Hi Ya'll,
Yesterday, I checked Wikipedia for a quick encyclopedic description of
Open Space Technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology
It seems that several edits were made in the last 6 months ago or so.
Up until mid 2019 I thought the wikipedia entry was good (if lacking in
some nuance out of necessity). After changes, the current entry
describes a very unusual Open Space. The Open Space it describes is not
an Open Space that I want to be a part of.
I recognise Wikipedia is not going to be perfect, but I feel like the
current entry is actually misleading, and I think it's harmful. I'd
like to do something about that.
I'm raising this to the OSLIST because I see that Harrison, Chris
Corrigan and others were actively making edits on the Wikipedia entry
and discussing it on this list between 2008 and 2015 at least. I don'
see anyone from this community working on this now (although I could
have missed some signs). However, I know there is history and
experience here dealing with the Wikipedia ecosystem.
If it's a good use of time and energy, I can help make edits to the
page, but my question is how would we approach this as member of the
community on OSLIST? What experience and history can members here bring
to bear.
(Btw this IS my first posting to OLIST, but I've been lurking around,
and meeting different parts of
this community online and face to face.)
That's the gist of my question. A few details/examples follow my
signature.
Cheers,
Steve
A few of the more outrageous details/examples (IMO)
There is text that appears to describe the sponsor introducing paid
speakers in the opening. (I don't think a circle is mentioned).
In fact, the article keeps referring to the "speakers" and the "speaking
schedule", which gives me the impression that Open Space is a talking
head conference that's simply easier to organise because you don't have
to make speaker schedules in advance.
This statement from the article seems antithetical to Open Space
Technology to me: "At the end of the best open space meetings, a
debriefing document is compiled summarizing what worked and what did not
work, so the process can go more smoothly next time ... Constant
improvement of meeting design is vital for attendees to feel taken care
of and to creating the perception of value from the meeting
proceedings."
The article claims to be paraphrasing Micheal Hermann's post here at
OSWorld
https://web.archive.org/web/20150518200725/http://openspaceworld.org/wp2/what-is/
by stating: "Several meaningful outcomes can and should be specifically
built into the process (safety, trust, courtesy)". I don't Michael says
anything of the sort. Don't think he would. But if he does say it, he
doesn't say it in the post referenced by the citation.
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
