Generally, as with programs like Compendium, you really want the
statements to be concise. But, for those who have clicked on those
oneliners, each links to another page where as full an explanation as
desired will be found. (01)
Indeed, it is live. But, as with all of my own views on wikis, nobody
gets to mess with any content except those who are logged in. (02)
About reorganization. Not in that particular rendition of NexistWiki. As
I have said here in the past, NexistWiki was a good learning experiment
and experience; Ted Kahn, for instance, is making great use of it with
teachers. But, it is dead, in favor of TopicSpaces, which, in theory,
will be as configurable as Doug Engelbart would want. What has been
missing in my work has been, as Eugene pointed out to me earlier, the
ability to do the famous "left hand move" in which an IBIS tree gets
refactored when someone discovers that there was an even more important
question to ask first. The way we did that in the original NexistWiki
was simply to start over. (03)
There remains much to learn as I hack prototypes and toss them up to see
what happens. (04)
Icons courtesy the Compendium skins. (05)
Jack (06)
Eric Armstrong wrote: (07)
> Dang. I really like that page. Nice icons, nice indentation.
>
> Questions:
> * Is it live? I didn't see a way to add something.
> * Can it be reorganized at will by a facilitator?
> * I notice all the entries are 1 line in length. That
> generally makes warning bells ring. What happens to
> long entries? (And what happens to the visibility of
> the nesting relationships?)
>
> It really does look pretty cool, though.
>
>
> Jack Park wrote:
>
>> One of the experiments that was NexistWiki was the combination of
>> IBIS with various commentary, including blog entries. This page
>> http://www.nexist.org/dev/Addressable160Page?type=BLO
>> shows what happens when you log in and play with what I call an
>> "Addressable Information Resource" which is what you land on if you
>> click the little blue arrow where a purple number is.
>>
>> For a long time now, I've been looking at ways to bring IBIS into the
>> mix of blogs.
>> Jack
>>
>> Eric Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>> John Sechrest wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting. We have an ongoing discussion. we write for this
>>>> particular audience, but we have others not on the list who
>>>> might want to see the work. What is different about
>>>> people looking at the mail archive?
>>>>
>>>> Is it the fact that the list is closed?
>>>> Is it the fact that the archive is not structured properly?
>>>>
>>> That is the major impediment. Blogs are great for putting
>>> information out. But the list of sequential responses gets
>>> unweildy, when it grows. An email archive is only slightly
>>> better -- there's threading, but the real organization is
>>> rarely displayed, and the conclusions are buried deep in
>>> the threads.
>>>
>>> The responses need to be made in an email client that reads
>>> threaded discussions. They need to be archived in a way that
>>> displays the discussions hierarchically when viewed in HTML.
>>>
>>> And the system needs the ability to invert the discussions
>>> so that conclusions get hoisted to the top and the threads
>>> that led to them dangle underneath, for people to inspect
>>> and examine when they care to -- which should lead to additional
>>> arguments leading to new conclusions, after which *they* are
>>> hoisted to the top.
>>>
>>> At that point, the archive becomes fruitful, because the
>>> most important information can be gleaned by skimming the
>>> surface.
>>>
>>>> If we follow my idea that email, wiki, blogs, mail archives, web pages
>>>> are all really views of an abstract document, then what happens
>>>> when the blog is really just a mail archive?
>>>>
>>>> How would the mail archive behave differently than the blog?
>>>>
>>>> Who is reading, that is one interesting example of something
>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any other?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eugene Eric Kim <eekim@blueoxen.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>> % On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:57:24PM -0000, Peter P. Jones wrote:
>>>> % % > Well, I'm slowly getting around to the idea that it's a
>>>> great tool, % > but I was actually going to blog privately to
>>>> track my projects.
>>>> % > And one of the reasons I prefer to 'blog' on to the yak lists
>>>> is % > because I'm usually talking to something else someone has
>>>> already % > decided is relevant.
>>>> % > If I stood on the general soapbox I doubt my views would be %
>>>> > particularly enlightening.
>>>> % % I'm going to respond to this and John's comment:
>>>> % %
>>>> http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/yak/2003-12/msg00063.html#nid04
>>>> % % here, because I think both of you are saying similar things.
>>>> % % First, some stats (a little preview of our upcoming report).
>>>> Between
>>>> % December 2002 and August 2003, 22 different people initiated
>>>> threads
>>>> % on yak, and 21 different people initiated threads on tools-yak.
>>>> The
>>>> % top ten initiators on both lists were:
>>>> % % yak: tools-yak:
>>>> % 84 Jack Park 45 Jack Park
>>>> % 24 Eugene Eric Kim 27 Eugene Eric Kim
>>>> % 16 Andrius Kulikauskas 24 Chris Dent
>>>> % 10 Eric Armstrong 16 Peter Jones
>>>> % 10 Dorai Thodla 10 Eric Armstrong
>>>> % 9 Peter Jones 9 Andrius Kulikauskas
>>>> % 9 Chris Dent 7 Tom Munnecke
>>>> % 8 Tom Munnecke 6 Danny Ayers
>>>> % 4 Sheldon Chang 5 Brian Lincoln
>>>> % 4 John Sechrest 4 Mike Mell
>>>> % 4 Garold Johnson
>>>> % % Not to read too deeply into these stats, but I would claim
>>>> that if
>>>> % you're initiating a lot of threads (as you are, Peter), you're
>>>> % actually posting before others have decided whether the topic is
>>>> % relevant or not. (I'm quite certain John would be in the top
>>>> ten as
>>>> % well if we took into account the past three months as well.)
>>>> % % Now, I know I'm nitpicking on language here, and I think I
>>>> get what
>>>> % you're actually saying. What I want to say is, people in this
>>>> forum
>>>> % have an advantage over other bloggers in that we already have an
>>>> % audience -- each other. When it comes to my own blog, I write
>>>> as if
>>>> % my audience is you folks.
>>>> % % Blogging is a very strange mix of being both a personal space
>>>> and a
>>>> % public soapbox. Half-baked ideas posted to a mailing list may not
>>>> % garner any response and may even be looked down upon, because they
>>>> % take up valuable space in people's inboxes. But, they're perfectly
>>>> % appropriate on a blog. The twist is, while people on a mailing
>>>> list
>>>> % might not want to hear your idea, there might be many people not on
>>>> % the list who do. If you blog, you're more likely to attract that
>>>> % audience. If you post it to a list, that audience will very likely
>>>> % never see it.
>>>> % % I posted more half-baked thoughts on this in a previous blog
>>>> % entry. :-)
>>>> % % http://www.eekim.com/blog/2003/07/15/whineinprivate#nid1G
>>>> % % One more thing on audiences. Knowing your audience is
>>>> important if
>>>> % you want to improve as a communicator. One of the things Tom often
>>>> % complains about is that there's no way to know who's reading
>>>> messages
>>>> % sent to this list. He's absolutely right. What Tom wants is
>>>> % essentially impossible to achieve with e-mail. That's not the case
>>>> % with blogs, and in fact, the blogging community has coevolved
>>>> tools to
>>>> % help them see who's reading their stuff. This is another reason
>>>> why
>>>> % the blogging community has been so successful -- they are active
>>>> % practitioners of coevolution.
>>>> % % -Eugene
>>>> % % -- % Was I helpful? Let others know.
>>>> % %
>>>> http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=eekim&p=EnablingOnlineCommunities
>>>> % % -- % This message is archived at:
>>>> % %
>>>>
>http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=20031204221001.GG14113@douge.blueoxen.net
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> John Sechrest . Helping people use
>>>> . computers and the Internet
>>>> . more effectively
>>>> .
>>>> . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> (08)
--
This message is archived at: (09)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FD1679D.7070405@thinkalong.com (010)
|