How can we best apply a combination of technology, design, and literacy to help individuals solve problems together?
I feel compelled to collect “naive answers” to the question.
“Naive answers” are answers that immediately spring to mind.
Here is my naive answer:
My naive answer leads to the question:
We may be interested in collecting our naive answers together, onto one page, when we are done.
Here are some questions, to clarify the inquiry:
KeithHopper: I Love it! I’ve added a ProblemSpace page to handle the inevitable last bullet point. I can see “naive” answers as perhaps providing the necessary poking around to figure out fundamental approaches, cool ideas, etc.
Brainstorming questions:
To rank the problem domains, we would need an ordering principle. Does our initial query include one?
How can we best apply a combination of technology, design, and literacy to help individuals solve problems together?
The word “best” may provide a hint here.
Looking at these questions, the questions of most value appear to me to be:
Since the first follows from the second, then our next question, to my mind, would be:
Are we trying to influence the world with the greatest leverage? Are we trying to create a new society? Are we trying to speed along the development of Social Software technology? Are we trying to help people live more satisfying lives? Are we trying to create fun and joy?
These questions may seem equivalent to one another, but they’re all different, and lead to dramatically different rankings of the problem space, I strongly believe.
Man, you’re good at asking questions. I’d like to think that each person that could contribute to addressing the WikiObjective would bring their own what-we’re-trying-to-do-here. I don’t know if that’s realistic. The WikiObjective does feel broad right now and not sure which approach to take:
I also think that at some level, we’re trying just to explore the topic. Exploring is a little lame for inspiring direction, I know, but that’s some of what I’m thinking. I’m also thinking that perhaps this is where you and I differ a little in our values - but that’s good :-)
Thank you! I always hope that I am asking the right question. :)
Exploring is necessary, and just fine!
Going in line with thinking about: “What are we really after?” …
… we might want to change the question to: “What are some technologies, designs, and literacies, that online people with some free time can develop and propagate in order to help people collaborate?”
This alleviates us of determining what is best, and focuses us on collaborations, and so on.
I would also like to point our sites towards: the Half Bakery.
I’ve put your alternative question into WikiObjective. The Half Bakery is cool and is related to another project I have on one of my various front/back burners, the www.innovationcollective.com.
So tell me, why link to half bakery? I suspect you see relevance and I’m curious. Perhaps a page like MeatBall:OnlineInnovationRepository needs to be built here (nudge, nudge), but related somehow to the WikiObjective.
Precious! I hadn’t seen the page MeatBall:OnlineInnovationRepository before! Way cool!
If the WikiObjective is:
What are some technologies, designs, and literacies, that online people with some free time can develop and propagate in order to help people collaborate?
…then, that’s an online-innovation-repository function.
The reason I pointed to Half Bakery, was to say demonstrate that there are already people doing this sort of thing.
We could do this in addition to those existing nodes. But if the primary difference were, “We’re this community, they’re that community,” then I would suspect that this would all mesh back into CommunityWiki.
Or, it may not. We don’t know.
Regardless: I am asking myself: “What is this wiki for?” “What is it’s question?”
KeithHopper: CommunityWiki is, and should remain, a jam-session. While there are discussions here, this is not a jam-session. I plan to continue to jam over there and coalesce over here. Also, it is good that other people are doing things like the half bakery, but while the spirit is the same, the objective is quite different. Here, we are trying to create a body of related knowledge that addresses the WikiObjective. There is just a bunch of interesting inventions. I think we should point to them as “one place where people believe in the concept of OpenIdeas?”. We should also create a page called OpenIdeas? explaining the controversial concept of free sharing of ideas. Make more sense?