is definitely good... but hopefully I shouldn't have to convince anybody of the value of competition!  Just like I hopefully shouldn't have to convince anybody of the value of incentives!  Markets work for a reason.  And if you don't know how and why markets work... then I really wouldn't want you editing any of my entries.   For sure I'd want you reading them!  But I definitely wouldn't want you to have the ability to edit them.

----------


## Bryan

The wiki platform allows for pages to be locked down, I am not completely familiar with the entire permissions model but from what I’ve seen it should be sufficient. If we use the wiki platform it will all be locked down. As noted previously, there will be two primary types of pages, “core” and “value-add”. The value-add pages are more open ended and will allow for a single author, once published they will not be functionally updated except but the author. The core pages can have multiple authors but publication of them will be controlled. It would be a complete disaster to have these be open ended. 

Thanks!

----------


## Xerographica

Bryan, I'm having trouble seeing it.  Perhaps it would help if we worked with an example.

Here's a Wikipedia entry that I created... The Forced-Rider Problem.  It's a crappy article because, as I mentioned elsewhere, I was outnumbered and opposed by idiots.  

I'm pretty sure that the forced-rider problem is an important/relevant concept.   Therefore... I would want to create it on our wiki platform.  

Would it be considered a "core" or "value-add" page?  Who gets to decide which one it is?

Let's say that Bob makes some edits to the page that I created for the forced-rider problem.  I'm not happy with Bob's edits so I ask him to cite his sources.  He refuses to do so and continues to make stupid edits to the page that I created.  Can I prevent him from making further edits to the page?  

Would I be able to block Bob from that page because I'm the one who created it?  Would I have to ask an administrator to block Bob from that page?  What happens if the administrator is also an idiot?  

How would administrators be chosen?  By vote?  By committee?  

Why do you think I was outnumbered on Wikipedia?  In other words... how come there weren't more editors on Wikipedia who were pro-liberty?  

A. The free-rider problem
B. It's difficult to edit Wikipedia pages
C. Lack of expertise
D. Lack of time
E. Other (please explain)

----------


## Bryan

> Bryan, I'm having trouble seeing it.  Perhaps it would help if we worked with an example.
> 
> Here's a Wikipedia entry that I created... The Forced-Rider Problem.  It's a crappy article because, as I mentioned elsewhere, I was outnumbered and opposed by idiots.  
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the forced-rider problem is an important/relevant concept.   Therefore... I would want to create it on our wiki platform.  
> 
> Would it be considered a "core" or "value-add" page?  Who gets to decide which one it is?


Every topic within the outline (and the sub-topics) will have a core page. It will work to derive the easy to arrive at logical principles. These will be multi-author. The value-add pages will be linked off of a core page, these pages can it can go into detail, explain dynamics of multiple moving parts better, promote a set of conventions and more. These can be locked-down by a single author. These can be more of what you'd consider a typical political piece.




> Let's say that Bob makes some edits to the page that I created for the forced-rider problem.  I'm not happy with Bob's edits so I ask him to cite his sources.  He refuses to do so and continues to make stupid edits to the page that I created.  Can I prevent him from making further edits to the page?  
> 
> Would I be able to block Bob from that page because I'm the one who created it?  Would I have to ask an administrator to block Bob from that page?  What happens if the administrator is also an idiot?  
> 
> How would administrators be chosen?  By vote?  By committee?


Ultimately there are three way things can be handled from the highest level:
- Be wide open for anyone to decide, final result is by mob rule.
- Have a top authority that decides what they want, and does so as they wish.
- Have a top authority that uses a set of "laws" to govern the final solution.

We're going with the last option. It's not perfect, nothing will be, but it's the best option. People will either see the top authority is being a good steward of their role or not, if they don't think it's going well they shouldn't take part.

Per prior posts, there ultimately can be a 7 person Board that acts as the top authority but for now I am taking responsibility for the board since the project is just in its infancy. I intend to moderate the content with the same spirit as we've run this site for the last 8+ years, but with a focus on a quality final product.

For starters only I will have write authority to the site, which is actually now installed and running.  If someone provides a single author value-add piece I would want to give them write access to that page. Contributors can earn global write access, but they will have to be use the guidelines and workflow process.

In looking at things more, I think pages will go through a life-cycle of maturity. We'll want to start pages off with lower standards / simply workflow to get a wide depth of content and then continue to refine the pages as time allows. That way we'll have say, 500 good pages vs. 10 excellent ones.






> Why do you think I was outnumbered on Wikipedia?  In other words... how come there weren't more editors on Wikipedia who were pro-liberty?  
> 
> A. The free-rider problem
> B. It's difficult to edit Wikipedia pages
> C. Lack of expertise
> D. Lack of time
> E. Other (please explain)


The general idea for page development that I want to separate out effort of developing pages into different tasks and roles. With Wikipedia in some ways it's one person does it all (not always the case) but...

Here's what I mean. To generate content ideas, scope, accuracy, and more, we can rely upon the site community to provide in their viewpoint in an easy to contribute way, this is exactly what I was doing here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...le-definitions
This is the crux of the intellectual bases for the content.

The second role is to take all of that and make a content section, a big task but not nearly so big anymore. Some other peoples words can be used directly to make this easier (and they get credit).

The next role is to review and adjust for guidelines and structure. So an author doesn't have to know all the rules.

The next role is a Copy Editor, so the author doesn't have to write perfect prose.

I like this model better than someone having to know everything, write everything, be everything, etc.


The free-rider problem would be solved by have three (or more pages). The first page would explain the theory behind the free-rider problem (the core page), the second would be your value-add page that explains it as you see it and the third would be Bob's value-add page. Neither page could contain non-sense, illogical thought (1 + 1 = 3), or otherwise not follow the content guidelines. If the content of a value-add page was very simple it and provided important logical constructs then it would be redone into a core page.

----------


## Xerographica

> The general idea for page development that I want to separate out effort of developing pages into different tasks and roles. With Wikipedia in some ways it's one person does it all (not always the case) but...


Two years ago I created an entry on Wikipedia for the extremely important economic concept of "Concentrated Benefits and Dispersed Costs".  An idiot editor nominated the entry for deletion.  So we took a vote.  Here were the results...

2 keep
2 delete
1 redirect

An idiot admin decided that the entry should be redirected to a very tangentially related topic (tragedy of the commons).  It would only have taken one more vote to guarantee that the entry was kept.  We're talking about a vote here.  We aren't talking about one person researching and writing an entire entry.  We're talking about voting.  In this case, only two pro-liberty individuals showed up to vote.  

I know members of this forum participant on forums.  I also know that barely any, if any, members of this forum regularly participate on Wikipedia.   Wikipedia _still_ does not have an entry for "Concentrated Benefits and Dispersed Costs".  

Maybe you're correct though.  Maybe there were only two pro-liberty participants on Wikipedia at that time because "one person does it all".   Maybe your system will facilitate/encourage far more participation than Wikipedia's system.  This would essentially mean that you've created a better Wikipedia.  

Honestly I'm skeptical though.  It doesn't sound like your system is a significant improvement on Wikipedia's system.  But I could certainly be wrong!  For the sake of the liberty movement I sure hope that I am proved entirely wrong!  

If it turns out that I am proved right... then hopefully you won't be discouraged from trying to achieve the same goal.  It's a really worthy goal.  If Plan A doesn't work out then there's a very easy Plan B.  As I've tried to explain, a forum with a few simple modifications is infinitely better than Wikipedia is.  In other words... with a few simple modifications a forum could be turned into a market.  And markets are infinitely better than the alternatives at supplying a wide variety of really great products.

----------


## Bryan

Thanks. It's always good to be skeptical. Plan A is Plan A because it presents the best pat forward at this time, Plan A however is being improved upon with good input and skepticism.  So we'll keep evaluating as things go forward and looking for better ways.

----------


## staerker

> Maybe you're correct though.  Maybe there were only two pro-liberty participants on Wikipedia at that time because "one person does it all".   Maybe your system will facilitate/encourage far more participation than Wikipedia's system.  This would essentially mean that you've created a better Wikipedia.  
> 
> Honestly I'm skeptical though.  It doesn't sound like your system is a significant improvement on Wikipedia's system.  But I could certainly be wrong!  For the sake of the liberty movement I sure hope that I am proved entirely wrong!


This site can be the breeding grounds of wiki articles, where articles are thoroughly tuned and vetted. If the system doesn't drive enough traffic, the mission can be changed to outsourcing, with a concerted effort to embed the info into Wikipedia (have a live feed of high priority articles that are disputed/to be voted on, etc.)

----------


## Xerographica

> This site can be the breeding grounds of wiki articles, where articles are thoroughly tuned and vetted.


Prior to Bryan's project... I had not seen _any_ members of this forum demonstrate _any_ interest in collaborating on _any_ Wikipedia articles....

Other People's Money (Friedman), Dollar Voting (Mises), Partial Knowledge (Hayek)

Can You Disprove the Free-rider Problem?

Right now I'm banned from Wikipedia because members of this forum had better things to do than lend a hand.  Maybe this is because they had placed all their bets on Ron Paul and then Rand Paul?  And now that those bets didn't pan out.... members of this forum are ready to lend a hand in educating the general public?    Ha.  I'll believe it when I see it!  

Then again.... I'm pretty much the worst at rallying people to any cause!  Despite my best efforts tax choice still has less than 100 likes on facebook.  So I'm sure that Bryan will do a better job than I have at rallying the troops.  




> If the system doesn't drive enough traffic, the mission can be changed to outsourcing, with a concerted effort to embed the info into Wikipedia (have a live feed of high priority articles that are disputed/to be voted on, etc.)


How do you propose to determine an article's priority?

----------

