Revision history for SentencesAboutWritingOnAWiki


Revision [17633]

Last edited on 2017-02-19 11:33:07 by TonyLien
Additions:
**A Comment on "The Darker Side"**


Revision [17622]

Edited on 2017-02-19 09:39:34 by TonyLien
Additions:
The statement in the Dark Side article: "one study found mistakes in nine out of ten Wikipedia medical entries". I had to search for this 'source' myself, and eventually found it (after going through this not-quite-reputable site): [[http://www.naturalnews.com/045522_Wikipedia_medical_information_propaganda.html | Most Medical Information On Wikipedia is False ]]. This site seems a little kooky (being that there are weird alt-right advertisements/news feeds all over the site [a few examples: there is a banner atop of the page that links to "The Rational Argument Against the Normalization of Transgenderism", and in the 'news' feed there is an article that claims 'Ginger tea shown to naturally kill cancer']. It seems that this site has its own agenda (selling alternative 'medicinal' products and attempting to fully discredit pharmaceutical companies). But, this is beside the point. The writers for this site were kind enough to list their sources--one of them being the study I was looking for: [[http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2094721&resultClick=1 | Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions ]]. What this article suggests is that these Wikipedia pages are controlled by administrators who are paid by secret clients (who have monetary stakes in the [unbelievably] expensive treatments for these medical conditions) to keep certain information off of the site. From what I can tell, the study seems reputable. And, it's not at all surprising. Corruption is a reality we live with everyday. Money talks.
Deletions:
The statement in the Dark Side article: "one study found mistakes in nine out of ten Wikipedia medical entries". I had to search for this 'source' myself, and eventually found it (after going through this not-quite-reputable site): [[http://www.naturalnews.com/045522_Wikipedia_medical_information_propaganda.html | Most Medical Information On Wikipedia is False ]]. This site seems a little kooky (being that there is weird alt-right advertisements/news feeds all over the site [a few examples: there is a banner atop of the page that links to "The Rational Argument Against the Normalization of Transgenderism", and in the 'news' feed there is an article that claims 'Ginger tea shown to naturally kill cancer']. It seems that this site has its own agenda (selling alternative 'medicinal' products and attempting to fully discredit pharmaceutical companies). But, this is beside the point. The writers for this site were kind enough to list their sources--one of them being the study I was looking for: [[http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2094721&resultClick=1 | Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions ]]. What this article suggests is that these Wikipedia pages are controlled by administrators who are paid by secret clients (who have monetary stakes in the [unbelievably] expensive treatments for these medical conditions) to keep certain information off of the site. From what I can tell, the study seems reputable. And, it's not at all surprising. Corruption is a reality we live with everyday. Money talks.


Revision [17617]

Edited on 2017-02-19 09:21:28 by TonyLien
Additions:
In regards to AndyAllison's post above: I don't think the same rules apply to Wikipedia as they do to other wikis; it's definitely not okay to post whatever you feel like posting. If that was the case, then Wikipedia would never have become what it is today. It's an encyclopedic site--meaning opinions have absolutely no place there. This can get very sticky--being that some broad topics (like religion or politics) depend on both opinion and fact in order to thrive (example: "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is an unverifiable opinion [which a large portion of people believe], whereas "The Crusades were a series of religious wars that began in 1096" is a verifiable fact). Idealistically, Wikipedia is intended to be as reputable as it can possibly be (while also staying true to its roots as an editable wiki). However, it seems that there is (not surprisingly) an ongoing battle between 'good' and 'bad' administrators (the 'bad' administrators being people who are paid [large sums, I assume] to purposely suppress information that 'harms' their client). An example of this is mentioned in the Dark Side article, but not backed up by a credible source:
The statement in the Dark Side article: "one study found mistakes in nine out of ten Wikipedia medical entries". I had to search for this 'source' myself, and eventually found it (after going through this not-quite-reputable site): [[http://www.naturalnews.com/045522_Wikipedia_medical_information_propaganda.html | Most Medical Information On Wikipedia is False ]]. This site seems a little kooky (being that there is weird alt-right advertisements/news feeds all over the site [a few examples: there is a banner atop of the page that links to "The Rational Argument Against the Normalization of Transgenderism", and in the 'news' feed there is an article that claims 'Ginger tea shown to naturally kill cancer']. It seems that this site has its own agenda (selling alternative 'medicinal' products and attempting to fully discredit pharmaceutical companies). But, this is beside the point. The writers for this site were kind enough to list their sources--one of them being the study I was looking for: [[http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2094721&resultClick=1 | Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions ]]. What this article suggests is that these Wikipedia pages are controlled by administrators who are paid by secret clients (who have monetary stakes in the [unbelievably] expensive treatments for these medical conditions) to keep certain information off of the site. From what I can tell, the study seems reputable. And, it's not at all surprising. Corruption is a reality we live with everyday. Money talks.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that Wikipedia is not the best example to use when asking "What happened to freedom of speech?". I'm assuming that most wikis out there are not ran by administrators who are paid large sums of money by shady conglomerates to control what is and what isn't said. TonyLien.


Revision [17611]

Edited on 2017-02-17 07:55:56 by AndyAllison
Additions:
===The Darker Side===
There is a darker side to Wikipedia. According to [[https://web.archive.org/web/20160804110601/http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia Dark Side of Wikipedia]]The belief that everything you read is true, honest, and accurate. Not only that, but that there is a sense of security to anyone that posts. The belief that anyone can post anything they want is false in and of itself. A couple people talk about their ""bad encounters"" from Wikipedia and how they were **BANNED** from speaking their mind. So who's to say what's allowed and what isn't? What happened to freedom of speech? AndyAllison


Revision [17538]

Edited on 2017-02-14 08:57:21 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
- [[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/n/nmw/5680986.0001.001/1:2/--hyperlinked-society-questioning-connections-in-the-digital?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1#2.3 | Hyperlink as organizing principle ]]
- [[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/n/nmw/5680986.0001.001/1:1/--hyperlinked-society-questioning-connections-in-the-digital?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1 | Introduction]]
Deletions:
- http://quod.lib.umich.edu/n/nmw/5680986.0001.001/1:2/--hyperlinked-society-questioning-connections-in-the-digital?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1#2.3
- http://quod.lib.umich.edu/n/nmw/5680986.0001.001/1:1/--hyperlinked-society-questioning-connections-in-the-digital?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1


Revision [17537]

Edited on 2017-02-14 08:55:25 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
See also
- http://quod.lib.umich.edu/n/nmw/5680986.0001.001/1:2/--hyperlinked-society-questioning-connections-in-the-digital?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1#2.3
- http://quod.lib.umich.edu/n/nmw/5680986.0001.001/1:1/--hyperlinked-society-questioning-connections-in-the-digital?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1


Revision [17528]

Edited on 2017-02-14 06:24:17 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Expect to spend 6 - 8 hours reading and writing on this activity over the week. It's not presented as a top o' the head notebook exercise. Time is rewarding.
Deletions:
Expect to spend 6 - 8 hours on this activity over the week. It's not presented as a top o' the head notebook exercise. Time is rewarding.


Revision [17527]

Edited on 2017-02-14 06:23:21 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Updated 14 Feb 2017
Deletions:
Update 16 Feb 2016


Revision [17526]

Edited on 2017-02-14 06:20:11 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
==== Working Solo ====
Wikis don't have to be collaborative or tribal. A single writer may use a wiki as a storehouse of knowledge, much the way that early scientists and current writers use their notebooks and commonplace books.
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of Vanavar Bush's idea of TheMemex. We can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo of the Online Networking System. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. Background: [[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ "As we may think"]] by Vanavar Bush. [[http://www.dougengelbart.org Doug Engelbart Institute]], with links to demos of NLS. There might be things to consider if we consider TheWikiAsAMemex, WikiAsNoteBook, or WikiAsCommonplaceBook. This fits in with the idea of WikiAsPatternBook, and EvolvingPages. Along with the wiki as a place to take notes would come PagePatterns useful to taking notes and ideas like DialecticMode, DialogicNotebook.
This brings up the idea of CuratingInformation, a new area of thinking drawn from the DigitalHumanities. We might think of the WikiWriterAsACurator. Or the WikiAsCabinetOfCuriosity - those rooms and boxes that initiated museums. Vanavar Bush saw the writer-researcher as a reader who create PathsThroughInformation to create knowledge.
Whether a solo or as a tribal construction, WikisNeedGardening. A page will grow to an unreadable sprawl until a WikiGardener comes by and ReFactors the page to remove the weeds to let the good stuff be developed further. They use PagePatterns. They SynthesizeThreads. They add headings and move material that might spur discussion further BelowTheDoubleLine. WikisPersist. The idea in gardening is to clear the space to let participants grow more ideas.
==== And then ... ====
Deletions:
==== Writing Solo ====
Wikis don't have to be collaborative or tribal. A single writer may bring to
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of Vanavar Bush's idea of TheMemex. We can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo of the Online Networking System. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. Background: [[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ "As we may think"]] by Vanavar Bush. [[http://www.dougengelbart.org Doug Engelbart Institute]], with links to demos of NLS. There might be things to consider if we consider WikiAsNoteBook, or WikiAsCommonplaceBook. This fits in with the idea of WikiAsPatternBook, and EvolvingPages. Along with the wiki as a place to take notes would come PagePatterns useful to taking notes and ideas like DialecticMode, DialogicNotebook.
This brings up the idea of CuratingInformation, a new area of thinking drawn from the DigitalHumanities. We might think of the WikiWriterAsACurator. Or the WikiAsCabinetOfCuriosity - those rooms and boxes that initiated museums. Vanavar Bush placed a lot of emphasis on PathsThrough
WikisNeedGardening. A page will grow to an unreadable sprawl until a WikiGardener comes by and ReFactors the page to remove the weeds to let the good stuff be developed further. They use PagePatterns. They SynthesizeThreads. They add headings and move material that might spur discussion further BelowTheDoubleLine. WikisPersist. The idea in gardening is to clear the space to let participants grow more ideas.


Revision [17525]

Edited on 2017-02-14 06:14:08 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
==== The Places and Uses of Wikis ====
Some argue for WikiAsACulture. This seems to have started with the publication of TheWikiWay, by WardCunningham, in 2001. It seems that contributing to a wiki relies on a sort of TribalAttitude towards the project. GettingTheWikiAttitude is part of the tribal idea.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and my posts were changed." "I don't like to edit someone else's words because I might change the meaning." OwnershipOfWordsOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. WikiWriters have devised ways of revising wiki pages while maintaining the ideas that help develop the page. ThreadMode and DocumentMode came about in part for this reason, as did the convention of SigningYourWork. Another angle argues that IdeasAreCommonProperty.
==== Writing Solo ====
Wikis don't have to be collaborative or tribal. A single writer may bring to
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of Vanavar Bush's idea of TheMemex. We can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo of the Online Networking System. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. Background: [[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ "As we may think"]] by Vanavar Bush. [[http://www.dougengelbart.org Doug Engelbart Institute]], with links to demos of NLS. There might be things to consider if we consider WikiAsNoteBook, or WikiAsCommonplaceBook. This fits in with the idea of WikiAsPatternBook, and EvolvingPages. Along with the wiki as a place to take notes would come PagePatterns useful to taking notes and ideas like DialecticMode, DialogicNotebook.
We might get milage out of considering ontologies and taxonomies. After all, WikisAreSemantic. As wiki writers collect ideas, thoughts, notes, drafts on a wiki the need arises to define categories that draw pages together. Commonplace book takers call them [[Heads]]. Commonplace book takers devised ways of keeping indexes based on heads. WikiIndexing starts to look interesting.
This brings up the idea of CuratingInformation, a new area of thinking drawn from the DigitalHumanities. We might think of the WikiWriterAsACurator. Or the WikiAsCabinetOfCuriosity - those rooms and boxes that initiated museums. Vanavar Bush placed a lot of emphasis on PathsThrough
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateAWiki. Typical commercial website use navigation menus and sidebars that show a user where the material is. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationalProblems. But users can create and share their own navigational work by CreatingIndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box to navigate. To AvoidLinkSpaghetti, writers curate and annotate links to other sites, and place links to other pages on the wiki is semantically salient places. A mess is inevitable. So is cleaning up.
Deletions:
==== Writing On a Wiki ====
Some argue for WikiAsACulture. This seems to have started with the publication of TheWikiWay, by WardCunningham, in 2001. It seems that contributing to a wiki relies on a sort of TribalAttitude towards the project. GettingTheWikiAttitude is part of the tribal idea.
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of the memex, and we can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo of the Online Networking System. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. Background: [[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ "As we may think"]] by Vanavar Bush. [[http://www.dougengelbart.org Doug Engelbart Institute]], with links to demos of NLS. There might be things to consider if we see TheWikiAsAMemex. (TheMemex page might be one to revise.)
& under revision: [Mark Bernstein's work with gardens.]
We might get even more milage out of ontologies and taxonomies. This is to suggest that WikisAreSemantic.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateAWiki. Typical commercial website use navigation menus and sidebars that show a user where the material is. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationalProblems. But users can create and share their own navigational work by CreatingIndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box to navigate. To AvoidLinkSpegetti, writers curate and annotate links to other sites, and place links to other pages on the wiki is semantically salient places. A mess is inevitable. So is cleaning up.
This brings up the idea of CuratingInformation, a new area of thinking drawn from the DigitalHumanities. We might think of the WikiWriterAsACurator.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and my posts were changed." "I don't like to edit someone else's words because I might change the meaning." OwnershipOfWordsOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. WikiWriters have devised ways of revising wiki pages while maintaining the ideas that help develop the page. ThreadMode and DocumentMode came about in part for this reason, as did the convention of SigningYourWork.
Another angle argues that IdeasAreCommonProperty. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work: where groups go to do collaborative work.


Additions:
You can also edit the notes on //this// page. If you want to add an option for a way of understanding, then edit the notes by adding a sentence making your statement, and write that up.
Deletions:
You can also edit the notes on //this// page. If you want to add an option for a way of understanding, them edit the notes by adding a sentence making your statement, and write that up.


Additions:
A better way of thinking about those who read and write the wiki are to think of them as made up of [[Publics]], and probably [[CounterPublics]] "Publics and Counterpublics," an [[http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/public_culture/v014/14.1warner.html essay]] by Michael Warner , is a good place to start thinking about [[PublicsAndCounterPublics]].
Deletions:
A better way of thinking about those who read and write the wiki are to think of them as made up of [[Publics]], and probably [[CounterPublics]] "Publics and Counterpublics," an article by Michael Warner , is a good place to start thinking about [[PublicsAndCounterPublics]].


Additions:
A better way of thinking about those who read and write the wiki are to think of them as made up of [[Publics]], and probably [[CounterPublics]] "Publics and Counterpublics," an article by Michael Warner , is a good place to start thinking about [[PublicsAndCounterPublics]].
Deletions:
A better way of thinking about those who read and write the wiki are to think of them as made up of [[Publics]], and probably [[CounterPublics]] "Publics and Counterpublics," an article by Michael Warner , is a good place to start thinking about [[PublicsAndCounterPublics]]. [[https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/public_culture/v014/14.1warner.html abstract.]] PDF available via BSU library.


Additions:
Considering Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that openly collaborative writing will result in StealingIdeas, they ask WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer to TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and TheClueTrainManifesto, and the more recent MoreClues. But, when they are working, we can see that wikis can become CommonsWithoutTragedy.
Deletions:
Considering Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that openly collaborative writing will result in StealingIdeas, they ask WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and TheClueTrainManifesto, and the more recent MoreClues. But, when they are working, we can see that wikis can become CommonsWithoutTragedy.


Revision [16251]

Edited on 2016-02-16 10:17:26 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Considering Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that openly collaborative writing will result in StealingIdeas, they ask WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and TheClueTrainManifesto, and the more recent MoreClues. But, when they are working, we can see that wikis can become CommonsWithoutTragedy.
Another angle argues that IdeasAreCommonProperty. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work: where groups go to do collaborative work.
Deletions:
Considering Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that openly collaborative writing will result in StealingIdeas, they ask WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and TheClueTrainManifesto, and the more recent MoreClues.
Another angle argues that IdeasAreCommonProperty. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work: where groups go to do collaborative work. There's always more to say about TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and how wikis operate as NonTragicCommons.


Revision [16250]

Edited on 2016-02-16 10:14:52 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Another angle argues that IdeasAreCommonProperty. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work: where groups go to do collaborative work. There's always more to say about TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and how wikis operate as NonTragicCommons.
Deletions:
Another angle argues that IdeasAreCommonProperty. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work: where groups go to do collaborative work.


Revision [16249]

Edited on 2016-02-16 10:12:59 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
& under revision: [Mark Bernstein's work with gardens.]
Deletions:
Also [Mark Bernstein's work with gardens.]


Revision [16248]

Edited on 2016-02-16 10:11:59 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Expect to spend 6 - 8 hours on this activity over the week. It's not presented as a top o' the head notebook exercise. Time is rewarding.


Revision [16246]

Edited on 2016-02-16 10:09:11 by MorganAdmin

No Differences

Revision [16245]

Edited on 2016-02-16 10:08:56 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Select **at least three of the links**, do some research (web, other), and write or develop or refactor a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words - but it can be as long as you like. It doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes that others can develop further. But also think concise and dense.
It can be your first thoughts on the idea - thoughts that you or someone else will return to and develop further. Or it can be something more developed and detailed. You can start from scratch, or build on pages that already exist. You may choose to fill in gaps or add more to what's already here.
Deletions:
Select **at least three of the links**, do some research (web, other), and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words - but it can be as long as you like. It doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes that others can develop further.
It can be your first thoughts on the idea - thoughts that you or someone else will return to and develop further. Or it can be something more developed and detailed. You can start from scratch, or build on pages that already exist. You may choose to fill in gaps or add more to what's already here.


Revision [16239]

Edited on 2016-02-16 07:56:05 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Adding an image to the page is good. Use the Image icon in the toolbar to insert the code, and then tweak it.


Revision [16237]

Edited on 2016-02-16 07:38:17 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
WikiTheWriting involves IncorporatingTheIdeasOfOthers in various ways: BuildingOnTheIdeaOfOthers, ModifyingTheIdeasOfOthers, EditingTheIdeasOfOthers. This leads to some consideration of TheRoleOfTheEditor on a wiki. It also shapes the way we write pages on the wiki. We write with the knowledge that OthersWillContribute. We write to EncourageOthersToContribute.
Debates go on with discussion concerning the role of IndividualCreativityOnTheWiki. It's not as simple as WikisDestroyIndividualCreativity. That's TechnoDeterminism, which has been roundly critiqued as inadequate. Wikis create and engage a group of readers and writers which form TheCommunity. Creativity doesn't reside just in new ideas. CreativityIsSynthesis.
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of the memex, and we can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo of the Online Networking System. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. Background: [[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ "As we may think"]] by Vanavar Bush. [[http://www.dougengelbart.org Doug Engelbart Institute]], with links to demos of NLS. There might be things to consider if we see TheWikiAsAMemex. (TheMemex page might be one to revise.)
Recent work with wikis has started to re-focus on what goes on in the practice of developing collaborative knowledge as distributed rather than collective. Mike Caulfield. Background [[http://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-technopastoral/ The Garden and the Stream: A Technopastoral]], Caulfield.
Also [Mark Bernstein's work with gardens.]
We might get even more milage out of ontologies and taxonomies. This is to suggest that WikisAreSemantic.
A common argument I hear about wikis is WikisAreUgly. Wikis are designed to make reading while editing as easy a possible. They use a small set of PageAffordances and use them as AffordancesForSemanticDesign, keep the page design minimal. Wikis also tend to constrain the use of images. (One image = good. 2 images = sloppy. Start another page.) These features make the wiki easier to navigate and edit than using the standard markup language of HTML. They also make it possible to export wiki pages by using plain text files that are minimally marked up. In these ways, wikis strive for WriteOnceReadMany.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateAWiki. Typical commercial website use navigation menus and sidebars that show a user where the material is. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationalProblems. But users can create and share their own navigational work by CreatingIndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box to navigate. To AvoidLinkSpegetti, writers curate and annotate links to other sites, and place links to other pages on the wiki is semantically salient places. A mess is inevitable. So is cleaning up.
This brings up the idea of CuratingInformation, a new area of thinking drawn from the DigitalHumanities. We might think of the WikiWriterAsACurator.
Deletions:
WikiTheWriting involves IncorporatingTheIdeasOfOthers in various ways. So, this leads to some consideration of TheRoleOfTheEditor on a wiki. It also shapes the way we write pages on the wiki. We write with the knowledge that OthersWillContribute.
Debates go on with discussion concerning the role of IndividualCreativity on a wiki. It's not as simple as WikisDestroyIndividualCreativity. That's TechnoDeterminism, which has been roundly critiqued as inadequate. Wikis create and engage a group of readers and writers which form TheCommunity.
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of the memex, and we can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo of the Online Networking System. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. Background: [[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ "As we may think"]] by Vanavar Bush. [[http://www.dougengelbart.org Doug Engelbart Institute]], with links to demos of NLS. TheWikiAndTheMemex
More recent work with wikis has started to focus on [Mike's work with gardens] and [Mark Bernstein's work with gardens.] We might get even more milage out of ontologies and taxonomies. This is to suggest that WikisAreSemantic.
A common argument I hear about wikis is WikisAreUgly. Wikis are designed to make reading while editing as easy a possible. They use a small set of PageAffordances, keep the page design minimal, and constrain the use of images. These features make the wiki easier to navigate and edit than using the standard markup language of HTML. They also make it possible to export wiki pages by using plain text files that are minimally marked up. In these ways, wikis strive for WriteOnceReadMany.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateAWiki. Typical commercial website use navigation menus and sidebars that show a user where the material is. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationalProblems. But users can create and share their own navigational work by CreatingIndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can also use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box to navigate.
This brings up the idea of CuratingInformation, a new area of thinking drawn from the DigitalHumanities. We might think of the WikiWriter as TheCurator.


Revision [16234]

Edited on 2016-02-16 07:09:27 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of the memex, and we can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo of the Online Networking System. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. Background: [[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ "As we may think"]] by Vanavar Bush. [[http://www.dougengelbart.org Doug Engelbart Institute]], with links to demos of NLS. TheWikiAndTheMemex
More recent work with wikis has started to focus on [Mike's work with gardens] and [Mark Bernstein's work with gardens.] We might get even more milage out of ontologies and taxonomies. This is to suggest that WikisAreSemantic.
Deletions:
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of [the memex], and we can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. So, more recent work with wikis has started to focus on [Mike's work with gardens] and [Mark Bernstein's work with gardens.] We might get even more milage out of ontologies and taxonomies. This is to suggest that WikisAreSemantic.


Revision [16233]

Edited on 2016-02-16 06:59:59 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
A better way of thinking about those who read and write the wiki are to think of them as made up of [[Publics]], and probably [[CounterPublics]] "Publics and Counterpublics," an article by Michael Warner , is a good place to start thinking about [[PublicsAndCounterPublics]]. [[https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/public_culture/v014/14.1warner.html abstract.]] PDF available via BSU library.
Deletions:
A better way of thinking about those who read and write the wiki are to think of them as made up of [[Publics]], and probably [[Counterpublics]] "Publics and Counterpublics," an article by Michael Warner , is a good place to start thinking about [[PublicsAndCounterPublics]]. [[https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/public_culture/v014/14.1warner.html abstract.]] PDF available via BSU library.


Revision [16232]

Edited on 2016-02-16 06:59:29 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
@@ **The aim of the WeblogsAndWikis wiki is to be a repository and workspace for thinking about and writing about wikis. Your goal as a contributor is to add your best thinking about these ideas to this wiki.**@@
Deletions:
**The aim of the WeblogsAndWikis wiki is to be a repository and workspace for thinking about and writing about wikis. Your goal as a contributor is to add your best thinking about these ideas to this wiki.**


Revision [16231]

Edited on 2016-02-16 06:58:34 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Update 16 Feb 2016
Select **at least three of the links**, do some research (web, other), and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words - but it can be as long as you like. It doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes that others can develop further.
It can be your first thoughts on the idea - thoughts that you or someone else will return to and develop further. Or it can be something more developed and detailed. You can start from scratch, or build on pages that already exist. You may choose to fill in gaps or add more to what's already here.
@@**Do not do not do not**@@
@@bring in summaries or articles from Wikipedia. That stuff is already too over-processed for the wiki. There are far better sites to draw from. You can link to Wikipedia, but even then, there are better sites to link to.@@
Deletions:
Select **at least three of the links**, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words - but it can be as long as you like. It doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes. It can be a summary from Wikipedia, and perhaps another source or two. It can be your first thoughts on the idea - thoughts that you or someone else will return to and develop further. Or it can be something more developed and detailed. You can start from scratch, or build on pages that already exist. You may choose to fill in gaps or add more to what's already here.


Revision [16200]

Edited on 2016-02-15 16:37:08 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikis can be viewed as the internet version of [the memex], and we can see some of the first wiki roots activities in Doug Englebart's demo. The first networked system didn't use wiki words, but it was designed from the ground up as collaborative writing space - where the significant transactions took place not in video or images but in text and code. So, more recent work with wikis has started to focus on [Mike's work with gardens] and [Mark Bernstein's work with gardens.] We might get even more milage out of ontologies and taxonomies. This is to suggest that WikisAreSemantic.


Revision [16177]

Edited on 2016-02-15 13:01:32 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
A better way of thinking about those who read and write the wiki are to think of them as made up of [[Publics]], and probably [[Counterpublics]] "Publics and Counterpublics," an article by Michael Warner , is a good place to start thinking about [[PublicsAndCounterPublics]]. [[https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/public_culture/v014/14.1warner.html abstract.]] PDF available via BSU library.
Publics are a fiction but they are a powerful fiction because they can initiate and guide change. They come into existence as they identify their members and as they work. They seem to arise from and around a text or set of texts.
Wikis are not ++necessarily++ spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingSharedKnowledge. But creating knowledge is a CreativeActOfSynthesis.
Wikis are used by groups (Should we start calling them [[Publics]]?) to CreateSharedKnowledge. Contributors bring their expertise in the subject and thinking into the synthesis. Wikis are spaces to learn in and learn from. This is based on the idea that the act of WritingIsLearning. On the wiki, it's not learning about oneself, as in journaling, but in learning about the world.
Deletions:
Wikis are not necessarily spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingSharedKnowledge. But creating knowledge is a CreativeActOfSynthesis.
Wikis are used by groups to CreateSharedKnowledge. Contributors bring their expertise in the subject and thinking into the synthesis. Wikis are spaces to learn in and learn from. This is based on the idea that the act of WritingIsLearning. On the wiki, it's not learning about oneself, as in journaling, but in learning about the world.


Revision [15878]

Edited on 2016-02-09 07:21:32 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
==== What this is and What to do ====


Revision [14959]

Edited on 2015-02-24 15:24:46 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Select **at least three of the links**, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words - but it can be as long as you like. It doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes. It can be a summary from Wikipedia, and perhaps another source or two. It can be your first thoughts on the idea - thoughts that you or someone else will return to and develop further. Or it can be something more developed and detailed. You can start from scratch, or build on pages that already exist. You may choose to fill in gaps or add more to what's already here.
You can do as many articles as you like. You may sign your work with your WikiName, or not, as you prefer.
You may want to check some of the links and [[RecentChanges]] to see what other people have done.
WikisNeedGardening. A page will grow to an unreadable sprawl until a WikiGardener comes by and ReFactors the page to remove the weeds to let the good stuff be developed further. They use PagePatterns. They SynthesizeThreads. They add headings and move material that might spur discussion further BelowTheDoubleLine. WikisPersist. The idea in gardening is to clear the space to let participants grow more ideas.
Deletions:
Select **at least three of the links**, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words. And it doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes. It can be a summary from Wikipedia, and perhaps another source or two. It can be your first thoughts on the idea - thoughts that you or someone else will return to and develop further. Or it can be something more developed and detailed.
You can do as many articles as you like. Three minimum. The more you do, the more opportunity you give yourself to contribute and to learn.You may sign your work with your WikiName, or not, as you prefer.
You may want to check some of the links and [[RecentChanges]] to see what other people have done. You can start from scratch, or build on pages that already exist .You may choose to fill in gaps or add more to what's already here.
WikisNeedGardening. A page will grow to an unreadable sprawl until a WikiGardener comes by and ReFactors the page to remove the weeds to let the good stuff be developed further. They use PagePatterns. They SynthesizeThreads. They add headings and move material that might spur discussion further BelowTheDoubleLine. WikisPersist. The idea in gardening is to clear the space to let participants grow some more.


Revision [14918]

Edited on 2015-02-24 09:46:44 by MorganAdmin
Additions:


**The aim of the WeblogsAndWikis wiki is to be a repository and workspace for thinking about and writing about wikis. Your goal as a contributor is to add your best thinking about these ideas to this wiki.**
Deletions:
The aim of the WeblogsAndWikis wiki is to be a repository and workspace for thinking about and writing about wikis. Your goal as a contributor is to add your best thinking about these ideas to this wiki.


Revision [14917]

Edited on 2015-02-24 09:46:19 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
The aim of the WeblogsAndWikis wiki is to be a repository and workspace for thinking about and writing about wikis. Your goal as a contributor is to add your best thinking about these ideas to this wiki.


Revision [14910]

Edited on 2015-02-24 08:32:41 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Writing on a wiki can involve some CultureShock. Other wikis have discussed this, but we have a gap concerning how it affects uses of our wiki. WikiCultureShock will be something pretty specific. Above all, wikis seem to require a new literacy, a WikiLiteracy. Because WikisAndTraditionalComposing are not the same.
Deletions:
Writing on a wiki can involve some CultureShock. Other wikis have discussed this, but we have a gap concerning how it affects uses of our wiki. WikiCultureShock will be something pretty specific.


Revision [14894]

Edited on 2015-02-24 08:14:41 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Writing on a wiki can involve some CultureShock. Other wikis have discussed this, but we have a gap concerning how it affects uses of our wiki. WikiCultureShock will be something pretty specific.


Revision [14890]

Edited on 2015-02-24 07:31:31 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Select **at least three of the links**, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words. And it doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes. It can be a summary from Wikipedia, and perhaps another source or two. It can be your first thoughts on the idea - thoughts that you or someone else will return to and develop further. Or it can be something more developed and detailed.
You can do as many articles as you like. Three minimum. The more you do, the more opportunity you give yourself to contribute and to learn.You may sign your work with your WikiName, or not, as you prefer.
Deletions:
Select **at least two or three of the links**, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words. And it doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes. It can be a summary from Wikipedia, and perhaps another source or two. Or it can be something more detailed.
You can do as many articles as you like. Three minimum. The more you do, the more opportunity you give yourself to contribute and to learn.


Revision [14889]

Edited on 2015-02-24 07:29:14 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience, or OurAudience, as something other than a target to reach or persuade. The audience is welcome to visit and read. But visitors don't drive writing on the wiki, so we're not really concerned about numbers or reaching a demographic. Because TheAudienceIsUs, and any reader can become a writer, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAsNeighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do view the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience and shape their work accordingly, but it's a soft target.
Some argue for WikiAsACulture. This seems to have started with the publication of TheWikiWay, by WardCunningham, in 2001. It seems that contributing to a wiki relies on a sort of TribalAttitude towards the project. GettingTheWikiAttitude is part of the tribal idea.
Deletions:
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience, or OurAudience, as something other than a target to reach or persuade. The audience is welcome to visit and read. But visitors don't drive writing on the wiki, so we're not really concerned about numbers or reaching a demographic. Because TheAudienceIsUs, and any reader can become a writer, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAsNeighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do take the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience, but it's a soft target.
Some argue for WikiAsACulture. This seems to have started with the publication of TheWikiWay, by WardCunningham, in 2001. It seems that contributing to a wiki relies on a sort of TribalAttitude towards the project.


Revision [14882]

Edited on 2015-02-24 07:18:49 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Read through this page, and then chose a few pages in the text to expand on. Some of the WikiWord links are more conceptual and abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and //choose topics that require some research on your part//.
Select **at least two or three of the links**, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words. And it doesn't have to be complete or finished. Think notes. It can be a summary from Wikipedia, and perhaps another source or two. Or it can be something more detailed.
You can do as many articles as you like. Three minimum. The more you do, the more opportunity you give yourself to contribute and to learn.
You may want to check some of the links and [[RecentChanges]] to see what other people have done. You can start from scratch, or build on pages that already exist .You may choose to fill in gaps or add more to what's already here.
You can also edit the notes on //this// page. If you want to add an option for a way of understanding, them edit the notes by adding a sentence making your statement, and write that up.
//Sentences About// is meant to be rudimentary, addressing relatively common stuff to provide a jumping off point. So as you work remember to jump off on a tangent where appropriate.
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience, or OurAudience, as something other than a target to reach or persuade. The audience is welcome to visit and read. But visitors don't drive writing on the wiki, so we're not really concerned about numbers or reaching a demographic. Because TheAudienceIsUs, and any reader can become a writer, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAsNeighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do take the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience, but it's a soft target.
Wikis are not necessarily spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingSharedKnowledge. But creating knowledge is a CreativeActOfSynthesis.
Wikis are used by groups to CreateSharedKnowledge. Contributors bring their expertise in the subject and thinking into the synthesis. Wikis are spaces to learn in and learn from. This is based on the idea that the act of WritingIsLearning. On the wiki, it's not learning about oneself, as in journaling, but in learning about the world.
So, WritingCollectivelyIsLearningWritLarge is one way to think about writing on a wiki. There are others.
WikiTheWriting involves IncorporatingTheIdeasOfOthers in various ways. So, this leads to some consideration of TheRoleOfTheEditor on a wiki. It also shapes the way we write pages on the wiki. We write with the knowledge that OthersWillContribute.
Some argue for WikiAsACulture. This seems to have started with the publication of TheWikiWay, by WardCunningham, in 2001. It seems that contributing to a wiki relies on a sort of TribalAttitude towards the project.
Considering Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that openly collaborative writing will result in StealingIdeas, they ask WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and TheClueTrainManifesto, and the more recent MoreClues.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateAWiki. Typical commercial website use navigation menus and sidebars that show a user where the material is. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationalProblems. But users can create and share their own navigational work by CreatingIndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can also use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box to navigate.
This brings up the idea of CuratingInformation, a new area of thinking drawn from the DigitalHumanities. We might think of the WikiWriter as TheCurator.
Deletions:
Read through this page, and then chose a few pages in the text to expand on. Some of the WikiWord links are more conceptual and abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and choose topics that require some research on your part.
Select **at least two or three of the links**, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words. It can be build on a summary from Wikipedia. Or it can be something much more detailed.
You can do as many articles as you like.
You may want to check some of the links and [[RecentChanges]] to see what other people have done. It's OK to duplicate work, but your preference may be to fill in gaps. And of course you can improve someone else's page instead of starting from scratch.
You can also edit the notes on this page. If you want to add an option for a way of understanding, them edit the notes by adding a sentence making your statement, and write that up.
Sentences About is meant to be rudimentary, relatively common stuff that provides a jumping off point. So do it, but also remember to jump off where appropriate.
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience as something other than a target to reach or persuade/ The audience is welcome to visit and consume. But that doesn't drive writing on the wiki. Because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAsNeighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do take the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience, but it's a soft target.
Wikis are not necessarily spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingKnowledge. But creating knowledge is a creative act of synthesis.
Wikis are used by groups to CreateSharedKnowledge. Contributors bring their expertise in the subject and individuality in thinking into the synthesis. Wikis are spaces to learn in and learn from. The act of WritingIsLearning. On the wiki, it's not learning about oneself, as in journaling, but in learning about the world. WritingCollectivelyIsLearningWritLarge is one way to think about writing on a wiki. There are others.
WikiWriting involves IncorporatingTheIdeasOfOthers in various ways. So, this leads to some consideration of TheRoleOfTheEditor on a wiki.
Some argue for WikiAsACulture. This seems to have started with the publication of TheWikiWay in 2001. And it seems clear that contributing to a wiki relies a sort of TribalAttitude towards the project.
Considering Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that openly collaborative writing will result in StealingIdeas, they ask WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are all based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and TheClueTrainManifesto, and the more recent MoreClues.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateTheWiki. Typical commercial website use navigation menus and sidebars that show a user where the material is. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationalProblems. But users can create and share their own navigational work by CreatingIndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can also use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box to navigate.


Revision [14871]

Edited on 2015-02-24 06:37:49 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Below is a set of notes that I could use as a lecture. Embedded in the notes are links to other pages on the wiki. Some pages already exist, others don't exist yet.
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience as something other than a target to reach or persuade/ The audience is welcome to visit and consume. But that doesn't drive writing on the wiki. Because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAsNeighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do take the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience, but it's a soft target.
Another angle argues that IdeasAreCommonProperty. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work: where groups go to do collaborative work.
Deletions:
Below is a set of notes that I could use as a lecture. Embedded in the notes are links to other pages on the wiki. Some already exist, others don't exist yet.
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience as something other than a target to reach or persuade/ The audience is welcome to visit and consume. But that doesn't drive writing on the wiki. Because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do take the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience, but it's a soft target.
The other angle looks a IdeasAreCommonProperty. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work, not spaces where one owns one's words. Surely, words are good for things other than ownership?


Revision [14869]

Edited on 2015-02-24 06:28:24 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience as something other than a target to reach or persuade/ The audience is welcome to visit and consume. But that doesn't drive writing on the wiki. Because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do take the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience, but it's a soft target.
Deletions:
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience as something other than a target to reach or persuade because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer. So, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do take the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience, but it's a soft target.


Revision [14868]

Edited on 2015-02-24 06:23:57 by MorganAdmin
Deletions:
Read other people's articles, and if you don't understand any of the main notes, make sure you understand them before moving on.


Revision [14867]

Edited on 2015-02-24 06:21:38 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Read through this page, and then chose a few pages in the text to expand on. Some of the WikiWord links are more conceptual and abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and choose topics that require some research on your part.
Select **at least two or three of the links**, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page - 200 - 500 words. It can be build on a summary from Wikipedia. Or it can be something much more detailed.
You can do as many articles as you like.
You may want to check some of the links and [[RecentChanges]] to see what other people have done. It's OK to duplicate work, but your preference may be to fill in gaps. And of course you can improve someone else's page instead of starting from scratch.
WritingOnAWiki can be understood as CollaborativeWriting, or as CollectiveWriting. Or something else. Some people use a WikiAsAPersonalNotebook. Others think of WikiAsSocialNotebook. But writing on a wiki is typically not an individual act.
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view TheAudience as something other than a target to reach or persuade because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer. So, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. Some do take the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience, but it's a soft target.
Wikis are not necessarily spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingKnowledge. But creating knowledge is a creative act of synthesis.
Wikis are used by groups to CreateSharedKnowledge. Contributors bring their expertise in the subject and individuality in thinking into the synthesis. Wikis are spaces to learn in and learn from. The act of WritingIsLearning. On the wiki, it's not learning about oneself, as in journaling, but in learning about the world. WritingCollectivelyIsLearningWritLarge is one way to think about writing on a wiki. There are others.
WikiWriting involves IncorporatingTheIdeasOfOthers in various ways. So, this leads to some consideration of TheRoleOfTheEditor on a wiki.
Debates go on with discussion concerning the role of IndividualCreativity on a wiki. It's not as simple as WikisDestroyIndividualCreativity. That's TechnoDeterminism, which has been roundly critiqued as inadequate. Wikis create and engage a group of readers and writers which form TheCommunity.
Some argue for WikiAsACulture. This seems to have started with the publication of TheWikiWay in 2001. And it seems clear that contributing to a wiki relies a sort of TribalAttitude towards the project.
Considering Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that openly collaborative writing will result in StealingIdeas, they ask WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are all based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons, and TheClueTrainManifesto, and the more recent MoreClues.
A common argument I hear about wikis is WikisAreUgly. Wikis are designed to make reading while editing as easy a possible. They use a small set of PageAffordances, keep the page design minimal, and constrain the use of images. These features make the wiki easier to navigate and edit than using the standard markup language of HTML. They also make it possible to export wiki pages by using plain text files that are minimally marked up. In these ways, wikis strive for WriteOnceReadMany.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateTheWiki. Typical commercial website use navigation menus and sidebars that show a user where the material is. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationalProblems. But users can create and share their own navigational work by CreatingIndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can also use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box to navigate.
WikisNeedGardening. A page will grow to an unreadable sprawl until a WikiGardener comes by and ReFactors the page to remove the weeds to let the good stuff be developed further. They use PagePatterns. They SynthesizeThreads. They add headings and move material that might spur discussion further BelowTheDoubleLine. WikisPersist. The idea in gardening is to clear the space to let participants grow some more.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and my posts were changed." "I don't like to edit someone else's words because I might change the meaning." OwnershipOfWordsOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. WikiWriters have devised ways of revising wiki pages while maintaining the ideas that help develop the page. ThreadMode and DocumentMode came about in part for this reason, as did the convention of SigningYourWork.
The other angle looks a IdeasAreCommonProperty. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work, not spaces where one owns one's words. Surely, words are good for things other than ownership?
Deletions:
Read through this page, and then chose a few pages in the text to expand on. Some of the links are more abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and choose topics that requires some research on your part.
Take three or four of the links, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page. It can be mostly a summary from Wikipedia if you want. Or it can be something much more detailed.
If a page is started, add to it, revise it, update it, reorganize it with headings, edit it.
You can do as many articles as you like. You may want to check some of the links and [[RecentChanges]] to see what other people have done. It's OK to duplicate work, but your preference may be to fill in gaps. And of course you can improve someone else's page instead of starting from scratch.
WritingOnAWiki can be understood as CollaborativeWriting, or CollectiveWriting. Or something else. But writing on a wikis is generally not an individual act. Individuals participate but they are not the focus.
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view the audience as something other than a target because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer. So, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. But some view the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience.
Wikis are not necessarily spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingKnowledge. Creating knowledge is a creative act of synthesis.
Then there's WikiAnxiety. Someone will change what I say. It might ge hacked. We can't let just anyone edit because someone might make a mistake and mislead the world. Or we might get controversy. Anxiety is part of new ways of thinking and approaching problems.
So, the purpose of a wiki is not for writers to express themselves but to CreateSharedKnowledge. Contributors add to the wiki not to express their individual points of view but to bring their expertise in the subject and in thinking into the synthesis. Wikis are spaces to learn in and learn from. The act of WritingIsLearning. On the wiki, it's not learning about oneself, as in journaling, but in learning about the world. WritingCollectivelyIsLearningWritLarge is one way to think about writing on a wiki. There are others.
Wikis were originally designed for collaborative work in writing, but because they are a FreeFormDatabase, they can be used for other purposes. Some use WikiAsPersonalNotebook. Others view it as a WikiAsSocialNotebook.
Debates go on with discussion concerning the role of IndividualCreativity on a wiki. It's not as simple as WikisDestroyIndividualCreativity. That's TechnoDeterminism, which has been roundly critiqued as inadequate. Wikis create and engage a group of readers and writes which form TheCommunity.
Some even argue for WikiAsACulture. This seems to have started with the publication of TheWikiWay in 2001, but it persists.
Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that open writing will result in StealingIdeas, asking WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are all based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons.
A common argument I hear about wikis is WikisAreUgly. The idea is that wikis are designed to make reading while editing possible. They use a small set of PageAffordance, keep the page design minimal, and constrain the use of images - all of these features make the wiki easier to navigate and edit than using HTML. They also make it possible to export wiki pages by using plain text files that are minimally marked up. In these ways, wikis strive for WriteOnceReadMany.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateTheWiki. Commercial websites have navigation links and sidebars that classify and organize the material on the site. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationProblems. But the problems can be addressed. Users can curator IndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can also use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box.
Wikis might be hard to navigate at first because you're MovingThroughContentSpace. You're not just looking things up, but IdeaMining. Wikis on specialty subjects are navigated by content terms, so leaning to navigate a wiki is learning what's important to TheCommunity. It'so terms, issues, points of consensus, and disagreement. Navigating a wiki demands reading and interpreting the content, not simply following links. NavigatingDemandsReadingContent.
So, wikis need WelcomePages. They need a local StyleGuide that covers the writing conventions of the wiki. They use OrientationExercises. They have a SandBox. All these are editable by TheCommunity, and so change as the practices of the wiki community's change.
They are spaces for DistributedLearning. But above all, wikis add to general knowledge. The valuable wiki synthesizes knowledge from outside the wiki with the knowledge inside. It doesn't simply repeat or provide links. It CuratesLinks and other materials.
It's a place for CrowdSourcing.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and my posts were changed." OwnershipOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work, not spaces where one owns one's words. Words are good for things other than declaring ownership.
Why write on wikis? You don't get paid. There are other rewards in life than the dollar. Sharing. Grace. Wikis are used for CrowdSourcing help and assistance. But wikis aren't necessarily created as commodity spaces. They are simply a place where professionals do their work. That the work is freely accessible by others is a bonus.
Some more concrete stuff. The wiki engine was invented by WardCunningham, c 1995, and released as OpenSource software. To a great extent, the wiki gets back to the vision that TimBernersLee had for the web in 1989. He wanted web pages to be easily edited by anyone.
The earliest browser and servers had this capability. But when the Internet was opened to commercial enterprises, the capability was not carried over.
We can also see the wiki as reaching the aims that VannavarBush had for TheMemex of scholars creating trails through information and arguments.
We can also think of the WikiAsNetwork. Individual pages are interlinked by page names. Some topics become central, becoming central nodes for strong links, while wink links define the edges of interest.
Disagree by linking:


Revision [14864]

Edited on 2015-02-23 18:05:14 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Read through this page, and then chose a few pages in the text to expand on. Some of the links are more abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and choose topics that requires some research on your part.
Take three or four of the links, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page. It can be mostly a summary from Wikipedia if you want. Or it can be something much more detailed.
If a page is started, add to it, revise it, update it, reorganize it with headings, edit it.
Deletions:
Read through this page, and then chose a few pages in the text to expand on. Some of the links are more abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and choose topics that requires some of research on your part.
Take at least two or three of the links, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page. It can be mostly a summary from Wikipedia if you want. Or it can be something much more detailed.


Revision [14863]

Edited on 2015-02-23 18:02:07 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikis might be hard to navigate at first because you're MovingThroughContentSpace. You're not just looking things up, but IdeaMining. Wikis on specialty subjects are navigated by content terms, so leaning to navigate a wiki is learning what's important to TheCommunity. It'so terms, issues, points of consensus, and disagreement. Navigating a wiki demands reading and interpreting the content, not simply following links. NavigatingDemandsReadingContent.
So, wikis need WelcomePages. They need a local StyleGuide that covers the writing conventions of the wiki. They use OrientationExercises. They have a SandBox. All these are editable by TheCommunity, and so change as the practices of the wiki community's change.
They are spaces for DistributedLearning. But above all, wikis add to general knowledge. The valuable wiki synthesizes knowledge from outside the wiki with the knowledge inside. It doesn't simply repeat or provide links. It CuratesLinks and other materials.
It's a place for CrowdSourcing.


Revision [14862]

Edited on 2015-02-23 17:47:19 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikis are not necessarily spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingKnowledge. Creating knowledge is a creative act of synthesis.
Then there's WikiAnxiety. Someone will change what I say. It might ge hacked. We can't let just anyone edit because someone might make a mistake and mislead the world. Or we might get controversy. Anxiety is part of new ways of thinking and approaching problems.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and my posts were changed." OwnershipOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work, not spaces where one owns one's words. Words are good for things other than declaring ownership.
Why write on wikis? You don't get paid. There are other rewards in life than the dollar. Sharing. Grace. Wikis are used for CrowdSourcing help and assistance. But wikis aren't necessarily created as commodity spaces. They are simply a place where professionals do their work. That the work is freely accessible by others is a bonus.
Deletions:
Wikis are not necessarily spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingKnowledge. But creating knowledge is a creative act of synthesis.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and all my posts were changed." OwnershipOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work, not spaces where one owns one's words. Words are good for things other than declaring ownership.


Revision [14858]

Edited on 2015-02-23 17:26:21 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikipedia brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that open writing will result in StealingIdeas, asking WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are all based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateTheWiki. Commercial websites have navigation links and sidebars that classify and organize the material on the site. But because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationProblems. But the problems can be addressed. Users can curator IndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can also use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and all my posts were changed." OwnershipOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work, not spaces where one owns one's words. Words are good for things other than declaring ownership.
Some more concrete stuff. The wiki engine was invented by WardCunningham, c 1995, and released as OpenSource software. To a great extent, the wiki gets back to the vision that TimBernersLee had for the web in 1989. He wanted web pages to be easily edited by anyone.
The earliest browser and servers had this capability. But when the Internet was opened to commercial enterprises, the capability was not carried over.
We can also see the wiki as reaching the aims that VannavarBush had for TheMemex of scholars creating trails through information and arguments.
We can also think of the WikiAsNetwork. Individual pages are interlinked by page names. Some topics become central, becoming central nodes for strong links, while wink links define the edges of interest.
Deletions:
Wikipedia, of course, brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that open writing will result in StealingIdeas, asking WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are all based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons.
A second common argument I hear concerns HowToNagivateTheWiki. Typical commercial website have navigation bars and sidebars that show a user where the material is. Because wikis are created on-the-fly, from the inside out, it's impossible to create pre-establised navigational aids. So, wikis can have NavigationalProblems. But users can create and share their own navigational work by CreatingIndexesToTopics for themselves and users. They can also use RecentChanges, and Categories, and PageIndex, and the search box.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and all my posts were changed." OwnershipOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work, not spaces where one owns one's words. Surely, words are good for things other than ownership?


Revision [14838]

Edited on 2015-02-23 13:33:26 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Below is a set of notes that I could use as a lecture. Embedded in the notes are links to other pages on the wiki. Some already exist, others don't exist yet.
Read through this page, and then chose a few pages in the text to expand on. Some of the links are more abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and choose topics that requires some of research on your part.
Take at least two or three of the links, do some research, and write a short page on it. It doesn't have to be a long page. It can be mostly a summary from Wikipedia if you want. Or it can be something much more detailed.
You can also edit the notes on this page. If you want to add an option for a way of understanding, them edit the notes by adding a sentence making your statement, and write that up.
You can do as many articles as you like. You may want to check some of the links and [[RecentChanges]] to see what other people have done. It's OK to duplicate work, but your preference may be to fill in gaps. And of course you can improve someone else's page instead of starting from scratch.
Read other people's articles, and if you don't understand any of the main notes, make sure you understand them before moving on.
==== Writing On a Wiki ====
WritingOnAWiki can be understood as CollaborativeWriting, or CollectiveWriting. Or something else. But writing on a wikis is generally not an individual act. Individuals participate but they are not the focus.
When it comes to wikis, we tend to view the audience as something other than a target because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer. So, we can think about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. But some view the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience.
Deletions:
Please familiarize yourself with the process. See [[Sentences About]]
Read through this page, and then chose a page or two in the link list to expand on. Some of the links are more abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and choose topics that requires some of research on your part.
WritingOnAWiki is CollaborativeOrCollective.
We tend to view the audience as something other than a target because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer. So, we can thing about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. But some view the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience.


Revision [14836]

Edited on 2015-02-23 13:24:10 by MorganAdmin

No Differences

Revision [14835]

Edited on 2015-02-23 13:23:56 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Please familiarize yourself with the process. See [[Sentences About]]
----
----
CategoryExercise


Revision [14832]

Edited on 2015-02-23 13:19:06 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Adapted from [[http://orientation.hapgood.net/view/welcome-visitors/view/sentences-about-hypertext-history Sentences About]], [[http://orientation.hapgood.net/view/welcome-visitors/view/mike-caulfield Mike Caulfield]]
Read through this page, and then chose a page or two in the link list to expand on. Some of the links are more abstract than others, which gives you lots of room to move. Be adventurous, and choose topics that requires some of research on your part.
Sentences About is meant to be rudimentary, relatively common stuff that provides a jumping off point. So do it, but also remember to jump off where appropriate.


Revision [14830]

Edited on 2015-02-23 13:14:16 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
WritingOnAWiki is CollaborativeOrCollective.
We tend to view the audience as something other than a target because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer. So, we can thing about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator. But some view the audience of a wiki as a TargetedAudience.
Wikis are not necessarily spaces for self-expression. They are spaces for CreatingKnowledge. But creating knowledge is a creative act of synthesis.
So, the purpose of a wiki is not for writers to express themselves but to CreateSharedKnowledge. Contributors add to the wiki not to express their individual points of view but to bring their expertise in the subject and in thinking into the synthesis. Wikis are spaces to learn in and learn from. The act of WritingIsLearning. On the wiki, it's not learning about oneself, as in journaling, but in learning about the world. WritingCollectivelyIsLearningWritLarge is one way to think about writing on a wiki. There are others.
Debates go on with discussion concerning the role of IndividualCreativity on a wiki. It's not as simple as WikisDestroyIndividualCreativity. That's TechnoDeterminism, which has been roundly critiqued as inadequate. Wikis create and engage a group of readers and writes which form TheCommunity.
"I would be pissed if I joined a wiki and all my posts were changed." OwnershipOnAWiki is often a contention, as is AttributionOnAWiki. But wikis are for collective and collaborative work, not spaces where one owns one's words. Surely, words are good for things other than ownership?
Deletions:
WritingOnAWiki is CollaborativeOrCollective. We tend to view the audience as something other than a target because the audience is us, and any reader can become a writer. So, we can thing about the wiki AudienceAsFamily, or AudienceAs Neighbor, or AudienceAsCollective or AudienceAsCollaborator.
Some view the audience as a TargetedAudience.
Debates go on with discussion concerning the role of IndividualCreativity on a wiki. It's not as simple as WikisDestroyIndividualCreativity. That's TechnoDeterminism, which has been roundly critiqued as inadequate. Wikis do create and engage TheCommunity.


Revision [14829]

Edited on 2015-02-23 12:35:20 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikipedia, of course, brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that open writing will result in StealingIdeas, asking WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText ? These are all based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons.
A common argument I hear about wikis is WikisAreUgly. The idea is that wikis are designed to make reading while editing possible. They use a small set of PageAffordance, keep the page design minimal, and constrain the use of images - all of these features make the wiki easier to navigate and edit than using HTML. They also make it possible to export wiki pages by using plain text files that are minimally marked up. In these ways, wikis strive for WriteOnceReadMany.
Deletions:
Wikipedia, of course, brings up issues of WikisAndCredibility and WikisAndAuthority and WikisAndAmateurContributers. The idea that anyone can edit a wiki sticks in the throats of some for a number of reasons, all PrintBound. Some argue about the status of AmatureContributers. Others are concerned that open writing will result in StealingIdeas, asking WhatWillTheWikiDoToMyText? These are all based on the nineteenth-century ideas of IntellectualProperty being owned by individuals. Some argue that IdeasArePublicProperty. They refer a to TheTragedyOfTheCommons.
A common argument I hear about wikis is WikisAreUgly. The idea is that they are designed to make reading while editing possible.


Revision [14828]

The oldest known version of this page was created on 2015-02-23 12:31:03 by MorganAdmin
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki