I think that WikiWords vs [Wiki Words] is just syntactical sugar
and really are not at issue. Some people like one, some people like
the other, but neither have to do with the functionality and
productivity of the wiki. (01)
Instead, the underlaying conceptual model and the organization of the
model is the issue. In wiki's the organization and shared conceptual
model of the users is a social phenomena. It is something that
is derived by the group. In many of the other tools, the organization
and structure is arbitrarily imposed by the software. (02)
Given that we have different types of people in the world,
(and avoiding the whole myers-briggs/learningstyles discussion)
we would expect to see that some people work with wikis better than
others. (03)
As an illustration, for me it is not a problem to have a bunch
of links on a page. Say 50. If they are spacially organized, it works
for me. So the yahoo page style is fine. However I have employees
who when the number of new links on a page exceeds 5-7, they get
twitchy and want to re-write the page. It is a battle that I am loosing. (04)
So, some people can not keep the conceptual map in thier heads and they
get twitchy with wikis. But the arbitrarily imposed structures of other
packages often break or inhibit several kinds of structures. (05)
And people who are concrete thinkers really really have a hard
time with wiki mapping. (06)
So... (07)
I think we can conclude: (08)
a) wiki's are not a structure for everyone (09)
b) There is room for improvement in support tools in wikis for
organization and mangement of information (010)
c) Arbitrary rules for organization does not lead to more productive
tools for everyone either. (011)
(you will notice that I am a list kinda guy, instead of the paragraph kinda guy) (012)
"Peter P. Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk> writes: (013)
% This was a great post John.
%
% However, at the point where you started creating Wiki words for
% concepts I dissented. So much information seems to be lost in that
% process.
% Not only that, but your resulting hypotheses seemed to indicate the
% very problems I have been trying to generate some heat about.
%
% Bill Seitz proposed an impressive rescue attempt in
% http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-
% yak&i=3EC1829A.2080707@fluxent.com
% but I can't help feeling that if the original rich explanations of
% matters were retained using ordinary language the error rate for
% ingenious matching would go down; not to mention the notion that the
% communicability of the information would go back up too.
%
% When I asked what Wikis were for a while back I was less concerned
% with the idea that they organise information than with the notion
% that there was an original agenda with Wikis that they improve
% collaboration and communication. I've read about (though not really
% experienced) serious projects where Wikis manifestly failed to
% improve those aspects.
% Question: Why does it seem that the results of using a Wiki are so
% much harder to communicate than say, an ordinary book-style (basic
% hierarchical tree with cross references) website?
%
% If it isn't the manner of organisation, could it be the Wiki words
% system that is to blame?
% (As you can probably tell my vote is 'yes' at present but I'm willing
% to be swayed.)
%
% For example, Jack's NexistWiki killed off Wiki words (if I understood
% Jack correctly) and proposed sets of organisational constraints for
% certain modes of working. I didn't miss Wiki words at all, and the
% site(s) seemed to have more power to get things achieved. And I
% suspect the result will communicate well to others.
%
% I suppose what I'm asking is a bit like cost-benefit analysis. When
% an enthusiastic group get their hands on a Wiki which curves go up
% and which go down?
% A knee-jerk take might be WeirdWord and WrongThink proliferation vs.
% organisational effectiveness and ultimate communicability to wider
% spheres, but I don't have enough experience on the use of Wikis for
% serious projects to speak to that.
% Maybe in the context of play Wikis are just good fun, but how
% seriously should the resulting contents be taken?
%
% And given all that, are Wiki words really an improvement?
%
% (No doubt these matters have been discussed before somewhere...)
%
% --
% Peter
%
%
% On 13 May 2003 at 14:42, John Sechrest wrote:
%
% >
% >
% > Jack Park <jackpark@thinkalong.com> writes:
% >
% > % > but if you can maintain that scope/context, then yes, things
% > that % > are concepts should be wiki words.
% >
% > % Please expand on maintaing scope and context.
% >
% > When we look at any word, we are looking at it to represent
% > a concept. (in this context)
% >
% > So I look at a word like:
% >
% > "cast"
% >
% > what does cast mean?
% >
% >
% > 1.
% > a. To throw (something, especially something light): The angler
% > cast the line. b. To throw with force; hurl: waves that cast
% > driftwood far up on the shore. See Synonyms at throw.
% >
% > 2. To shed; molt.
% > 3. To throw forth; drop: cast anchor.
% > 4. To throw on the ground, as in wrestling.
% > 5. To deposit or indicate (a ballot or vote).
% > 6. To turn or direct: All eyes were cast upon the speaker.
% > 7. To cause to fall onto or over something or in a certain
% > direction, as if by throwing: candles casting light; cast aspersions
% > on my character; findings that cast doubt on our hypothesis. 8. To
% > bestow; confer: 3The government I cast upon my brother2 (Shakespeare).
% > 9. a. To roll or throw (dice, for example). b. To draw
% > (lots).
% >
% > 10. To give birth to prematurely: The cow cast a calf.
% > 11. To cause (hunting hounds) to scatter and circle in search of a
% > lost scent. 12. a. To choose actors for (a play, for example). b.
% > To assign a certain role to (an actor): cast her as the lead. c.
% > To assign an actor to (a part): cast each role carefully.
% >
% > 13. To form (liquid metal, for example) into a particular shape by
% > pouring into a mold. 14. To give a form to; arrange: decided to cast
% > the book in three parts. 15. To contrive; devise: cast a plan. 16.
% > To calculate or compute; add up (a column of figures). 17. To
% > calculate astrologically: cast my horoscope. 18. To warp; twist:
% > floorboards cast by age. 19. Nautical. To turn (a ship); change to
% > the opposite tack.
% >
% >
% >
% > when we look at these meanings, we see that what we really have
% > is a whole collection of concepts, which overload the word
% > "cast"
% >
% > So we might like to see things like:
% >
% >
% > 12. a.To choose actors for => TheaterCast
% > b. To assign a certain role to an actor => TheaterRoleCast
% >
% > 13. To form liquid metal => MetalCast
% > 14. To give a form to; arrange => PlanningCast
% > 19. Nautical. To turn (a ship) => NauticalNavigationCast
% >
% >
% > And this would by choice of the wiki word, make things very much more
% > specific.
% >
% > However, we find that we like to shorten things. We "know" that in the
% > context of Metal working that "cast" has a specific use.
% >
% > And so we just toss in to the MetalWorkingWiki the word "cast" and
% > assume the context. We do this with a lot of words.
% >
% > now, we find that we bring a whole bunch of people into a wiki
% > converstation. And they are not coming from the same point of view.
% > And we use words that in their context mean one thing and in this
% > context mean another.
% >
% > this is why lots of people , expecially philophers get lost in
% > definitions.
% >
% > (note: you can chase definitions too far, into meaninglessness)
% >
% > However, given that we have a concept and we want to name it,
% > we need to understand the context.
% >
% > To broaden this issue, let's assume that I force my students
% > to use a wiki for journaling in my class (which I do).
% >
% > I have a devil of a time explaining to them that they can not
% > create a wiki word called MyJournal and expect it to work.
% > the can not keep the context of things that are for "me" seperate from
% > things that are for "my team" and that seperate from "the class" in
% > the wiki.
% >
% > If they did it right, then they would have user-concept for things
% > that were for them. And teamN-concept for things that were for their
% > team. And then general theConceptGoesHere for the class wide global
% > context.
% >
% > but this requires you to be explicit in your thinking.
% >
% > And few people do this.
% >
% > So I hypothosize that:
% >
% > a) You can not take widely distributed wiki's in different contexts
% > and run them all together into the same wiki and have something
% > meaningful result.
% >
% > b) You must have people come to agreement on the explicit meaning
% > of specific WikiWords in order for them to come to agreement
% > about the larger issue.
% >
% > c) And where WikiWords have two seperate definitions that have not
% > been
% > refactored into an appropriate form, you still have a discussion
% > that has not reached maturity.
% >
% >
% >
% >
% >
% >
% >
% >
% >
% > -----
% > John Sechrest . Helping people use
% > CTO PEAK - . computers and the Internet
% > Public Electronic . more effectively
% > Access to Knowledge,Inc .
% > 1600 SW Western, Suite 180 . Internet:
% > sechrest@peak.org Corvallis Oregon 97333 .
% > (541) 754-7325
% > . http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
% >
% > --
% > This message is archived at:
% >
% > http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=20030
% > 5132142.h4DLgZN19150@jas.peak.org
% >
% >
%
%
% --
% This message is archived at:
%
%
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=3EC26D1B.10004.3271B6@localhost (014)
-----
John Sechrest . Helping people use
CTO PEAK - . computers and the Internet
Public Electronic . more effectively
Access to Knowledge,Inc .
1600 SW Western, Suite 180 . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
Corvallis Oregon 97333 . (541) 754-7325
. http://www.peak.org/~sechrest (015)
--
This message is archived at: (016)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=200305141552.h4EFq1h16794@jas.peak.org (017)
|