wiki-net groups The groups associated with our neighboring wikis

This page contains an inclusion of the groups community-wiki [[groups_community-wiki?]] and the groups associated with neighboring wikis in our wiki-net [[wiki-net?]].

The groups associated with which wikis do we watch?

Please keep our wiki-net manually synchronized with changes to the list of included groups.

Who is watching the groups community-wiki?

All groups asssociated with the wikis on the list kabo-wiki-hive - whoRthey-wiki - one big soup one big soup are included into the pages kabo-wiki-hive - whoRthey-wiki - one big hive, all groups one big hive, all groups and kabo-wiki-hive - whoRthey-wiki - one big hive, all wikis complete one big hive, all wikis complete in the whoRthey-wiki.

This page does not automatically refresh when an included group has been posted to. Please [[force_a_refresh?]] (Firefox: shift + control + R).

groups in our wiki-net




  • 22:03 UTC I just saw somebody on Google+ say that in her exp...
    Alex Schröder 6:00am Jan 8
    I just saw somebody on Google+ say that in her experience, males are leaving LiveJournal. Any supporting observations?

    Alex Schröder 6:03am Jan 8
    "Over the past few years, there has been a mass exodus of all males on LJ. I still use it daily, and it's still my favorite social site. I think they have the community thing DOWN. But I no longer have any male friends, there. I noticed one day when I went to make a "girls only" friends group and realized that there was no one to exclude. It's a strange trend."


  • 14:21 UTC Anybody with thoughts on social media developments...
    Alex Schröder 1:06pm Dec 26
    Anybody with thoughts on social media developments, their use of social media in the last year, offline community building?

    My own:

    Lion Kimbro 5:22pm Dec 26
    I embraces FaceBook this year. Access to people > quality of tool.

    Lion Kimbro 5:23pm Dec 26
    I love EMACSwiki. Haters gunna hate. :D amusing watching people repeat mistakes we worked through many years ago.

    Sam Rose 1:21am Dec 27
    I started a new wiki this year: :) With some help there from the people behind and offering advice on starting local wiki.

    Alex Schröder 12:51pm Dec 27
    Local wikis sound like an excellent idea. Good luck! Is there a particular subculture you feel are your target users or do you want it to be "for everybody" but from the bottom up, as opposed to an official Facebook page, for example?

    Sam Rose 3:00pm Dec 27
    Alex Schröder there are some subcultures that are target users: people who care about documenting local history (local musicians, area historians), businesses that want to promote and expand on info about their business, people focusing on local food and local economic development. Plus, local software and technology people are enthusiastic about it. (for the town of AnnArbor, MI just under an hour away from here by car) has been going for a number of years now (probably since around the start of CommunityWiki) with help from people like Mark Dilley Edward Vielmetti and some Ann Arbor locals. Arbor wiki was able to get some support from the Ann Arbor public library system. I may try to go that route. Or, I may look at historical societies (since we really lack a good online source of history for Lansing, which at one time had dozens of manufacturing operations, and all kinds of other stuff happening).

    I am also discussing with a local trade cooperative having them support the wiki for a while, and the wiki in turn can be a tool for some of their purposes. This is actually getting some traction.

    I am also sincerely and seriously hoping to add a couple of improvements to localwiki software, which would make it more interesting to my friends at and other local citizen journalism efforts: 1. a way to collect, store and categorize statistical data about a place (associated in the wiki with pages). So, one could start collecting crime statistics, etc etc

    2. A way overlay many layers on to the (instead of just one. This is doable, I've accomplished it in the past with this site that I made This makes the map more useful for people looking for specific information.

    Alex Schröder 4:34pm Dec 27
    That reminds me of +Daniel McKay's wiki on gay Halifax.

    Alex Schröder 4:35pm Dec 27
    I think he got a prize for it because of its documenting of LGTB local history.

    Alex Schröder 4:37pm Dec 27
    Also, Mattis Manzel tried to create local wikis but I think he lacked a local population that was a priori interested in it. "Build it and they will come" doesn't seem to always work.

    Mattis Manzel 7:44pm Dec 27
    a single case where it works would do. Unfortunately building 'local populations' is as much time consuming as not my thing, so: in theory it works ;)

    Sam Rose 7:47pm Dec 27
    yeah, I am getting more interest in the area I am actually in. So, I am just focusing on that, and trying to make it as rich as possible. I will expect it to take at least 2-3 years to take off on it's own. The wikis for Ann Arbor and Toledo are pretty popular in their own spaces.

    Mattis Manzel 7:49pm Dec 27
    SamRose: Does local wiki - it seems to have sprout out of Davies-wiki - still run on Sycamore wiki, a drilled up moin wiki, kinda?

    Mattis Manzel 7:51pm Dec 27
    two or three years is also Helmut Leitners guess and he's darn right on it ;)

    Mattis Manzel 7:51pm Dec 27
    at least, true …

    Alex Schröder 7:53pm Dec 27
    My experience with Emacs Wiki was that I needed about 1000 pages.

    Mattis Manzel 8:03pm Dec 27
    I'm pretty doubtful what page count is concerned. Mediawiki does it excellently, but a wiki with a hundred (cleverly included) pages can make more sense than a 1000 pages. Page count is over-evaluated nowadays (as technical possible). Links, wiki-net links to pages locally watching a wiki in particular is what I rather tend to.

    Mattis Manzel 8:09pm Dec 27
    ok, 1000 was when the emacs-wiki came live. I'm ~ 400 pages on some wikis, ha!

    Mattis Manzel 8:24pm Dec 27
    correction: wiki-net links to pages in other wikis watching a wiki locally in particular rather

    Mark Dilley 8:36pm Dec 27
    LocalWiki is from the folks who brought us DavisWiki - it is new fan-dangled wysiwyg wiki - where you can't link while you think very easily ( think - write - highlight - click on link button - insert link - save ) - it instead focuses on other affordances - maps for example.

    Mark Dilley 8:37pm Dec 27
    Runs with Django I believe

    Alex Schröder 9:47pm Dec 27
    Mattis, I think the reason for the thousands of pages is mostly this: the wiki needs to be valuable before others will start maintaining it. It's hard to tell what other people will find valuable. I guess it could be true that of the 1000 pages, only 100 were important enough to attract contributors. Unfortunately, I was unable to tell which 100 pages this would be so I had to create 1000 pages to be sure.

    Edward Vielmetti 9:52pm Dec 27
    For comparison, Arborwiki has about 10000 pages accumulated over 7 years. I was working on it for a time when I was writing for so it had the feel of something that was part of my job. A handful of pages get the most traffic, and the ones that get the most traffic get the most routine updates by people who are not regulars.

    Sam Rose 10:21pm Dec 27
    Mark Dilley one trick that I figured out with LocalWiki is to highlight with Shit+arrow key, the Ctrl+L and the wiki will link it. Not as easy as [[]] or CamelCase, but at least I don't have to take fingers off keyboard :)
  • 06:02 UTC Reminder: The inclusion of the facebook group Comm...
    Kommunity Wiki 1:54pm Dec 27
    Reminder: The inclusion of the facebook group CommunityWiki into the community-wiki works. Mattis Manzel :)

    Mattis Manzel 1:58pm Dec 27
    It does transclude facebook user icons into the community-wiki, I like that.

    Mattis Manzel 2:02pm Dec 27
    An interesting side effect of this set up seems to be that it makes facebook group conversations getting indexed by google.


  • 19:41 UTC I keep returning to that Amit Patel post "Unstruct...
    Alex Schröder 5:49am Sep 11
    I keep returning to that Amit Patel post "Unstructured to Structured". I created a new Community Wiki page to extract some links to.

    (Note that editing the wiki requires an editor password which you can request by email:

    Lion Kimbro 3:41am Dec 21
    Still valuable.


  • 22:38 UTC for unknown reasons, migrated away from http://www...
    Rainer Wasserfuhr 5:05am Dec 15
    for unknown reasons, migrated away from ;)

    Mark Dilley 5:06am Dec 15
    come back once in a while... :-)

    Rainer Wasserfuhr 5:07am Dec 15
    but, seriously: why does an FbGroup for CommunityWiki have to exist? ;)

    Mark Dilley 5:08am Dec 15
    Lion started it as an experiment - it actually was useful to communicate about the wiki being down. FaceBook does have some affordances that would be nice in the wiki.

    Lion Kimbro 8:10am Dec 15
    Because we don't check up on CW any more. But we still all know each other.

    Rainer Wasserfuhr 8:14am Dec 15
    so no more RecentChangesJunkie? ;)

    Mark Dilley 9:28am Dec 15
    Not at CommunityWiki for me

    Alex Schröder 6:07am Dec 19
    I still recent changes for three Wikis – but Not for Community Wiki.

    Rainer Wasserfuhr 6:12am Dec 19
    isn't this strange?

    Lion Kimbro 6:37am Dec 19
    No. We are done. I hope Alex has locked the wiki. At the same time, I definitely hope that it will stay up.

    Lion Kimbro 6:38am Dec 19
    Rainer, I would ask you: What did you love about the wiki? And then- reformulate that in our new context.


  • 07:38 UTC The wiki seems down? Alex Schröder
    Seb Paquet 10:47pm Dec 4
    The wiki seems down? Alex Schröder

    Lion Kimbro 10:48pm Dec 4
    I noticed it too, trying to show someone an article the other day.

    Seb Paquet 10:49pm Dec 4
    There's always

    Mark Dilley 1:10am Dec 5
    was trying to edit it yesterday, noticed it was down and figured Alex would get to it when he could :-)

    Alex Schröder 6:14am Dec 5
    I will take a look.

    Alex Schröder 6:19am Dec 5
    Fixed. :)

    Lion Kimbro 7:43am Dec 5
    Thank you Alex!

    Alex Schröder 1:15pm Dec 5
    Got another email: "We would like to contribute tot the and would like to receive a password to create a wiki page in Dutch. Our expertise is in the Real Estate."

    I guess the answer is "No!"

    Seb Paquet 3:38pm Dec 5
    wikis are infinite sources of virtual real estate


  • 00:11 UTC I'm religious but not spiritual. A friend of mine...
    Brandon CS Sanders 11:12pm Jun 1
    I'm religious but not spiritual. A friend of mine (Eric) recently suggested that us religious but not spiritual people (and maybe everyone) need a religious method akin to the scientific method. I love this idea and am helping to organize a mini un-conference to really chew on it. I can't wait until June 20 to get started though, so ...

    What is the religious equivalent of the scientific method?

    Could religion begin a period of rapid progress if it got its own 'Religious method'?

    What does religion do? What must a religion have to be a religion?

    What do religions not do? What should religions be forbidden from doing by the method?

    What is a religious question? What kind of questions do religions ask and what do their answers look like?

    What steps are there to answering religious questions?

    What do you think?

    Brandon CS Sanders 11:14pm Jun 1
    ps. Community wiki folks who think this topic is interested should feel warmly invited to the event:

    Brandon CS Sanders 11:22pm Jun 1
    When I consider a religious method, I imagine restrictions. For example, if a question can be addressed by science, then it isn't a religious question. That sort of thing.

    One of the difficulties I foresee is that religion is already a term with a lot of valid claimants. And many of their definitions aren't going to be compatible with our conclusions. So do we need a different term? I'm not sure. I guess it may be similar to the relationship between science and alchemy, or between science and any sort of psuedo science.

    I wonder how people would react to us calling fundamentalist Christianity and other flavors of fundamentalism pseudo religions? Could be very interesting.

    Joel Chandler 5:58am Jun 2
    1) hermeneutics(?)

    2) not if it is based on the supernatural (my opinion)

    3) traditionally, religions exhibit a number of these traits (from my class notes): 1) belief in a supernatural being or beings, 2) belief in a being of superior intelligence (e.g., heros), 3) a metaphysic identifying significant events of human life, 4) belief in experience after death, 5) moral code, 6) a place for evil, 7) a theodicy explaining why the suffering of innocents is allowed, 8) prayer & ritual, 9) sacred objects & places, 10) revealed truth, 11) religious (mystical) experience, 12) intense concern, 13) commitment to sharing. Some of these will count as reasons to abandon your use of the term "religious."

    4) concern itself with quantitative facts(?)

    5) a question that involves that a stand be taken by the questioner(?) - as opposed to the putative impartial "view from nowhere" stance of science. The answers of religious questions will be interpretive(?)

    6) guessing all: an existential question. consider the personal, social, and historical context of the question/answer. ...what does the question mean to me? (i.e., what does the nature of the question tell me about the nature of myself?). how does the answer I accept affect my behavior? how am I moved by the question/answer? how does the question/answer connect me to a reality larger than myself such that I may identify with this larger reality? etc.

    Lion Kimbro 7:06am Jun 2
    I think I understand what Brandon is saying; I've told people that I am "religious not spiritual" before, because they didn't understand the depths of my commitments. A woman who wanted me to make a life with her said to me "making societies is your hobby, you are not on a mission from God," and I knew then that it was over between us.

    Lion Kimbro 7:11am Jun 2
    Brandon, esotericists have been establishing religious sciences for a long time. My observation is that ... they have succeeded! The thing is- the vast majority of people have not caught up with the esotericists. Science is still science even if there only a few hundred thousand scientists. The work is still active, the peer review is still ongoing, it is all just invisible to most people. This is my sense of things. The Damanhurians say: the crystal of truth can only be penetrated by way through a facet. Once the facet is penetrated, the various facets can be seen and understood. I take this allegory to mean that a person needs to learn one language and system. Once this is accomplished, the links and connections with other languages and systems can be understood. But here is the thing- you can't do it for someone else- they have to learn it themselves, and for themselves, ...


  • 22:57 UTC I have a desire to flesh out some philosophical qu...
    Lion Kimbro 4:34pm May 19
    I have a desire to flesh out some philosophical questions that may or may not be in step with who we've (individually) become. In particular, I am interested in exploring questions about identity, individuality, community, society, and meaning. I've already got some ideas in mind, but I'd like to give them struts and supports, and also some kicking around from others. There are other related themes that I can't think up off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure they'd make it in as well. Does this sound at least somewhat interesting to others?

    I see CommunityWiki as a place to develop ideas consciously, basically, and I'm wondering what ideas people may have an interest in developing.

    Sam Rose 4:39pm May 19
    I have a perspective related to experience about people "free riding", being extractive, not understanding how to co-develop commonly held and shared spaces, resources, "things" (like communities).

    I am convinced there is a rational and effective way to deal with this, but first it must be objectively identified, acknowledged, and understood.

    Lion Kimbro 6:27pm May 19
    Sam, I'd like to hear more about this. Perhaps start with key ideas?

    Alex Schröder 12:14am May 21
    Identity, individuality, community, society and meaning sounds very interesting—but also dangerously close to WordMagic. I'd love to see you start with something small. If it takes hold, we'll expand it.

    Edward Vielmetti 12:18am May 21
    Here's a "WordMagic" page from Meatball, , if you are not familiar with that particular theme. The bigger challenge is in picking a name space that fits your world, and I'll note that one of the Facebook features/disfeatures is that nothing really has a name or needs a name in order to exist.

    Alex Schröder 12:24am May 21
    Hehe, it reads as something I might have written… :)

    Sam Rose 2:47pm May 22
    Lion Kimbro you know what, I changed my mind. I actually think this page and the discussion with you and Alex Schröder there is more important than my "issue" above: (that page and the related pages) I really like the idea of saving links, and using them in wiki as "ArgumentPyramid" building blocks towards "TheoryBuilding". That seems like a really important topic that CommunityWiki as a whole still has a lot to say, thin, and do about.

    Lion Kimbro 9:30pm May 22
    Two main ideas I have are 1. that the individual is substantially identified by/through the society, and that we do not have sufficient control over our social forms to be able to truly individuate. That is, our freedom to be ourselves is limited by our incapacity to make our societies around us. 2. That meaning is more real than our mindsets permit.

    Lion Kimbro 9:30pm May 22
    More broadly though I am questioning my whole approach to communicating with people in general right now, and this contributes to my paralysis right now.

    Alex Schröder 10:20pm May 22
    Lion Kimbro Perhaps what you're experiencing is the problem of all communication when it comes to wisdom. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. It's easy to talk a lot, but it's hard to convey the important bits, to touch people where it matters. Sometimes the answer to an important question can only be given by living it. Sometimes the answer can only be understood by those looking for it. I know that this is how I feel, personally. Am I going to write about the vague feelings of peace, the golden thread of life I sometimes see, the dread of old age and frailty creeping up on me, the joy of love, the fear of endings? Absolutely not, for writing about it would cheapen it just as TV cheapens everything that we could have experienced instead. TV is great when it comes to rockets launching, observing wild life and the like, telling stories.

    Lion Kimbro 2:10am May 23
    Aaron Poeze, I think that that part is relatively easy -- 1. find people who are willing to commit to the idea, 2. develop solid relationships with these people, 3. go for it, whole-heartedly.

    Lion Kimbro 2:16am May 23
    Alex Schröder, I think you are somewhat right. The problem is that I don't know when to (A) "be myself," and say what I'm thinking immediately directly, (B) when to work with people via stepping stones, gently guiding people from idea to idea, (C) when to give myself over to emotion and inner voice, and speak from that visionary place.

    The Federation of Damanhur works from C, to epic success. Tamera works from A, to moderate success but crystal clarity. OneTaste works from B, and is able to survive in a city.

    I'm not a quietest; I don't believe in not communicating so that "the real" can speak on its own. I know several quietists, and while I respect them and find them to be people of solid character, I ultimately believe in the evolution of society and social form, and believe that that means speaking.

    Sam Rose 2:19am May 23
    Lion Kimbro the dilemmas you describe above are very related to how some people (like Richard Lewontin) look at living systems in general. You cannot separate the gene/organism/environment. Your communication is going to be affected by the perspective you have on your environment, by the social litany, the deeper world views, and myth metaphor you are steeped in.

    I was just reading this article: and it struck me just now how the approaches that they describe there for dealing with their problems are related to what you are discussing here. Those people in that article created new capacities for dealing with problems, new ways of looking at problems. They did not even really know where they were going with it. They were in a searching and consolidating/evolutionary mode, until they stumbled across real answers. Then, there was a new reality for them, a new way of addressing what they perceived to be their problems of existence.

    Lion Kimbro 2:37am May 23
    Phil, I'm not sure I completely follow, but I am in support of altering the body, and recrafting our visions of God, as well. The problem is that myself and many people I know have ideas and desires and movements inside that go way past what polite society "knows" how to make space for.

    One of the obstacles is a view of "individuality" that ends up actually being a conformity, -- and I'd love to dynamite it. The trick is that we can't just move individually; We can only move with others. "How can that be? I thought you were seeking individuality." Ah- but our concept of what individuality is all screwed up. That's what I wanted to talk about.

    But maybe it's just dumb to talk about, and, like Alex may have intended, I should be practicing rather than talking at this juncture. But part of the practicing is talking. {;)}=

    Lion Kimbro 2:42pm May 23
    The reason I talk about individuality is because I want people to make new societies- lots of new societies. I've explored with my imagination and found that the way I want to live, the kind of society I want to live in, the kinds of thoughts I want to live in, are vastly different than the way that the mainstream culture is able to support.

    When people try to make new societies though, what do people say? They say, "Oh, thats a cult; Don't do that; You'll lose your individuality." I challenged that accusation in my thoughts, and found that individuation is tightly constrained by the social body. In this light, the creation of new social forms, guided by the desires of the people and peoples that form them, is one of the greatest boons for the cause of individuation that is possible.

    Seb Paquet 3:00pm May 23
    Lion Kimbro "We can't just move individually; We can only move with others" - would love you to expand on this.

    Lion Kimbro 3:03pm May 23
    You can't play a board game by yourself, or get married by yourself, throw a party for one, or do all the things that a society does by yourself.

    Lion Kimbro 3:07pm May 23
    But more important than that are the overpowering nature of the thoughts of the society; the power of atmosphere. You can meditate all you want but you are going to think back in the thoughts of the atmosphere of the mainstream society. People will make you think in their language in a way that is very difficult for us to liberate ourselves from- and I would argue that most of us who believe we have done so are actually fooling ourselves.

    Lion Kimbro 4:41pm May 23
    It depends on how you want to move. Do you dream of a society of isolated people all cut off from one another doing their own thing, distant and remote from one another, or do you dream of a society with other people?

    Alex Schröder 5:49pm May 23
    The pragmatic in me find that communes would be the first step.

    Lion Kimbro 10:17pm May 23
    Why do you say there is procrastination? Two days I was talking with 2 collaborators here in Seattle. I'm constantly talking with people here in Seattle about these ideas. If I post here about these ideas, does it mean that I'm procrastinating? I don't think so. And I already stated why I come here -- to develop ideas and explanations, and to hear from other people who are investigating similar but different threads.

    Lion Kimbro 10:19pm May 23
    ("Two days I was talking" -> "Three days ago I was talking...") I work Mon, Tue, Wed, ...

    Lion Kimbro 1:36pm May 24
    Do you mean, "Why does it take so long?"

    Lion Kimbro 1:41pm May 24
    If so: It's because it has taken a long time to get to the point where I am now, to get to the understandings that I have now. The doing is complex, and there are lots of pieces to it. It's all about stumbling from one set of problems to another set of problems. Further: While the steps are easy, the *do* take a lot of time to perform. I've been establishing relationships here in Seattle for several years now. Some people stay with it, others move away for various reasons.

    Mattis Manzel 7:45pm May 24
    In Kenya they say: "It's a process." A true thing.

    Lion Kimbro 1:54am May 25
    There are a few things difficult for me in what you are saying.

    First, I don't intend to change how other people think and behave. I intend to offer people ideas and choices, and for those who understand the ideas, and make the choices, to work together with them. It is very important to me that we are clear on this. Any degree of force or manipulation is anathema to me.

    Second: As far as I can tell, it is by my own reasoning, in communication with others, that I've come to the ideas and choices that are important to me.

    Third: People can understand ideas clearly, and still disagree. No matter how much I understand about Tomatoes, I'm still not going to like them.

    I am not disappointed if I communicate an idea clearly to somebody, and then they understand it, and they make a choice different than what I would choose. But I am very disappointed if I communicate an idea poorly, and then do not understand it, -- regardless of the choice they make afterward.

    I believe that the likelihood of a person understanding my idea is related to how *sound* the idea is (the integrity of the idea), and how *well* I communicate it (which rhetoric is one part of; there are many other parts).

    The "delusion" you speak of has an excellent cure -- communication with others. Especially those who are (A) sympathetic to you, and have some understanding of you, and (B) are willing to listen to your idea and understand it, and (C) who you can trust to be critical of your ideas once they understand them. If you have all of those things, you have a great partner in thinking. CommunityWiki is, for myself, like a collection of great people who have, on several times, with friendliness, nipped bad ideas of mine in the bud. This is not to say that CW people agree with everything I say -- far from it. But they have been a great curating community.

    I sincerely believe that a community is the best place to develop ideas in. The body of people who participate in science are a great example of this.



  • 15:58 UTC There's an idea I've been giving form to for the l...
    Lion Kimbro 2:11am May 25
    There's an idea I've been giving form to for the last few months. It's this: Morality is fundamentally based in our heart's desire.

    A demonstration: Why is murder wrong? Because I don't want to live in a world of murder. Why is the golden rule so golden? Because I long for it. Why is selfishness an obstacle? (Immoral, or unethical, ...) Because I feel a hollowness or an inner emptiness when I contemplate it.

    I am perceiving conscience as a kind of "deep desire," or a "deep avoidance/not-wanting." We are used to thinking of our desires as the things that are about our own person, and our way of life endorses and enforces this view. What happens is that our desires for how we want other people to behave become externalized. We say "It is moral," or "It is ethical," or "It is what everybody knows," but really, we are stating our desires, or at least our compromises and agreements.

    The notion that morality is fundamentally based in our desire CAN be seen as begging the question: Because, where does the desire come from? Which I perceive as a fair and interesting question.

    But here's what the idea DOES do: It moves the locus of attention when morality or ethics comes up straight into the life of the mind, rather than an external (God or a specific responsible agent), metaphysical ("true ethics," or a governing theory of ethics), or even history ("evolution says that ____ is what is moral.") It also places us in a position where we take responsibility/recognition for our morality.

    I am sure Nietchze said something about this, though I could never be sure what he was really intending.

    There is an argument I have not explained well, but I have on a recurring basis with Christians. "Your bible has a moral message, and this both you and I have recognized. But when you appeal to the books morality, and then say that it is God's morality -- don't you judge the morality first? You tell me that homosexuality is a sin, and that unbelievers will be damned forever, and use God's authority as the author of the book to base these arguments - even if you yourself cannot find the sin in them. But how many words that make no moral sense to you can your God say to you, before you are critical of your God? If Jesus never spoke moral sense, but worked the miracles, would you have followed him?"

    The same goes for atheists who follow moral algebras: How do we evaluate the moral algebra? Do we not check for consonance with our hearts? If the moral algebra gives heartless results, then we are foolish to pick it up, right? So why not be clear that it is our heart that is the authority (and author) of the moral and ethical? Isn't our heart's desire our true guide?

    I do not imagine that this is a *new* argument, but I am not concerned with new arguments. I am concerned with good arguments, and understanding their limitations, and even better arguments.

    Seb Paquet 2:42am May 25
    This reminds me of Greg Rader's piece:

    Alex Schröder 6:40am May 25
    I'd say the importance of moral norms in society is that they apply to
    everybody and they are the source of our laws and our etiquette. They are basically the result of our negotiated feelings.

    I assume Nietzsche said that we would transcend morals in order to be free. Within the framework described above, his books would simply be the opening
    move of a new round of negotiations regarding our moral norms. Feelings
    change, then we talk about it, then we feel the need for change, and in the
    end we change the laws.

    Bill Seitz 12:11pm May 25
    An interesting article surveying a few recent books that hit on moral systems -

    Lion Kimbro 3:34pm May 25
    Very quickly, tapping out on a phone before work-... Sociopaths? Yikes! Yes, our morality comes from our desires, but we miss out if our desires are so small. We get what we came for. I read in the fourth article that there are four binding forces for the individual to the social system- reputation, internalized morality, security systems, can't access others immediately. What I didn't see there was love, defined here as the desire to see others do well. It might cynically argue "oh you are just internalizing moral ideas," but I earnestly speak that I genuinely do not want to live in a world where I slit throats to take money from the corpses, whenever I can get away with it. Doesn't my desire get to be a participant I our reasoning?

    Brandon CS Sanders 5:39pm May 25
    I think social psychology backs you up on this one Lion. I like Jonathan Haidt's metaphor of us having a moral tongue with moral taste receptors. Liking a particular morality is akin to liking a particular cuisine ... it just tastes good! I highly recommend ... in my top 5 all time favorite books.

    Joel Chandler 4:19am May 26
    What draws us to find a ground for morality in something other than ourselves (e.g., your examples: God, metaphysics, evolution) is the fact that when we consider "the life of the mind," we find a moving playing field. The morality that you propose - as based on "our heart's desires" - continually changes according to the contexts that condition us - e.g., epochs, cultures, local communities in which we're immersed, etc. How can we "base" anything on a moving foundation? This speaks to your well noted "begging the question" question.

    Why don't you want to live in a world of murder? Why do you long for the golden rule? What causes the hollowness that you feel when you're selfish? The answers to these questions moves beyond lived experience to the conditions that grant that experience. Most find these answers in something external, but that needn't be the case, and I think this is where your insights are leading you.

    We can't make sense of something to which we're experientially unrelated. Do I experience God? Do I experience a metaphysical principle which is to govern my behavior? Do I experience the trajectory of evolution? To each of these questions we may answer "yes" or "no," as in each case the question is interpretive. This suggests that, at "heart," what we are are interpretive beings, continually reinterpreting ourselves and our world in terms of what matters to us.

    Your "heart's desire" will be determined by factors external to your "heart" as lived experience, yet this is not a one-way street. You in turn have the capacity to determine the conditions that condition you. Some say this dialogical relation to the world that we possess constitutes the very nature of our being, in which case any morality so "based" would necessarily be a morality to which we're continually attentive (in your words: "where we take responsibility/recognition for our morality"). The key is not to throw out the baby with the bath water. We are conditioned beings, and to that we must attend, and in so doing we will access the "deep desire" of which you speak. Yet, as interpretive beings, the deepest of our desires must ever remain indeterminate, as conscience is, in the end, (to steal a line from Heidegger) the silent call that we hear when we choose choice.

    Lion Kimbro 5:26am May 26
    I am a moral realist; I believe that there is one morality that we all experience within ourselves but that it is an emergence and situated. So, no disagreements from me..!

    Lion Kimbro 5:28am May 26
    You have "jumped ahead" in my explanation. The next point to me is the question of "our we ultimately connected or ultimately disconnected?". If we are ultimately connected then our moralities connect. If our moralities connect there is one morality, the morality of love. But dang that is a lot of jargon.

    Joel Chandler 5:40am May 26
    "Are we ultimately connected or disconnected?" That depends on what you mean by "we." At first blush, your use of the word "we" gives you your answer. "We" already entails connectivity. But I know you're driving at something deeper. To which I reply, can't it be both? We are connected to the degree to which we share common factors that condition our experience, and not to the degree to which we are each uniquely situated. I'd suggest that our common conditions vastly outweigh our unique conditions. But the unique conditions are important for the progression of awareness (call it evolution if you like). It's the interplay between the two that I find most interesting.

    Lion Kimbro 5:43am May 26
    Unique and connected.

    John Abbe 8:37pm May 26
    Just scanning this thread, feel moved to offer my perspective that a common black hole in philosophy is to suppose that morality is 100% subjective or 100% objective. The reality imho transcends and includes both.

    Lion Kimbro 8:41pm May 26
    That doesn't make any sense to me, I don't see how you can say it is both 100% subjective and objective. I'd love to hear you speak about your idea of the higher order reality, though I am a bit miffed you are goading me to ask you for it. ;D

    John Abbe 8:48pm May 26
    I wouldn't say both 100% subjective and objective. The best analogy might be light - it is neither waves nor particles, but it's behavior is often such that it makes a lot of sense to talk about it as one or the other. Morality is neither subjective nor objective, but it often makes sense to talk about it as one or the other, as long as we don't lose sight of the fact that talking about it either way is incomplete.

    The typical political breakdown is that people on the right will say it's objective - god determines morality, and people on the right will say it's subjective - we each have our own perfectly valid morality. That's an oversimplification of course, but consciously at least I've certainly leaned toward the subjective. One realization I had reading Daniel Quinn's Ishmael was that there's a sort of physics of morality: If you live out of sync with reality, you will not last.
  • 15:55 UTC via Peter Thoeny "Why I think [wikis] worked. What...
    Mark Dilley 8:15pm May 26
    via Peter Thoeny "Why I think [wikis] worked. What we really did was say was the command and control hierarchical communications that we had to use in organizations wasn't necessary anymore. In fact, it was an impediment." ~ Ward Cunningham, inventor of wikis
  • 15:48 UTC Thanks, Lion, for creating the group. ...I'm not a...
    Joel Chandler 7:41pm May 20
    Thanks, Lion, for creating the group. ...I'm not a programmer and I don't know much about wikis, so I apologize for any naiveté that I may exhibit below. I'm wrapping up my MA work in philosophy - focusing on Heidegger - and I'm secretly envious of the skills possessed by computer programmers. Anyway, maybe you all can shed some light on this... I'm interested in collaborative efforts regarding interpretive matters. Take the question, "what's the ontological structure of phenomenon x?" - i.e., "what are the conditions which allow me to experience phenomenon x in the way I experience it?" The answer will be interpretive, depending upon one's frame of reference, etc. I'd like there to be a program that can do at least two things with this: 1) Take all answers from all participants and divide them into categories based on the general frames of reference employed - e.g., biological, cultural, sub-sets of culture, etc., and 2) synthesize and summarize the answers provided in each category. To contrast what I have in mind with my (elementary) understanding of what wikis do, the output would not be the reporting of facts or ideas which could be changed and added to by the comminity, but would constitue encapsulted syntheses of all of the interpretations offered by those in the community. Is there anything like this out there? If so or not, I would think the program's automation would need to be "guided" is some sense by one capable of experiencing phenomena (viz., a human being). ...I could go on, and do hope to be pressed for clarity, but I'll see what any of you have to say so far. Thanks.

    Mattis Manzel 7:51pm May 20
    Hi Joel, welcome. You need an entire wiki to develop your idea. I'm sure. You're welcome to create one on kabo if you feel like.

    Joel Chandler 4:04am May 22
    Thanks, guys, for the leads. I'll be looking into them.

    Lion Kimbro 2:41am May 23
    I have a hard time understanding what you are intending, ... maybe some pictures or a mock-up?

    Joel Chandler 5:28am May 26
    To be honest, I'm not quite sure what I'm intending either. That is, I'm not quite sure how an ideal that I envision is practically realizable, or even if its realization is logically possible. First I'll give you the assumptions upon which the ideal that I have in mind is based, then I'll give you the ideal.

    Meaningfulness grows organically out of lived experience. As such, we are "given over" to meaningfulness - i.e., we can't help but encounter a meaningful world given our lived experience. Reflecting upon this experience occurs after the fact. We abstract from experience the conditions that make it possible. This abstraction moves in the direction from particulars (concrete, lived experience) to universals (general conditions of possibility). Yet in so moving, we inevitably color our abstractions in various shades of the spectrum, let's say, depending upon a number of variables, including the degree to which we allow ourselves to be freed from the biases to which we're already "given over" and the degree to which we stick to the phenomena and don't venture off into metaphysical speculations which may posit a de-contextualized subject adopting a "view from nowhere." In any case, to the extent that we so reflect upon the meaningfulness to which we're given over, we do abstract the conditions thereof. Those conditions that we abstract (whatever color they may take) count as our ideals (so long as they bear upon us and aren't an automatic reflex shirking off the question).

    Take the question, "what do you tell your child when she asks you why she should care that Sally was ridiculed on the playground when that ridicule was ventured by her peers as an indirect way to prop-up your child's status in the playground pecking order?" After all, immediate lived experience lives as close to the present moment as is possible - thus its operative ethic is "what pleases me now?" Only when we see into the past and future does the present moment "stretch out" such that the "now" that is subject to pleasure cares more about its sustainability, and, consequently, the context which conditions that pleasure. So the question becomes, "how do we stretch the present?" Upon what model do we base our abstraction? (Note that I am here using "abstraction" and "stretching the present" analogously.) Further, when multiple options for abstraction present themselves, by what standard do we choose between them?

    So, the concrete (and inevitably "colored") ideal that I intend is this. Pose a question such as the one above about Sally and your daughter. Pose it to 1000 people. Let them answer. Input their answers into some algorithm that is somehow capable of intelligently recognizing the characters of their answers. The algorithm would somehow know how to associate answers to each other, such that 1) all those that invoked "God" in their answer would be grouped in a "family," those that invoked "evolution" would be grouped in another family, etc. (and by this you will see the influence of your other post on my discussion here, Lion;) and 2) those answers occurring under a single family umbrella would be "compiled" or "synthesized" into a single representative answer for that family. This would spit out a report that all participants could read. They'd see the other stories that the other "families" offered, and they'd see who answered similarly to them and so thereby find social connections.

    To return to the assumption upon which this concrete ideal is based... The idea is not to offer a "solution" to the question, but to allow the solution to present itself organically (from the ground up, as rooted in the meaningfulness of lived experience and the interpretations thereof).

    ...Like I said, I don't know if my "concrete ideal" is logically possible. I'm skeptical of AI, as I'm inclined to believe that these matters are characterized with reference to our familiarty with the world, a familiarity which involves an infinite number of logical interrelations which we simply take for granted and couldn't possibly be codified. But I think technology could somehow meet us half way with this - if nothing more, perhaps as a sort of screening mechanism.
  • 13:19 UTC some thoughts on wiki, and people who may find thi...
    Edward Vielmetti 6:39pm May 20
    some thoughts on wiki, and people who may find this group of interest.

    Lion Kimbro 6:41pm May 20
    In a rush out the door so no link but- check out "TheoryBuilding" I think it was called.

    Edward Vielmetti 11:57pm May 20
    The phrase I'm familiar with is from Karl Weick, who uses the term "sensemaking" in the same approximate meaning.

    Lion Kimbro 3:00am May 23
    Yeah, that's the term I'd heard going around later after that page. Would love to rename it "SenseMaking," since that's what all the people are calling it.

    Sam Rose 8:19pm May 26
    When I showed using wiki "TheoryBuilding" way (including transclusion) to my friend Paul Hartzog, he immediately equated it with "bibliographic management". We actually made a really useful configuration of mediawiki for research in a "TheoryBuilding" approach and used it for a time.
  • 13:10 UTC I think this has applicability to wiki:
    Peter Kaminski 8:10pm May 26
    I think this has applicability to wiki:
  • 11:24 UTC I think a natural discussion point here would be '...
    Mark Dilley 7:59pm May 19
    I think a natural discussion point here would be 'WhyWeHateFacebook' or for a more positive spin on it 'WhyWeLoveWiki'

    Mark Dilley 8:05pm May 19
    First off - I don't know how I can be 'alerted' that there were several posts before this that started this line of thinking. So I am a little embarrassed that I started a new post when this could have been a comme t to either of the first two.

    Mark Dilley 8:06pm May 19
    Secondly, which I think touches the first is that Facebook is only a WriteOnlyMemory system (

    John Abbe 7:49am May 20
    The question I'm interested in is, "What does wiki have to contribute to making something better than Facebook/Google+/etc.?"

    Lion Kimbro 1:21pm May 20
    Facebook has essentially fulfilled the vision of "OneBigSoup," (providing, specifically, the "personal server" and "group server" roles,) and it did it by following the PlatformsFirst strategy.

    Lion Kimbro 1:22pm May 20
    John Abbe, I think wiki contributes the idea of LinkLanguage, mainly. Easy document creation exists in most things these days, and RecentChanges existts in most things these days. WikiSyntax is integrated in various platforms too. So I think the main idea that wiki has to contribute is LinkLanguage. I can imagine FB integrating LinkLanguage, via a mechanism that would resemble LocalNames.

    Lion Kimbro 1:29pm May 20
    The reason I hate FB is because they own us, and, furthermore, the reason that they own us is because they own our friends -- which is to say: they own us *Personally.* FB was never "us," in the sense that Wikipedia as an institution is or was "us." FB is like a government, but a government that is definitely not democratic, and a government that lives in our house and watches us all the time.

    Lion Kimbro 1:34pm May 20
    To get away from FB would require a very real, serious, and sustained revolutionary effort. It will not be 20-somethings with free time working together in a fit of enthusiasm. You'd have to somehow convince most of my relatives who are not in any way interested in technical details, and not particularly politically/technically motivated to leave, to uproot their whole life and exodus to a new land, en masse. This new land would need to be shown to be in some way democratic, and it would of course need to be technically "better," meaning -- an extraordinarily better UserInterface. You could start getting traction via a smaller side-system comparable to Twitter or G+, but you would need to know for sure that you can grow it.

    Mark Dilley 2:19pm May 20
    Lion, explain how you understand that RecentChanges is here. For me I understand it as Recent Personal Notifications - but not understanding group transparency. Also, I have no idea how to find things here once they have passed by. I mentioned WriteOnlyMemory as an issue.

    Mark Dilley 2:20pm May 20
    We can bludgeon LinkLanguage, i.e.

    Lion Kimbro 3:09pm May 20
    I say Recent Changes is here because most recent activity goes to the top of the groups page. Ex: in this group.

    Lion Kimbro 3:11pm May 20
    Re: finding things here- indeed, the lack of link language matters. But more- there is no search, nor means of exploring the records, save manually stepping through.

    Mark Dilley 4:47pm May 20
    Ok, so a thread bumps to the top ( something I just now learned after years here) what it needs is the ability to see the diff or at least through me to the new content. And that is per thread only - so what is missing is an InterestSphere - that one wiki creates.

    Edward Vielmetti 4:48pm May 20
    If anything, Lion, Facebook is entirely seen through the lens of recent changes - and if you want persistent conversations about specific topics, you need to plant those off-site.

    Lion Kimbro 4:54pm May 20
    Yes, Edward. Agreed. So we can construct our list of deficiencies and strengths. We have done good here picking out pieces. Let's see- we have LinkLanguage, document revisions, and persistent communications wanted. LinkLanguage is particularly specific to wiki, to date. DocumentMode collaboration has broadened out, but is a strength of wiki. And persisting threads is an important feature of Forum boards and email + email archives.

    Lion Kimbro 4:55pm May 20
    I think that FB adequately includes the interest sphere through the groups mechanism. Groups are easy to form.

    Lion Kimbro 4:56pm May 20
    Another major failure (or feature?) of FB is discoverability. People do not "google into" FB discussions. A bug for me, but a feature for most.

    Edward Vielmetti 5:26pm May 20
    Lion, regarding the question of migration to a new system. There will always be some progression from old systems to new ones, just because people like to start over and collect new friends every once in a while as their interests change. I see Facebook as just part of a continuum that started at Compuserve and Prodigy and Delphi and AOL and Friendster etc etc, and that eventually will be challenged by something else that's novel and probably simpler.

    Alex Schröder 12:10am May 21
    Now somebody should take the discussion we had and summarize it on the wiki. We've moved from ReworkingIsHard to PostingIsHard. :)

    Mark Dilley 12:40am May 21
    Lion Kimbro - I have been using LinkLanguage in a different way the past year. It is not currently wiki bound, although I envision it back to being wiki bound. John Abbe and I had this discussion, John, do your remember where we wrote about it?

    Edward Vielmetti 1:03am May 21
    Phil Jones - another thought on beating facebook here:

    Edward Vielmetti 1:08am May 21
    Mark Dilley - I think your LinkLanguage piece is here - describing how to use bitly as the unbinding tool.

    Mark Dilley 3:48pm May 25
    Many thanks Ed! I am just now seeing this, and I have tried to keep up with this FB group! This is exactly the page where John and I put our notes :-)

    Peter Kaminski 6:23pm May 26
    I don't hate Facebook or Google+, but I find them difficult to contribute to. For me, it is [[Why I Can't Love Facebook]] or [[Why I Can't Trust Google+]].

    Perhaps the core reason [[I Love Wiki]] is that wiki is community. The members of the community own it and govern it.

    This is true of physical communities, too. The citizens of San Francisco own it and govern it (even despite widely varying differences in representation and amount of ownership).

    Also importantly, there is no one small group who owns or governs *all* the physical communities; San Francisco is owned and governed by different people than those who own and govern Mumbai, Berlin, or Caracas.

    Conversely, while there are certainly communities which inhabit Facebook and Google+, the people who use Facebook and Google+ cannot own their communities, nor can they govern Facebook or Google. They lack basic [[community member rights]]. Facebook and Google+ own and govern the real estate these communities inhabit. They also own and govern the real estate that *all* the communities inhabit.

    On the one hand, when people interact with governments and other people, they have [[human rights]].

    On the other hand, while Facebook and Google are beholden to provide certain human rights, such as certain rights to privacy, they do not have to provide other rights, such as freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, or the right to self-determination of identity (hi, Google+ and #nymwars).

    On the one hand, when people interact with commercial vendors (their supermarket, their insurance company, their bank, their Internet service provider), they have [[customer rights]].

    On the other hand, Facebook and Google+ do not have to provide customer rights, because users do not pay to use the service.

    So therefore, people who use Facebook and Google+ end up with [[product rights]], not human rights or customer rights. As [[Andrew Lewis]] wrote, "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."

    I want me and my friends in community to be more than a product. I want us to be people.

    When Facebook and Google+ withold certain human rights, or govern poorly, it makes it hard for me to love Facebook, and hard for me to trust Google+.

    When a small, homogeneous group of people at Facebook and Google govern all the communities which inhabit their service, it makes it hard for me to love Facebook, and hard for me to trust Google+.

    Peter Kaminski 6:24pm May 26
    An exercise for the reader: compare and contrast the ownership and governance models of Facebook, Google+ and Wikipedia.


  • 08:44 UTC Here is a question. I have invited WikiPeople out...
    Mark Dilley 9:19pm May 22
    Here is a question. I have invited WikiPeople outside of the CommunityWiki core, and I want to take a step back and reflect on that. What do we gain, what do we lose? Thoughts?

    Lion Kimbro 9:26pm May 22
    I'm quite frankly a little overwhelmed by all of this..! I'm interested in just about of the ideas I have seen people wanting to develop, and have things to contribute to them. But between the various things I am doing offline, including work, and the multitude of events here, (such as: lots more people, a second CE group, etc,) I am feeling a bit paralyzed.

    Mark Dilley 9:40pm May 22
    That is something to suss out. FB may be too easy for people to get involved in.

    Lion Kimbro 10:19pm May 22
    What is SFW?

    Seb Paquet 12:55am May 23
    Yes, my crystal ball shows a renaissance too. Bold prediction: the normals are catching up and many of them will want to be all collaborative and stuff by this year's end, and will get it enough to actually pull it off.

    Lion Kimbro 1:16am May 23
    Oh wow. I wish you luck, but I disagree. I find crystal balls to be dangerous, because while they often DO show the future, (or at least something substantially like it,) the objects in them are further off than they appear.

    Mark Dilley 2:29am May 23
    I am more a believer in SandPiles - "The term critical state can mean the point at which water would go to ice or steam, or the moment that critical mass induces a nuclear reaction, etc. It is the point at which something triggers a change in the basic nature or character of the object or group. Thus (and very casually for all you physicists), we refer to something being in a critical state (or use the term critical mass) when there is the opportunity for significant change." - or what Zfrank says about going from zero to one.

    Mark Dilley 2:37am May 23
    the above link is what I am referring to as LinkLanguage. BitLy is a bludgeon for the idea but is a good start I think.

    Mark Dilley 2:38am May 23
    LinkLanguage --->

    Lion Kimbro 2:38am May 23
    :) I see your "forced LinkLanguage," and I have used it myself as well before on various forums. It is quasi-workable, if people will let you use it. I am vaguely in favor. :)

    Mark Dilley 3:44pm May 25
    The point for me is that we, as a community, can use LinkLanguage here if the community can decide on a LinkLanguage structure. That way, whenever we see CamelCase, we can automatically link it with (or whatever link we want to use as a community - for example). I don't see it as forced, I see it as working within the confines of the environment.
  • 08:39 UTC Here is something that happens - Analysis of a typ...
    Mark Dilley 12:55am May 21
    Here is something that happens - Analysis of a typical facebook debate - how is it different than on wiki?

    Alex Schröder 6:59am May 21
    Ouch. My first reaction is to point out that it's always easy to be cynical and that cynicism is something to avoid if we don't want to end up bitter old men.

    Mark Dilley 1:33pm May 21
    One of the strengths of wiki is that it isn't as fast as replying on an email, forum, Facebook thread then? Less structural affordance to flame from emotion?

    Lion Kimbro 2:46am May 23
    I don't think it's really a strength of wiki; Rather, I think it's a strength of "seclusion." I think we're just kind of learning as a society how to deal with this OverHear-type technology, and the technology is learning how to mesh with how we want to interact with both privacy and open-ness.

    I think this is also about commitment, ownership of space, and so on... In the discussion you cited, where was very low shared context, very little commitment between participants, and nobody really owned the space. Some different ways of looking at it.

    If the wikis were all unowned, overheard, and traversed by peoples not committing in some way to one another -- we'd have the same problems in wiki.

    Mark Dilley 3:39pm May 25
    I think you are putting your finger on it Lion. We share an understanding that wikis are 'owned' by the community that is working there. That is a key difference.









Define external redirect: force a refresh groups community-wiki wiki-net odd-wiki-hive - 'wiki-net' - groups the wiki-net community-wiki - groups community-wiki