MattisManzel’s WikiTing is really cool. I’ve met Mutante from S23, and FlorianFesti? because of it. I don’t think we’d have MachineCodeBlocks now were it not for the Ting.

For a while now, we’ve had a relationship with the CraoWiki through the person of ChristopheDucamp.

I believe we would benefit immensly if we developed methods for InterCommunityCooperation.

HubAndSpokeWiki?, ConcentrationTimes, PICA, FracturedDemocracyBuilding, these all seem to be connected.


Wild ideas, uncritical.

I can imagine something where, people in a wiki say, “This is a major topic of interest or focus to us. We’re developing this, and we hope you will develop this idea too, in your respective communities. Please send 1 representative from each of your communities at IRC channel XYZ at UTC 0 on 2005-04-16 with your thoughts, links, and questions.”

Only that, instead of having to explain all that stuff and all the procedures, there’s a typical way that we do it.

Sort of like: When people hold a meeting, they say: “We’re following RobertsRulesOfOrder.” They don’t say, “Okay, this is how we hold a meeting…”


See Also


Cool. With twice a year lion means big gatherings of whole wikilandia on whatever exists for simultaneous working I suppose: irc, moon-edit (+ what’s forthcoming), VoIP, the generateur poietique, …

There is irc freenode #ting. Who’s interested in tings and would like to stay informed or could imagine to join in on a spontaneous collaborative editing sessions should idle there. ting-wiki: irc channel ting

Hé cool. Could we talk about WikiDrama and any international seeding for NotreConstitutionPointNet tonite. You mean 18:00 in the WikiNow in LangueFrançaise. Is that right ? I’ll try to come with OlivierAuber. YannLeGuennec, our CraoWiki:WikiJockey? should be welcomed too ;-)

A related idea would be to have ambassadors between community - members that are part of several communities and that publicly acknowledge the fact. Ambassardos could have several roles, the main one would be to keep the communties aware of each other - for example, say, Mattis is the S23 ambassador here, and keeps up a “S23Embassy” page on CommunityWiki, where he posts information about what the hottes topic is over there, what points of discussion might interest people on cw, etc.

What you would need to have an ambassador would be a) someone that’s a member of both communities (a lot of people here are on a lot of places, right ?) and b) the communities are interested in knowing about each other (for example, nobody wants me to give news about the state in the expat in china slice of the blogosphere :) )

Maybe the mechanism I describe here wouldn’t work great, but I like the idea of ambassadors between virtual communities. It can start feeling like it’s a big network of communities interacting with each other. A united nations of online communities wouldn’t be that silly :) (I wouldn’t recommend it though. Online communities are not countries …) The important thing is that communities are aware of each other, and of each other’s skills, knowledge and interests.

Does anyone know about this group? irc://

When my computer settles down, I’m going to have to join that channel; It sounds like #onebigsoup stuff to me!

And what is “18:00 in the WikiNow?” Isn’t WikiNow just talking about the sense of time in the wiki?

If we had a graph of group relations, I would imagine lines would be between S23 and us, Crao and us, and Meatball and us.

Mattis, what is “generateur poietique”?

Neat idea Kimbro ! a french brainstorming with some suggestion of french cliques has been ripped and translated from here and is now opened on the SpokeWiki? CraoWiki:CoopérationInterCommunautés to discuss and try to build the french cliques and here on CoopérationInterCommunautés to explain on this wikihub. Let’s say I really believe in WisTros as useful and efficient CommunicationChannels to drive some conviviality inter-cliques. These meetings could be on line and offline real meetings ? An InterWistro? schedule could be arranged for our next tings massively multiplayers ? How about a first test on 15th of June. On our own, we hold a small wikimeetup dinner in Paris described on CraoWiki:WikiSchoolParis? ? Olivier will answer soon about CraoWiki:GenerateurPoietique?.

I do think we should have a big group meeting day, like a gigantic OpenSpace on the web, using the various media.

I would imagine:

  • Pick a full weekend.
  • Chart out sessions on some wiki, sessions blocked for 3 hours, but over-whenever-they’re-over, all times stamped UTC.
  • Attach in the session info the type of media used. (ie: Is this using MoonEdit? Is it using IRC? Is it using VoIP? Which kind? Teamspeak? Skype?) If someone has a problem with some media, there should be a staff capable of helping them get set up, before the weekend.
  • You can put your name next to a session, but you don’t have to.
  • We’d want translation services, I’m guessing.

We’d have to do a lot of preparation, I think, to make it work right, but: I think it would be terribly useful. We could get a lot of work done, very quickly, and witness a lot of new ties being born, between groups.

Lots of the tasks are automatable, also, for future runs.

2005-05-04 22:34 UTC

Looking over at CraoWiki:CoopérationInterCommunautés: I am amazed to see all the links.

It seems clear to me that, in the near term, we need to have:

  • MachineCodeBlocks
  • a way to represent (a “schema”) how groups identify themselves, who their members are, and how to affiliate the groups with one another, with the MachineCodeBlocks
  • a simple visualizer, to automatically chart out groups and connections

That way, we can hook up all the groups. They will be motivated to participate in the graph construction, because response will be immediate: Once we get the visualization online, they will immediately see it show themselves and their connections.

Oh, ChristopheDucamp; I think- I’m not sure how the DigestedSummary works, but I think we’re supposed to maintain the SummaryLine?. So, if you’re just making a small edit, you don’t have to wipe out the summary. I think the rework the summary block with our edits. (Is this right, Alex?)

2005-05-15 06:23 UTC

I added an item to the brainstorming section- a “hotline” between communities.

It goes like this: Whenever 2 people in the connected communities commit to some action for a period of at least, say, a month, they are priviledged to raise a general call among related communities. The existence of the hotline, and respect for the hotline, is negotiated between neighboring communities. This is part of the InterCommunityCooperation, after all.

This way, people who are sympathetic to the action item in the various communities are talked with, and see the item, and respond to it if it’s a commitment they are willing and able to to make.

The action item should have the following properties:

  • Clear course of action. That is, the group is doing something, making something, and that thing is explicated. People can’t be getting together, and saying, “okay, what now?” That stuff should have all been done pre-hotline. By the time an idea reaches the hotline, it has to be: “This is what we’re doing. Are you in?”
  • At least 2 committed people. These people are going to work on the idea, regardless of whether others help or not. Committed means: “We’re going to work on this for a month, and we’re going to finish it.” At least.

Respondants should likewise be committed.

How does the hotline work?

Perhaps the hotline is a blog. The RSS feed is mixed in with the RecentChanges for the various communities. Amongst bloggers, through their Planets. Amongst wiki, through UnifiedRecentChanges.

Why might a hotline work, as opposed to people just finding each other and talking about things like already?

  • People don’t post into other groups’ communities very frequently, because they’re not sure if they can will be accepted. It’s not just individuals posting into other communities- it’s members of communities posting into other communities. That is, there’s room for hostility between communities, if it’s messed up. Most people don’t just do this, aware that they are representing their community, and not wanting to produce unnecessary conflict.
  • Traditional avenues (like FreshMeat) are sort of faceless: The people on the end of the line are just so much text on the screen. There’s no personal involvement.
  • There are rewards to working with groups and people that you know, even just tangentially. If communities already know each other, and their members collaborate to make something together, that strengthens the bond between the communities.
  • It costs less. You don’t have to set up a whole website, register your project, etc., etc.,. There are still costs, they just aren’t as high.
  • Targeting people who are very likely to care. If they are sympathetic communities, it’s more likely that what you do will be useful and interesting to them as well.

I’m sure there are hoards of great reasons why it would be cool to work with community neighbors, rather than just with your one other person, and whoever happens to be reading freshmeat on another day.

The thing that makes me think of this immediately is the MachineCodeBlocks. We are held up because we have very uncertain commitments, we have very few bonds between the communities at work, very little understanding of what’s going on.

It just strikes me that this is going to work. That a personable call between communities on a trusted (and negotiated) line of communication is a good idea.

2005-05-15 06:23 UTC

ChristopheDucamp, are you saying that there’s an inter-community meeting on June 15th? I’m fine with that date, if it’s a weekend thing- but, is that something happening? Is that online, or is that in person? I don’t totally understand.

The 15th is a wednesday. A full weekend is cool. I propose:

the WikiWoodstock1 to take place on the weekend 11th/12th of June 2005.

Setup-preparation workshop to help everybody to get the software work on Friday 10th of June (the soundcheck kinda ;)). Wiki, irc, moon-edit, skype, teamspeak, generateur-poietic, …

“Am I too loud?”

For upcoming WikiWoodstocks? I think aligning them with relating big events like the wikimania in august, the academic wiki-conference in october or the C4 end of the year would make sense. If it works fine there is no reason for not having 3 or 4 WikiWoodstocks a year.

See the wiki-Woodstock

Bonjour Lion. I could drop a LongComment if I had time. To be short : yes, we will try via some french cliques via a LowRoad solution to organize a meeting. We must speak of that before. The idea is to connect some WisTros via a ting : real face to face meetings in different wistros all connected on line.

Our first agenda (to be written) could be to try to understand why some communities remain so endogamic[1] ? FYI (even I think it’s OffTopic here) the Interwistro is just an old idea of the future to connect some future WisTros via a SharedRoad1 through MeshNetworking and other LowTech solutions. A way to provide some decent networking in small islands and higher mountains an include them in some TransMind operations. But it’s not my job here : I’m not a technician, we should challenge the directionnal antenna clique (OlivierZablocki, ArnaudFontaine…) to have a better explanation. Let’s say I’ve understood of a point to point networking each 6 kms.

For the moment, I know that the 15th of june is not a week-end. It’s just our next WikiMeetup? in Paris. We would be happy to join the first WikiWoodstock opened to any communities (in person, and online) ;-)

Thanks! I do like to hear the tales of far-away compatriots. :)

There are a lot of antenna people here in Seattle, too. Sadly, I haven’t had much time to meet with them. They’re kinda far away, too.

Conversation pulled from HubAndSpokeWikis

sylvie: It’s seems this page was launched first to find “A way to organize several wiki” and now the discussion seems to be enlarge about the question of collaboration, the social and subjective aspects, that tools called “collaborative” which cannot guarantee. Collaboration seems to be more in the experience field than logical or automatization, maybe it’s why tools like wiki can be great when collaboration is already in process but not enough to produce collaboration just because they allow this way to work. Bruno Latour , mentionned above by LionKimbro, in “FAKTURA: de la notion de réseaux à celle d’attachement”, develop a notion of network based on the description of links in a system build by links. Maybe we just can try individually to work on what we are really attached in a community and it’s not important to know if it’s for good or bad reasons but we all need reasons to make things, and maybe what we call collaboration is just to accept that we are all linked. For that we are able each one to choose our own way to be attached, and also we are able to change our kind of attachment when it’s necessary. What I say it’s a thing and what I do is a another thing, and between there is a field of possible. And it’s the same for the subject of this wikipage HubAndSpokeWikis : “A way to organize several wiki” (what we say) and the reality “Why are we not seeing any significant hub and spoke wikis?” (what we do). We are the product of what we produce. [sounds interesting :) ]

I’m thinking it either points to errors in our theory, or errors in our actions. In this case, it seems to be some errors in our theory.

But there is something that several of us want, which is the ability to combine the strengths of sympathetic communities.

That is, I want to make it work. If there is a way, I want to find it. If there is not a way, I want to prove it.

sigi : my english isn’t good enough to discuss it, but there are some hints: as sylvie said: “we are the product of what we produce .” in other words: we cannot plan to plan .

lion : ??? I’m very confused about this.

It is a stigmergic process, none of us stupid agents knows it but all feel it, that’s what sigi means, Maybe. You never know.

sigi : yes, mattis is right . each discussion is a stigmergic process, i think . perhaps it’s easier for you to understand mattis . i’ll support him, if possible . as the song says: “we dream the same dream, we want the same thing, and all that we need is to see it together .” we’ll see .

sylvie: yes I agree. What I understand when sigi says “we cannot plan to plan” is that there is a gap between what we want and what happens, so instead of working on how something would work we can try to see how it works now. I don’t know if my example would be pertinent but I try … When a child expresses the wish to have a specific toy, it has a lot of arguments to explain how it would be fabulous and how it would be happy to have this toy, and in many cases the child is happy and plays with this toy but in the majority of cases this toy can’t reach the same level than it had in the dream. And many times the child has more interest in playing with the (empty) box that contained the toy :)

I disagree entirely. We see InterCommunityCooperation every day.

We also see the WikiNodesNetwork?, existing today, and it seems to work pretty well, even though it’s just starting. This is a form of InterCommunityCooperation.

It’s not all that difficult to imagine, and I see no reason for pessimism that it can’t be grown.

Let’s suppose that InterCommunityCooperation is not possible. If that is the case, then we should find the reasons why it isn’t possible, so that we can learn something about why people choose the cooperate with who, and then put our energy into something more useful.

sylvie: When I say there is a gap it doesn’t mean nothing it’s possible, it only means there is what we want and there is what happens and in between there’s mind the gap :). This gap is not an awfull gap, no, it has a big potential. That’s why it’s important to “mind the gap” - not to avoid it but to jump right in it. What is possible to do or not to do is not a question of tools, it’s a question of desire. And nobody can imagine the desire of others just by simulating it. So when we speak about collaboration/cooperation we don’t speak about simulation but about a shared experience which transform at the same time what we are doing and what we are thinking. So what is possible? There’s no limit … à priori.

The elementary question that comes first is the one of the tool. If there is no technical way to do it, forget about it. If you have a can of beans and nothing to open it with, not even a stone or something, you simply can not eat these beans. Else you’re very right, sylvie. Jump right in it, mind it, that’s it. I hack your English now and then. Send me a herald on horseback in case it gets on your nerves ;)

Oh, okay. I think I’ve misunderstood because we speak different languages and stuff. I should focus on confirming what I think I understand.

Please correct me if I’m wrong:

Sylvie says:

  • We don’t necessarily know what other people want.
  • By talking with other people, it changes what we do and think, and perhaps even what we want.
  • The gap between non-InterCommunityCooperation and InterCommunityCooperation is talking, and not so much a lack of tools.

MattisManzel disagrees, and says:

  • We do need tools, if tools don’t support it, we can’t do it.

This goes back into the “affordance” idea: WhatIsAffordance. Mattis would want tools that afford InterCommunityCooperation.

Am I understanding everyone’s ideas right?
yes for me it’s ok :)--sylvie

I am inclined to agree with Mattis: I would like the ProjectSpaceNetwork, and I think it is a tool that affords InterCommunityCooperation. The WikiNodes:WikiNodesNetwork? does the same thing: It affords people to go out and meet their neighbors. (I have seen this work in ways that simple “links to related wiki” pages do not.) And so is NearLink, which is a great way of connecting wiki communities. NearLink encourages people to share the same LinkLanguage.

That said, once you are aware of neighbors, Sylvie’s rule is more important: It requires people talk to one another, before they cooperate more consciously.

What could we do on that side of things? A whole lot, actually: The participants of MeatballWiki have been aggressively creating pages about community advertising, community linking, etc., etc., etc.,. They call it: CommunityMarketing.

sigi: what do you think of the following?
we buy cw, crao and ww . then we declare cw our hub·wiki, crao our (french)spoke·wiki and ww our (german)spoke·wiki . wouldn’t that make you happy?
we say “we” . but can we say, the people of cw, crao and ww are a community? and what is nessasary that we can say it? we do need tools . yes, but who is “we”? it’s a circle (other word for gap).

Wait- what?

I’m very confused.

Nonono, you can’t do “buying” or anything like that- we’re not for sale. And InterCommunityCooperation doesn’t mean: Everybody is one community. It might mean super-community, sort of like “the greater wiki community,” but clique-groups are still clique-groups. Crao is still Crao, CW is still CW, Meatball is still Meatball, etc., etc.,. On InterCommunityCooperation, there’s a list together of things we imagined InterCommunityCooperation might look like.

sylvie : what I understand when sigi ask for who are “we” that let me feel that we cannot say community crao collaborate with CW for example, when I ‘m on Crao I never feel that I’m in an inter-collaboration of communities and when I ‘m on CW it’s the same,it’s like if I’m on different spaces where I find people to discuss and develop ideas about I like to work. There are links between the different spaces through these persons I met but I don’t feel to be in a community, and some tools allow InterCommunityCooperation but the different communities seems quiet separated, No ? why ?… tools exist but need energy to be used, people are energy … so where, for what, for who and how people use their energy ? :)… “it’s a circle (other word for gap)” .

Immediately, I’m thinking:

By collecting our blogs together, we gain a better sense of what other people are doing, in the respective communities. The blogs represent, “Hey, this is what we think is important right now, that outsiders might want to know about.” It is also a very good translation target. We can translate these blog entries into each other’s languages.

It may be that BlogControlledByWiki is the most important thing we can do to foster InterCommunityCooperation right now, with the technology we have. That’s because it makes the wiki accessible to outsiders.

The theory is that outsiders have a hard time keeping up with RecentChanges, and the details of what a wiki community is doing. It’s even harder when it’s in another language. The theory is that this difficulty is so extreme, that it hinders InterCommunityCooperation. By summarizing our activities for the mindset of the outsider, it becomes easier for outsiders to understand what the wiki community is doing.

After communities have an easier time seeing what each other are doing, then they can cooperate. We will say: “Whoah! That’s a really stellar idea! We’re going to work on that, too!” Or we say: “Hey, we’ve made a bunch of pages on that topic- you might want to check them out.”

Really, there are a billion ways we can do InterCommunityCooperation.

sylvie : OK you make things to explain and simplify the access to the wiki for persons who are outside. Maybe I’m wrong but we can imagine that people are not outside around the wiki and so they don’t need help to enter.Maybe people doesn’t enter in a wiki because they don’t have found a wiki with a content which have interest for them. If we forget the notion of wiki and go off line to observe different people in a group, in a lot of cases active people are always the same, for different reasons we don’t do things/take part just because it’s easy or simple, it’s just can help people who are interested in the objective of the group.

I am going to rephrase what I understand what you are saying; Please correct me if I am wrong:

  • We are talking about making it easier for people who do not participate in the wiki to understand what is happening inside the wiki.
    sylvie : yes
  • You are suggesting that perhaps people are not “inside” or “outside” the wiki.
    sylvie : no I suggest that people who are “outside” who don’t take part maybe are not waiting for help, or if they need help we can’t know what it can help them. Do you know who are these people ?
  • If people are not “inside” or “outside” the wiki, then there is no need to help people enter the wiki.
    sylvie : the question is not to need help or not but how to help. I think to use a wiki it is easy technicaly but the real question is to enter in a processus, to accept a system, so the psychological or conceptual interpretations are more difficult to deal with than the technical aspects. I think we can’t work on making things easier if we don’t know who are the need of people. Use the term people is too general to explain how to take part in a wiki because it is an individual choice. You can explain rules of a game to a group make it attractive (from your own point of view) but you don’t know why some people will play and others no, and some players will makes things that you have never imagine with this game.
  • Then you move to talking about: “Why aren’t people joining different wiki?” MassUseOfWiki.
  • You suggest that we need MassCoverageByWiki, that there are TooFewWiki.
  • I didn’t understand your last part, where you said: “If we…go off line to observe different people in a group, in a lot of cases active people are always the same…” I don’t understand that: “active people are always the same?”
    sylvie : I mean if you look how functions a group off line you can observ the different possible attitudes for each one to take part, and a first and general observation is : some members make “actions” and others members choose to follow, each one can make “actions” but in general we always see the same members making actions.
  • I think you’re trying to say: “People don’t just do things because they are easy, people do them to fulfill some objective.” While I agree with the idea, I’m not understanding how it connects with the previous sentences.
    sylvie : Maybe it’s not connected :) …. What is easy for you it’s at the same time not easy for me and we are both right, to help me you try to understand why is not easy for me and I help you to understand why it’s not easy for me, each one have to make a mutual progress to the other one, but this way is possible just if each one of us decide to enter in this kind of relation processus.

I’d like to make some clarifications of my own:

  • I’m not talking about people necessarily entering the wiki. Rather, I’m talking about people seeing into the wiki.
    sylvie : so people who are outside can see people who are inside but people who are inside can’t see people who are outside :)
  • My personal goal is not to increase the membership of the wiki. Rather, I’m interested in seeing the respective wiki cooperating together.
    sylvie : ok
  • InterCommunityCooperation between wiki communities doesn’t mean members must leave one wiki, and join another.
    sylvie : I agree.
  • InterCommunityCooperation likely means some identifications and agreements between members of wiki. To respond to your point: I think we must view people as being “inside” or “outside” of the wiki.
    sylvie : yes I agree there are people inside and others outside very far or just behind the window of the wiki and it’s not the same way to be outside.
  • The most important difference is the difference between ExplicitInformation and CommunityLore.
    sylvie : yes and in a lot of cases we have to deal simultaneously with the twice
  • Further: we speak a lot of complex language (ComplexPlainTalk) in a wiki community.
  • Further: RecentChanges is too chaotic for casual observers, who are used to reading nicely written blog entries. RecentChanges, on the other hand, is more like the automatic reports of a stock ticker: made for those in the particular know.

This means that people outside have a hard time understanding what is inside. This leads to the need for the BlogControlledByWiki. (I suddenly realized that the page BlogControlledByWiki is out-of-date, and doesn’t do a good job of justifying why we want it.)

It’s so that outsiders can see inside.
sylvie : maybe, but outsiders can also see by others ways. I know people who don’t need help to enter on a wiki but they prefer to stay outside and they have their own vision of what’s going on a wiki. They can enter by the window when you open the door :)… Do you really participe to the different wiki you look after for see their modifications. For my part I see from outside different wikis and I don’t wait that people inside make effort for me because they don’t know I’m outside from where I can see them doing their work.
If outsiders can see inside, surely: This is a first step towards InterCommunityCooperation! sylvie : they can see :) but what they see ? can you really answer ?


  1. I’m confused, because I’m writing big long entries, and they are being deleted.
  2. I’m also confused, because there seems to be a rejection to using ”[new]” markers.
  3. I don’t understand why the summaries keep getting deleted, and we start over, rather than preserving the summary.

As for actual issues:

  • I understand that there are people who follow RecentChanges but do not participate.
  • However, I understand that there are people who just don’t want to follow RecentChanges.
  • I know from personal experience that it is time-consuming to follow RecentChanges.
    • Specificly, I wish that CraoWiki had an English-translation BlogControlledByWiki, and I wish that MeatballWiki had a BlogControlledByWiki. It would mean that I have a better understanding of what people are doing in those comm unities. I do not follow them, because it’s work to do so. I can follow them, if I choose to spend my energy that way. But I don’t, because it costs too much time, energy.
    • I wish that WardsWiki had one as well, but their community is too weak, too fractured. It is ScratchWiki, basically.

One of the major differences:

You seem to believe that the goal is to help people enter the community, to enter the wiki. This is my second time saying this now: That is not the goal. By “enter,” I mean: Someone who reads RecentChanges, who reads substantial portions of the PageDatabase, and perhas even participates in the wiki. An outsider is someone who is not dedicated to the wiki, who does not want to (or, wants to, but does not feel they have the time to) read RecentChanges, who definitely is not a regular poster there, who is unfamiliar with the PageDatabase. This person is an outsider.

“but what they see ? can you really answer ?” Yes, Sylvie. Yes I can. I can answer, because I myself am an outsider to several MeatBall:WikiCommunity, and I do not believe that my experience is unusual.

There are many wiki communities that I’d like to keep up with, that I do not have the time to keep up with. But if they kept a blog, intended for outsiders, then I would be very happy.

So, yes, I can answer.

I can tell you what outsiders see, being an outsider: We see a bunch of arguments, we see a bunch of pages of varying quality, we see a jumble of pages on RecentChanges, and we have a hard time piecing together the CommunityLore. It’s all very chaotic.

From the inside of CommunityWiki, everything makes sense to me. But it’s easy to understand that, for an outsider, it’s very confused and difficult to get anywhere near that level of understanding.

“For my part I see from outside different wikis and I don’t wait that people inside make effort for me because they don’t know I’m outside from where I can see them doing their work.”

Sure, and there are wiki like that for me too. But I have to make a conscious effort to follow the wiki. I have to spend some time following it, seeing what’s going on. There’s a whoooole lotta ThreadMode in wiki.

Now, if you are against the idea of making effort for outsiders, okay, that’s fine. You go do your thing.

I want to take part in the larger world though, and I want to help people outside my own little community understand about what we’re doing, and stuff. I think that’s a good way to go.

If you are just plain not interested in InterCommunityCooperation possibilities, then just say so. Say, “No, not for me. If people want to see me, they can come here and talk to me.” I’m different. I don’t think that way.

Oh, shoot. Sylvie, just so you know: We don’t put comments inside each other’s posts here. Instead, we follow TurnBasedVsInterruptedThreadMode. That is, every new comment is a genuinely new comment. There are several reasons for this, detailed on that page. (Mainly, avoiding DivergingArguments.) I missed a lot of what you said, because it wasn’t following this CommunityWiki convention. (see CategoryThisWiki.)

Things that you said and asked, as I understand them:

  • You asked: If someone is an outsider, and not talking with us, how can we know what they need to hear?
  • You argue that wiki is technically easy, but entering the process, the system, the social arrangement, the WikiProcess, is hard.
  • You suggest that we can’t help people enter our WikiProcess, without knowing what their difficulties are.
  • Even more: Some people will disagree with your WikiProcess. By your point of view, it may be reasonable. By another, not so. How do you know the other point of view? You have to ask.
  • You seem to clarify a difference between leaders and followers, but you do not use that language. Rather, you use the language of people who commit actions, and say that other members choose to follow, even though, technically, they could commit actions as well.
  • You also describe the work of two people, one person explaining something to another. The teacher/explainer tries to explain something, the learner/understander (weird language!) tries to explain his misunderstanding. That this is a mutual process with mutual consent.

(If I’m making an error in understanding, please say it in a following comment- don’t put it inline.)

I still see here, in this explanation, the idea that we’re trying to pull people into the WikiProcess of our wiki. For example, you say that outsiders need our help to understand the process, the system. And, we can’t know what they need to know, unless we engage in some bi-directional communication with them.

Granted. (I agree.)

If we were trying to get people engaged in our WikiProcess, then it would be necessary to have a message-based (DocumentsVsMessages) interaction with them, where we ask and they tell and we respond and so on and so forth.

But that’s not what I’m trying to do.

Rather, we are talking about making a BlogControlledByWiki. This is like a newspaper or a personal blog or a journal or any manner of these things. These things are uni-directional message based communication paths. That is: They go from inside a group, facing outward. They speak without asking. They are like a radio channel, they are broadcasting. They are like a lighthouse. They are general information.

If the goal were to get people into the wiki, if the goal were to teach people a WikiProcess: Then you would be right. We would need to have a conversation. But that’s not the goal, and so that’s not necessarily the case.

It’s not even critical to know who is reading or watching. You only have to broadcast.

The goal here, is to tell the world whatever the people in the wiki think outsiders might be interested in seeing.

Everyone is capable of doing this. Wherever people gather, people volunteer things that they think others would be interested in.

sigi : lion, it’s incredible saucy, what you are arranging here . is there anyone of us beside you, who enjoy that? if not, we should delete it .
there is a gap between your theory and what you are doing : you put us on this page, without asking . you edit our texts . and so on and so on . no, no, no, no . we strongly disagree .

And now to something completely different:
I installed iPodder today, the medium podcast is really cool. It’s just that the casts I found up to now are mostly pretty stupid, Turning on the radio (especially in Italy) is similar stupid. BlogControlledByWiki gives us text. A minute or so (reading it) every month. Now imagine: The French do it, the Germans do it. A four minute cast of state of the art multilingual wikinews. We’d just need someone for every language to record reading it and send the file to someone prearing the cast. Podcasting is very young, ~ September 2004. It’s not too much work when we first leared it, I think, and I feel like it will turn into a way of reaching many people and - without knowing these people - being able to tell them what we are doing.

I proposed a wiki-blog for s23-wiki btw.

Please use [new:] when starting a new contribution on community-wiki (it you have no Portrait, if you have one use two colons - :: - instead of one), thank you.


I didn’t think that there would be any objections to moving our conversation here. We were talking on HubAndSpokeWiki?, but our conversation was clearly about InterCommunityCooperation. I thought about it, made a decision, and moved everything verbatim here.

However, I did not edit your texts, to my memory.

Can you be more specific?

sigi : well, seems i was wrong in some part . some text, i missed, is still there . some text has gone (see beneath) but it’s all about xtof . could be, he has deleted it . if so, we can delete it again .

Sorry sigi and Lion. This moving was just to try the LongComment pattern - excuses… I don’t feel able to refactor and help in handling. so delete this comment. I’ll have to rework PointWiki. Have a good weekend. zzzZZZ ;)

lion & sigi : ok :) [done]

sigi : lion, you moved us to InterCommunityCooperation but our conversation was clearly about HubAndSpokeWikis . that means, about the question, how things can be done by a community (not by many communities). i proposed to buy three wikis (if there is one community, spread over three wikis) . you: nonono, there are a billion other ways (what a discussion!) . in any case, it’s not the right place here . it would be better to make a propper site . but now i’m interested in what you call communities. i certainly do not belong to one of these communities . you construct them, but they are not real . and if they exist, like the people in a bus on the street, they are not interested in InterCommunityCooperation (by the way, don’t need that word (inter·wiki·cooperation would be better) and there’s also no inter·wiki·cooperation like there is no bus·cooperation . you are telling of things which do not exist . let’s cooperate here and now . we have a different opinion about wikis . that’s a gap . let us handle it .



By “community,” I mean: things like you see around here, on CommunityWiki; and then things like KDE, GNOME, Firefox, Apache, and the “greater wiki community”- very large groups of people. Both CliquesAndCommunities, I’m lumping: “community.” what you see around you here, on CommunityWiki exists.

People aren’t generally a community on a bus, because they don’t talk with each other. If more or less the same people talked with each other on the bus, though, we could say that it was a “bus community.” I suspect that there are some, in different places in the world. Kitty told me about something like that in a poor part of Colombia.

I reject Inter-Wiki-Cooperation, because I reject CommunityTiedToOneTechnology. We communicate in IRC, we communicate in Jabber, we communicate mainly in wiki. Different communities communicate mainly by different media, most seem to have a “medium of choice.” It could be bulletin boards, Scoop, Slash, wiki, Jabber, Skype, Gobby, whatever. But OnlineCommunity is made of people, and it is people (and groups of people) that cooperate.

sigi : in the beginning of the net there was the idea of one community . then groups came up (form, arise, build up) with different interests and overcome that idea . and then wiki came out . but its inventor was only a human being and he made two mistakes: the wiki, he installed, was a private wiki and had a special topic .
so, forget all these communities . we need a community from the scratch, based on a wiki, which belongs all and with open topic . that’s the same, i think, as sylvie told you . you can’t make a decision for other people . give them the opportunity to tell you (and they will do) and then try to come to an agreement .

Only one little point: you wrote: we don’t put comments inside each other’s posts here .
but sylvie didn’t put her comments inside of your posts . she splitted your post into two or more and answered each of them .
that’s the same, as if we make two ore more lions or sigis here (see above and see this post) and we answere it one by one (or even change the order) .
if that is wrong, why do you make so often two ore more lions ?
btw: why avoiding diverging arguments ? it’s stigmergy and you can make new pages if necessary . and if necessary, you can bind them again .

Any double who-so-evers removed from this page. Please avoid them. They take away space (especially when they go with a picture) and make no sense. Just a timestamp is enough when the same person speaks up again later. For lion I guess it’s a habit from irc. There you can’t evite it.
Inserting text in other people’s text I think diminishes the clearness and readability of a page, but as sylvie is having a hard time with English here she shall be forgiven. In a sense though it is a bit like in a cultivated dicurs. You let someone finish before speaking. The thoughts get more understandable for those who listen like that. Anyhow, these are really minor things.
The one-wiki-idea is what lion is after, my sigi! Things are fragmented. One big soup is about the tools to make reconnecting that all possible.

(for mattis: )

I don’t accept the “please avoid them” rule- but I’ll temporarily follow it, until this page sorts itself out.

For the purpose of this page, I’ll refrain from repeating face images.

(for sigi: )

We don’t split posts here. We can talk about DivergingArguments and the reasons for avoiding them later.

Please keep a list of the topics you want to talk about, so we can attend to them in turn, in order of interest and priority.

We are a limited IntelligenceProcess? here. (CategoryIntelligenceTheory.) If we are not fast enough for you, then we have an IntegrationAndIdentity conflict: You may want to create a wiki with Sylvie, and other like thinkers, and establish your own process. When you’ve done that, we can perform InterCommunityCooperation in order to link our ideas with one anothers.

Personally, though, I hope we can incorporate your ideas and answer your questions.

The conflict we are having right now is directly related to the need for InterCommunityCooperation. It is also similar to one of the source of the original MeatballWiki - CommunityWiki split: I was putting too many ideas (too many differences, too much “energy,” in SunirShah’s words) into MeatballWiki that did not integrate well with the MeatballWiki PageDatabase and social process. For this and other reasons, we split off and formed CommunityWiki. The pattern is inevitable; It is shaped like the nature of the Firm. It is unavoidable. This is why I believe developing protocol for InterCommunityCooperation is so imparitive: If these groups are to learn and work with each other, we need to understand the variables, the parameters, that communities cooperate by.

As for your ideas on one community: I don’t completely understand what you are saying?

Are you saying:

  • There should be only one wiki, and people who like to wiki should use it?
  • There should be only one wiki, and everybody in the world online should use it?
  • …and that such a wiki should practice RadicalInclusiveness?
  • That the ideal one wiki, would have a SubWiki for every topic? (usenet-like?)
  • or that the ideal one wiki, would have one PageDatabase for use by all topics?
  • There should be only one OnlineCommunity, and everyone in the world online should belong to it?

My dream, that I think I can help make real, is for mass organizing online. My dream is that we figure out how to make a new sort of Democracy, using the new online communications systems.

I do not imagine everyone belonging to one wiki. Nor do I imagine one server. I don’t even imagine one distributed server system. Nor do I imagine one social system. These seem very unrealistic to me.

(I do envision that we can (basically) connect every medium to every other medium; this is OneBigSoup.)

The only “one community” I imagine is called “humanity,” and it already exists. But when we get more specific, talking about nations, or, perhaps imagining a post-nation world- talking about different tribes or organizations, the vision of the one human community quickly fractures into a million pieces.

But that’s much higher level than I prefer to work: I prefer to think of how small and large groups organize themselves and work together.

KDE, Apache, GNOME, Wikipedia, etc., they organize and cooperate this way.

sigi : last first: you forgot google . how is it organized ? i can tell you: it’s one big soup . but they don’t need your tools . they have better ones . they don’t care about your prohibition of having one distributed server system . (and wikilandia dont care about your ban of having one sozial system) .
and i’m shure, you don’t see yourself as a system fractured into a million pieces .
in which way does kde cooperate with gnome? in which way does apache cooperate with wikipedia? in which way does community·wiki cooperate with other wikis? in which way does lion cooperate with other people? you say we, but who is we? alex don’t use this word, nor does bayle .
but i don’t want to attack you . you are a friend of mattis and therefore i will do all to understand you . we can look together at the structure in a sort of peer review . look at this page . it has some properties (attributes) of artificial life . it can grow, it can copy itself . it can split off into several pages, more, it can built a system of pages . so we can go with the struture . we can make a new page: ConversationPulledFromHubAndSpokeWikis? . do you agree?

Sigi, Google isn’t a community. At least, not a community that is accessible online. (Inside the company walls, it may be different.)

KDE & GNOME cooperate through the vehicle of FreeDesktop?, where they forge protocols in common. Wikipedia is working with KDE lately on integrating Wikipedia content and KDE tools.

OneBigSoup refers to the general idea for creating protocols to connect communications mediums in new ways. I don’t think you seriously mean to suggest that the existence of Google means that the world needs no more protocols.

I have not placed a ban on distributed server systems. I’m just saying that one particular distributed wiki platform would be something that I wouldn’t think reasonable. (I didn’t even say that that was what you were suggesting: I was just asking for you to explain your thoughts to me, and offering some possible understandings.)

How do I cooperate with other people?

This is a cooperation.

Other senses?

There are all sorts of cooperations.

I strongly believe that we’re hitting a language barrier here; I think it’s going to make further conversation extremely difficult..!

Who is “We?” Right now, it’s you and me. If I’m talking with BayleShanks, it’s BayleShanks and I. It depends on who I’m working with, who I’m talking with. If I’m writing a page for CommunityWiki, it generally means “us here on CommunityWiki.” Sometimes it doesn’t- read the section at the top of HiveMind, about “we.” It all depends.

No, I don’t believe now would be a good time to split this page, especially not into fragments. That’s what a ForestFire and DivergingArguments are about. We, in the CommunityWiki, do not believe in creating a ForestFire. (This is mutable, but where would have to be a discussion first.)

Just for the record: I’m very interested in what LionKimbro has to say on this wiki, and I totally agree with the way he has handled the move of the conversation here, the direction he is going in, the way he keeps asking for confirmation of his understanding, and I totally admire his patience and kindness in all these days. I don’t understand sigi’s aggravation and bitterness. Just so we all know that I feel myself included when Lion says: “we”.

Oh and I do believe in the value of orthography and punctuation.

sylvie : when sigi speaks about google he doesn’t say that google is a community but is an important tool to deal with to think stigmergy process. Before create new protocol and new tools for cooperation it’ seems reasonnable to identify first what it works to try to find way for interoperability, it’s why agreement it’s so important. About the question of rules just one thing if you don’t think that maybe it would be different so it’s mean for you it exist good ways and wrong, my point of view i’s rules are just conventions, it’s why we can change conventions through agreement when it appears something can be changed. But if CW need to keep always the same rules ok keep them … :)

I know sigi rather well. We worked together at GründerWiki and a conflict made him leave. I’d like to help not to get into the same situation here. sigi has an admirable emotional view of things and systems and feels what they should be or where they should go. But this view is not accompanied by a technical mind. If you want to bring him to the point of what he really wants or means, he is lost, it’s impossible. Even if you’re patient, you’ll loose your patience at some point. So I wouldn’t try this way. Accept that he has emotional views that are often interesting, sometimes helpful, but rarely implementable (and I don’t mean this only technically but also socially).

sigi : hey, what a nice forest·fire! but - ladies first, gentlemen!
thank you, sylvie, for your help . these guys don’t want to understand me (and you) . but’s not our english, i suppose . i understand your english better than lions english . so let me repeate some words of you, to show them, what’s my opinion too (for me, couldn’t do it better)
the question is not to need help or not but how to help. I think to use a wiki it is easy technicaly but the real question is to enter in a processus, to accept a system, so the psychological or conceptual interpretations are more difficult to deal with than the technical aspects. I think we can’t work on making things easier if we don’t know who are the need of people. Use the term people is too general to explain how to take part in a wiki because it is an individual choice. You can explain rules of a game to a group make it attractive (from your own point of view) but you don’t know why some people will play and others not, and some players will makes things that you have never imagine with this game.
yes gentlemen, you are so proud of your technical point of view . but the net is full of technicians and programmers . there are many people like you . but there’s only one sylvie, there’s only one xtof . that’s my point of view .
btw: how can i disuss with you, if you even don’t get the idea of splitting a page, which has clearly two different parts and becomes longer and longer, into two pages . forestfire? lion, are you joking?

@alex: “oh and i do believe in the value of orthography and punctuation.” du tust so, als hätte das jemand bezweifelt. dann korrigier es oder lass es . it’s wiki . btw: wer du bist, weiß ich ja, aber wer ist oh? (what a nice english)

@lion: you answered my questions , but still weaker than i feared .
and what do you mean with diverging arguments . do you want to teach me, how to diskuss? oh boy, i can teach you .
btw: miguel de icasa, one of the fathers of gnome, was polemizing from the beginning against kde and today he is working for microsoft . furthermore, kde is much more better than gnome, so, why gnome? to split the community?
instead of machine·code·blocks i would prefere nodes (or knots) . do you run linux and kde on your machine? then i can send you a programm .

@helmut: lass stecken!

I’m in a bind about what to do.

I want to have an InterCommunityCooperation coversation. But, the page is so hot right now. There are misunderstandings.

I think I’ll just wait a while. Perhaps work on some other pages for a while: organize categories, join IntegrationAndIdentity and PassagesOfPerspective with CategoryIntelligenceTheory, perhaps finally write IntelligenceProcess?. These things are the founding grounds for InterCommunityCooperation, it seems to me.

WikiDrama Test

Hé sigi. Sylvie just drops you a PotlatchPage [2]

sigi : sweet . ask her, if we can dream à trois, quatre …

A ForestFire - just as a real forest-fire - is not necessarily a bad thing. It cleans the gound for somethng new and probably more healthy, something more adequate to grow. Connected with appropiate quick forgiving and forgetting it’s actually almost a good thing, it just scares you a bit sometimes and in the first moment, agree. The moon is decending, sigi will know to dose it, I’m pretty sure about that. And I do wonder if lion confirms on sigi of not beeing a technical mind when he’s got the software. I think we’re doing fine lately. The confusion is a chance for us to take an advantage from it. I honestly think it would be good to run community-wiki collectively. I would love to take my part on that, lion said on irc (without me asking before) that he would take his share. It should be open to people. Not to who we find out we don’t like, sure, but in the first place and potentially to everybody.
Maybe it confuses the world-wiki-money idea that - from my pont of view - clearly is behind it, but maybe the better way, instead of paying your share every time (and feeding the banks charging rates for transfering these few cents), it would be to decide: k, April mattis pays it all, May alex pays it all, June lion, … bayle, xtof, sigi, sylvie and and … something like that. :)

sigi : it’s okay for me . but how to connect it with universal money? can we discuss that on my page / on a propper page?

Hmm.. I am in favor of the idea of helping Alex pay the bills, should he request it. (He has not.)

I’m not in favor of using shared billing as a way to force the use of a ritualized communal decision making process, a LegalSolution, when conflict arises.

I’m strongly in favor of Alex’s role as the moderator of the wiki, and I’m strongly in favor of Alex’s role as the authority for the site’s software.

CommunityWiki isn’t an online justice system; CommunityWiki isn’t an online governing body. We have no obligation to follow a particular social process, we have no obligation to even humor any given particular perspective.

(This reminds me now of Sigi’s statement that we are private, and SunirShah saying that we aren’t public, because we have no such obligations. I think I need to go back to ThePublicWeb, and change it.)

(We are public, in that we are transparent to the public. We are also public, in that we are relatively easy to interact with- far easier than most institutions. We are private, in that we reserve the right to make our own decisions about how we will do things, and follow our own systems. We are public, also, in that we are vulnerable.)

sigi, I don’t like you when you start judging people and work against the community. That’s when I jumped in. Stop it - then there will be no reason to comment you actions here or elsewhere.

helmut . wir hatten uns friedlich getrennt, aber du scheinst ja hier einen regelrechten hass zu entwickeln . damit hast du dich endgültig disqualifiziert . ich möchte dich bitten, zu akzeptieren, dass du nicht mehr auf meiner ansprech·liste stehst .

sigi : i will leave it to the community to answer you .

Sigi, I think the community had already answered before I started writing. You were just unable to hear what the community said…

Hello all, I’d just like to say: thank you for the fascinating conversation – there is some great stuff on this page!

Hmm, I liked the post’s main idea, but judging from the comments, no one else did. My read is that most of the highly-rated commenters think that in fact there is not much high-quality content on the internet? Personally, I think there’s plenty of good stuff. Perhaps the commenters are getting discouraged by the “low average quality” of stuff found on the net; but, as Paul Graham pointed out here, the “average” level of quality of the internet doesn’t matter, only the best level of quality, because readers can choose what to read.
Anyway, his comment about “windows in our walled gardens” certainly made me think about our work on this stuff, most particularly about ProjectSpace. I agree with him that we should try to create an economy amenable to OpenContent content creators.

Our sub-culture within America has been fashionably pessimistic. It’s been cool to be the first to shoot down a believer. We long ago stopped believing in believing. PostModern-ism in action, taken to it’s logical end. See also: “bloggers are all stupid, I wish they’d just shut up,” which can draw cheers, even though people are basically talking about themselves and their own lives.

Speaking with individuals, one on one, they can turn around.

The thing to do is, I believe:

  • Speak sincerely. (Do not pretend that what isn’t so is so; Acknowledge weaknesses that exist.)
  • Address crux arguments. (“Do you sincerely believe that you suck? Do you sincerely think your values are really meaningless, at base? If things are so hopeless, then how can (such-and-such famous people) succeed? Why do you value your heroes? What would your heroes do? Why are your heroes your heros? …”)
  • Appeal to noble motive.
  • Encourage renewed thinking by sussing out the ideas people get excited by.
  • Encourage realistic action, heeding particular attention to first actions.

The goal is to get the other person talking, to get the other person excited. So naturally, that means fishing out for ideas (ThePowerOfQuestions,) and checking to see if you can find out what matters to the other person.

People will either subconsciously agree to, or reject, the process. People who reject the process will make it known with continued pessimism. Depart with a graceful offer, and in 5 years time, they may re-evaluate, informed by the memory of your visit. “If you ever change your mind.” People who accept the process- just carry it through, and let them allow you to help them remember what they want to do.

Added later: People may just be into another trip entirely. Maybe they want to do the bonnet & farm thing. Totally okay. But, that isn’t the K5 crowd, and that isn’t the disaffected youth crowd of our generation, for the most part. Many people are depressed because they can’t make heads or tails of their situation, and they don’t know how to get involved, and they think that if they got involved, it’d be a worthless exercise in futility anyways. They’ve been lied to by just about every institution on the planet, starting with the very first one they met: the school system. These are people who are open in a way that can be engaged. We can only really absorb our own latent tribe.

Note that: while the comments are negative, the article was posted. Not to Front Page, but it was posted. People were excited enough by the article to vote post. I believe that communities have subconscious wishes and dreams, just like individuals.

Our Walled Gardens was a good post.

There were positive responses. The negative responses can be lumped into categories, and what I wrote above applies to most of them, analyzing the motive for responses.



Define external redirect: FlorianFesti TechClique SummaryLine FreeDesktop WikiSchoolParis WikiWoodstocks WikiNodesNetwork InterWistro GenerateurPoietique WeakLinks WikiMeetup IntelligenceProcess OnlineConvention WikiJockey NeutralTerritory SpokeWiki HubAndSpokeWiki ConversationPulledFromHubAndSpokeWikis

EditNearLinks: SunirShah CommunityMarketing WisTro CommunicationChannel LegalSolution CraoWiki PageDatabase ForestFire MeatballWiki LowRoad OnlineCommunity OlivierZablocki WardsWiki