This is not a crusade. This is a jam-session about communities both online and not: Management, teaching, conflicts, mediation, and some tech talk about tools used for online communities are on topic. We don’t know where we are going.
A big part of the goal is to get WikiNodes to link to other WikiNodes.
Each wiki is a node in a network of interlinked wikis. But in another sense, the WikiNode pages themselves are nodes in the network, as opposed to the entire wikis. The WikiNode is like a teleporter room that people go to on the way to connect. It’s like a busstop on the tour bus.
The network of WikiNode pages is intended to serve as a map for the network of connected wikis. A more manageable substitute.
(experiment I don’t know how to comment out a block of text in OddMuse, so, it’s exposed for now.
Using SemanticWeb technologies (or perhaps TopicMaps), we could create a distributed formal ontology of wiki topics. With a distributed ontology, since any group can define its own terms, we would be able to express the subtle distinctions between some communities (for instance, SlashDot and CNET news are both general tech news sites, but SlashDot is “geek power & GNU/Linux fanatic type people” — it would be hard for a central organization to come up with all of the appropriate terms to disambiguate communitys’ different interests, but its likely that SlashDot itself would be able to choose & define new terms that show how its focus is different from CNET).
Let me see if I can put this in English a little bit:
You’re saying that we could make a data model of “things we talk about in wikis.” For example, we are talking about the SemanticWeb here, and SemanticWeb would be one of those things we talk about here, at CommunityWiki.
Now you’re saying: If this model is supported by a lot of groups, then groups could describe their relationship with these data models. For example, on the ESW wiki, it would say, “We are entirely about the Semantic Web, particularly the RDF vision of it.” And then here, we’d say, “We’re casually interested in the Semantic Web, applications, and related technologies.” So you’re saying that we could describe ourselves and our impressions of the different technologies.
Am I understanding right?
Yes – I know it’s a pretty straightforward/obvious application of the SemanticWeb ideas, but I’m just beginning to understand this stuff so for me it’s helpful to state it explicitly.
The one thing your rephrasal didn’t touch on is that the list of vocabulary in the data model is itself distributed. I haven’t been able to clearly justify that yet, but I have this feeling that that’ll let different communities define the “nuances” of their interests better. Let me try to give better examples of that. The key is that different communities might be interested in topics with the same “keyword”, but they may be interested in different subsets of those topics, subsets without a canonical English keywork of their own.
An example: on AIWiki, one of the categories is CategoryLogic?. Stuff dealing with “formal logic” goes in there. But there are also mathematical and philosophical journals that deal with “formal logic”. So then would anything in those journals be on-topic at AIWiki? No, AIWiki is really only interested in the intersection of formal logic and cognitive science. AIWiki is interested in formal logic only insofar as formal logic is part of some people’s ideas on how to build a mind. So, there are probably three parts of formal logic that AIWiki would be interested in; 1) formal logic as applied in computational models of mind, 2) Talking about the available tools and formalisms for automated theorem proving and the like, 3) Formal logic as it bears on the “is the mind a computer” question (e.g. the Godel’s theorem stuff). Certainly anything in the field of formal logic has the potential to be relevant to one of these areas, but until there is an actual connection, AIWiki would probably not be interested in collecting a vast library of obscure mathematical results about logic.
So, AIWiki might say that it is interested in “formal logic”, and a mathematics journal might say it is interested in “formal logic”, and so might a journal of philosophy; but each of these would really mean something subtley different. If they each defined a URI to correspond with their idea of “formal logic”, and then used OWL to constrain the interpretation of that word, then it would become easier for software to identify the appropriate areas and amount of overlap between the three sites.
Another example is “civil rights”. The ACLU is the canonical example of a civil rights nonprofit in the U.S. However, their definition of “civil rights” is one that libertarians might be surprised by (I was1). The are for affirmative action and against intelligent design, and intepret these as civil rights issues. There are probably other organizations that take a more restrictive view of civil rights. If these organizations both had websites with machine-readable metadata describing the topic of the group and relating it to similar groups, it would make sense for both organizations (the ACLU and a conservative civil rights organization) to say “we are about ‘civil rights’”, but then to have two different URIs corresponding to “civil rights” with machine-readable information constraining their interpretation of the phrase2.
There are some experiments to map the wiki-node (and attached wiki-nodes)
OlivierAuber is busy with it too it seems. Add link please.
I’d say “no-” we hardly know the people, and we’re not directly topically related.
No idea if it was a hundred of them. Maybe. I made many wiki-nodes. Most of them around actually. Still most of them. People make wiki-nodes themselves now. Few though. google: wikinode
It annoys me that different wiki-engines make use of different syntax for creating a link, it annoys me that there are CamelCase words or links that have a big-case letter as a beginning. We need complete freedom to develop a common language. If one engine can’t do this and another can’t do that there is no way to get together. Not here. We need to make a step to find a common way, one step upwards. There is no common this deep down, we need to go a level higher to find it. It’s called clean linking. I try to use it on wiki-nodes.
I’m trying to use a language on the nodes that is possibly best understood by whomever comes along and surfs the page. People of all different mothertongues. I use “-” a lot. Two things make one word. Wiki and node. For a stranger wikinode are 8 letters. Could be wik inode or wikin ode as well. Wiki-node is better understandable. Two things make one word.
Small-case, words like meat, ball, community. Big-case words like Gründer (founder, substantiv, thus big-case in German - big-case for substantivs make a text easier to understand btw), Berlin, Mattis-Manzel. And I attach wiki to it, which - I propose - is always small-case. Maybe except in the beginning of a sentence, but better evite.
Clean-linking causes real freedom to choose and agree on something common and on the other hand it causes a lot of work. But the software will do this work for you, later, when it’s coded. On editable titles I wrote about that. Comparing text to a database of editable titles and generating links automatically. This all sounds like headache for programers, take your time. But the wiki-node is the page though to start it on. Just one little page on every wiki. The wiki-node is not orientated to the side-bar on anything else local, it’s orientated to other wiki-nodes. One page, c’mon.
Maybe I should care for a page that tells lhow a wiki-node has to look like. I didn’t as I’m not sure myself. The above are just proposals.
My suggestion is to try to establish links by userdefined TwinPages. These links are usually at the bottom of the page, but it might be a good alternative to have them at some other visible place, e.g at the top of RecentChanges, if the resp. wiki allows users to edit the top lines. If somebody objects against a link s/he may delete it with or without an argument. If there are enough supporters for establishing a TwinPage relation between the strategically most important TwinPages (WikiNode, RecentChangesNode?, HelpNode? (for the syntax of the involved wikis), GoalStatementNote?, MissionNode?, …) then the decision will come in a most natural way by majority of the legitimated decision-makers, depending on the organisation, enterprise, corporation, community, etc. . By the way, the TwinPages format avoids doubling the name of the involved pages and so gives a faster overview over the participating wikis. Thank you all for making our common dream a reality. At the bottom of this page there is a list of all TwinPages (, sharing the same name WikiNode), represented by the pseudo-icon ‘⇔’
Automatic linking of phrases is less difficult to program than problematic in itself, without finding a way to put in a human element. Identical words and phrases mean different things in different contexts- sometimes wildly different thing. Nora Paul, who tried and gave up to come up with a common ontology for newspaper databases some years ago, told me about the New York Times autolink feature– in an article that referenced light from a scientific standpoint, NYT linked sunlight to a completely unrelated Sunlight corporation…
What happened to the wiki node project? Can we conclude that it failed?
Failed? I hope not . Which goal did it fail to achieve?
However, the larger project – linking wiki together using wikinodes – seems to be on-going. Several people, including myself, use the WikiIndex in our wiki-noding efforts – see WikiIndex: WikiProject:Wiki-Noding.
I don’t think it failed. But, it never evolved, in my opinion. I mean, it didn’t need to evolve: it is complete in it’s current form. But, it may have needed to evolve to see widespread adoption online.
I think that attention spans have changed for one, and that people following links through nodes may be less likely these days than in the past. WikiNodes could evolve by containing MetaData in nodes, that could be spidered by services, or somehow imported, and then queried based on different criteria. Also, MetaData could be attached to people, and to objects (like pages) so that if you are looking for a person or object, you can find it across wikis. The little visualization block that OlivierAuber made was going in that direction. I think it is totally possible to do this now, so that a network of wiki nodes need not manually be maintained, but be generated programatically based on activity of people, and relationships of content.
I also don’t feel it was a failure, but that may be because it spawned a whole bunch of ideas that I’m still pursuing. In fact, I’d find it very difficult to separate the Wiki Node concepts from the WikiHive concepts and the specific MicroContent issues I am still working on.
Hm. Interesting idea SamRose. - Thanks to all for picking up the WikiNode idea btw - . Metadata, hm. Maybe the WikiNode is the page that should contain the WikiNet information of a wiki as metadata - wiki-node like [[Greenland-wiki_-_wiki-node?]] or [[jokes-wiki_-_wiki-node?]] and such. Little I know …
And here I sit wondering about the wiki-node …
The side-bar is read only for me currently. How could I add links easy to reach from wherever in the wiki to the pages that link to all the wiki-net stuff I made up and recently copied into the community-wiki without disturbing da procedure. There is the link to the wiki-node in the side-bar already. Sometimes circumstances have a meaning if you listen to them: The wiki-node gives an overview of our wiki-net.
The links I added on top are:
ModifierLiensDeProximité: BrokenLink MeatSpace WikiIndex ShareAlike WikiMatrix TwinPage SlashDot ImportanceOfIdentityInOnlineCommunities CamelCase MeatballWiki TwinPages PrimarilyPublicDomain WikiNodes