An ongoing discussion of format, structure, and overall direction of the CollectiveProblemSolving wiki.
To join the discussion, simply edit today's page.
A problem solving Wiki, starting from the same point of emptyness is http://www.distributeddesign.net I have cross referanced this wiki from there.
The objective is to creat a transparent design workshop in which physical things and some conseptual things too can be formulated and refined into reality.
In a long anticipated move, Idea submit & rate engines are finally catching some webmeme attention. Personally, I think idea voting engines are riddled with flaws, but they do poke at some interesting aspects of Collective Problem Solving:
Three such idea voting engines:
Charles Leadbetter article in the Guardian using the example of Alternative Reality Games to introduce the concept of group problem solving, or “We Think” as they dub it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/09/internet.web20
“We are just starting to explore how we can organise ourselves without the trappings of traditional organisations. Watching [Alternative Reality Games] unfold is a bit like being in Detroit in 1905 when Henry Ford was still experimenting with mass production. A new organisational possibility is unfolding before our eyes. Where might We Think culture take us?”
This alludes to (but doesn’t specifically mention), the concept of a SeriousGame? [1] , such as World Without Oil.
Two new tools for online idea collaboration that I’ve been tracking:
American Public Media’s “Idea Generator” http://americanpublicmedia.publicradio.org/engage08/economy/widget/widget.shtml
And Ubuntu’s “Brainstorming” tool which allows folks to post and vote on ideas for tool improvements: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
This looks like something Oddwiki folks would enjoy: http://bilconference.com/
These guys are doing smart stuff in the participatory public media space. Here’s one relevant example. Solving problems with ideas from small town folks: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/2005/04/smalltowns/help.php
A little old (april), but a great discussion from WAMU on open problem solving / open source innovation with:
http://wamu.org/programs/kn/07/04/10.php#12572
Keith, it started on such a great note, but as I listened on, I grew less and less interested, and over time, even angry..! When InnoCentive? talked about transfering IP rights to the company that asked the question, I was furious. Yikes! I am not happy that the company is helping to extract rights from the public. – LionKimbro
Hi Lion - I wasn’t too psyched about this either, but I’m really glad the show highlighted this issue. Rights and ownership are often overlooked when people are contributing to participatory systems like this one. What Innocentive does wrong, we can do better.
I’m not convinced that transferring IP ownership is always a bad thing if that’s what’s openly offered for sale in the first place (rather than hidden behind a ‘contest’). For example, there are IP intermediary companies that open up the ability for regular folks to buy and sell IP in intermediary markets. Without IP intermediary markets (and presuming our current, questionable IP system), it is prohibitive for regular people to benefit from protecting their IP.
I think concept of intellectual property cannot be substantiated.
I can understand some agreements about use of knowledge and blueprints, for example, but calling it “property” is a historical hack that really messes with our minds, and makes us think about things in dangerous and harmful ways.
The question is: “What kinds of agreements should we have about ideas, insights, creativity, secrets, names, …” …and so on.
You may all want to check out Debatepedia.org as well. It launched with the International Debate Education Association (IDEA) on October 12th. It’s being framed as the “Wikipedia of debate and reasoning”.
http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia%21
(Is this the same as http://debatepedia.org/ ?)
Figured I’d drop off a bunch of links I’ve recently seen related to collective problem solving. My reading is focused on innovation communities and novel IP management. Feel free to tack on related links:
Communities & Orgs
Blogs
Articles & Interviews
An AIM discussion today 8/24/07, between KeithHopper (hoppermatic) and SamRose (Str9960)
(07:53:35) str9960: Hi, what's new these days, Keith? (07:53:44) hopperomatic: hey sam - (07:53:55) hopperomatic: not too much. just got back from vaca. (07:54:05) str9960: if you're busy right now, no problem. (07:54:16) hopperomatic: give me 1 min to grab a coffee - BRB (07:54:28) str9960: Ok, sure (07:55:53) hopperomatic: alright - back. sup? (07:57:00) str9960: Just checking in to see if you are still interested in building or exploring some of what we talked about with http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/CollectiveProblemSolving/Discussion (07:57:02) str9960: ? (07:57:34) hopperomatic: oh yes. (07:57:52) hopperomatic: admittedly, I'm a little stuck as to what the best next step would be (07:58:38) hopperomatic: I have continued to research this space on my own -- mostly around open innovation concepts (07:58:56) hopperomatic: haven't done much other than read, though. (07:59:41) hopperomatic: Did you have anything in particular in mind for moving forward in this space? I see your most recent comment was around a potential pilot problem, which I still think is a good idea. (08:00:21) str9960: I think you were saying from the beginning that you were interested in creating a tool, and if I recall correctly, a business, around the ideas you were talking about (08:00:28) str9960: maybe I misread that (08:01:38) hopperomatic: nope - you are correct. Of course, the tool/business has morphed over the year(s) that I've been thinking about it. Simply though, my original idea was to create a tool/environment for community problem solving - lately, I'm thinking more about a business/platform for collaborative innovation, but they're birds of the same feather. (08:02:18) hopperomatic: I'd say that I got more specific in my interest. (08:02:36) str9960: I think the problem plot and http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/CollectiveProblemSolving/PilotProblems were a good direction. I was interested in thinking about trying to design the tool/processes, or at least a prototype (08:03:30) hopperomatic: yes - this wiki page does a good job capturing the shift in my thinking towards more collaborative design and innovation and less about generic problem solving. (08:04:12) str9960: I think we left off on saying "what are the types of problems we can apply these ideas to"? But, we never really defined those problems (08:04:30) str9960: I think the types of problems are really broad (08:05:13) str9960: I also think we were close to something really practically useful (08:05:55) str9960: Also, wondered what you thought about the idea of "OrganizedInquiry"? (08:07:27) hopperomatic: Organized inquiry seems like a good model for exploring problem spaces. I've always felt more inclined to the design-as-problem-solving model. (08:07:50) hopperomatic: not that they are mutually exclusive, and I also haven't spent enough time truly groking the OI model. (08:08:18) str9960: it's a really new model, maybe not universally applicable to all problems, of course (08:08:45) str9960: what do yo mean by "design-as-problem-solving-model" (08:08:58) hopperomatic: let me find this great link that zeb sent me... hold on. (08:09:05) str9960: ok (08:10:10) hopperomatic: ahhh. here it is http://www.cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf (08:10:50) hopperomatic: It's an awesome paper if you haven't read it, but the gist is that problems are solved by designing solutions FIRST and then analyzing what they teach us about the problem. Lather, rinse, and repeat. (08:10:51) str9960: cool, thanks, will check it out... (08:11:47) str9960: So, the design is kind of an exercise. This is similar to what we call "backcasting" in futures studies (08:12:23) str9960: Starting from the point in the future where you want to be, and then tracing your way back through a plausible story about how you got there (08:12:25) hopperomatic: yes - except depending on where you are in the process, the design could be a model, could be a working solution, or could even be a concept (08:12:32) str9960: ok, I see (08:12:53) str9960: gotta run, thansk for the info, mind if I past this into CP wiki? (08:12:57) str9960: paste (08:13:15) hopperomatic: they use a great example of trying to design software that manages elevators. You start by coming up with the simplest idea that works, then looking at it and saying "oh, I didn't think of this aspect" and so on. (08:13:22) hopperomatic: no - fire away (08:13:38) hopperomatic: thanks for bringing this back up - let's stay in touch. I'm still excited about this stuff. (08:16:14) str9960: No problem, will see you on CPS wiki! talk to you later
A more readable version available here: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/CollectiveProblemSolvingDiscussion
(OddWiki does not allow this type of content, because OddWiki is meant to be migrated from once these needs arise, so I’ve also posted this on a OddMuse instance that does support IRC pasting. If desired, we can migrate CollectiveProblemSolving wiki to OBM WikiHive very easily – SamRose)
High-level description of “design-as-problem-solving” here: http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/design/dziersk/design-thinking-083107.html
KeithHopper: I’ve really enjoyed the discussion at CommunityWiki on this topic. I’d like to consider introducing a small amount of structure to the wiki pages here. I know this is well-worn territory on some other wikis in discussions like Community:TimeStampedMap. Perhaps someone can suggest structural formats for a goal-oriented wiki such as this one.
One suggestion is that some pages could categorize themselves as one of the following:
One obvious benefit is for navigation purposes. Want to see all the live discussions? Just Search!
One of the things to consider is DocumentMode? format vs. ThreadMode format. My suggestion is to use this rule of thumb (doesn’t need to be hard and fast):
CategoryDiscussion → ThreadMode
CategoryConcept? → DocumentMode?
CategoryProposal → MixedMode?
Also, each DocumentMode? page could have a sister discussion page - hardly a new idea, but I think a good one. The format for WikiPage? could be WikiPageDiscussion?.
MattisManzel: Hi Keith. You have fun with oddwiki I see. I’m not sure about categories for document and thread. What seems the point to me is rather that the “hot zones” - these are the end of the thread and the end of the document - are too distant from each other. I try to make them have “just line in between” and be neighbors on the day-page sets. TalkPages? BlogPages, … Mechanical, no contents in the stable “document mode part” on top. Just instructions. Maybe we should rather to start a day-page set on a topic.
AlexSchroeder: The topic reminds me of a talk by EugeneEricKim? and DougEngelbart? they held at WikiSym2006. [1] Basically Engelbart thought many many years ago that problems were growing faster than our ability to solve them and concluded that what he wanted to do was improve collective problem-solving.
KeithHopper: Thanks Mattis - I want to make sure I understand. I think you are suggesting that splitting the discussion and the DocumentMode? content too far apart (like separate pages) is bad because then they are too distant and not driving each other’s development. Are you suggesting day-pages is a good alternative? Is there a way to automate day-pages or a blog on oddwiki? Also, CommunityWiki has spoiled me with automated separators and DenotingAuthor capability - do you know if there is a way to emulate that here?
KeithHopper: Thanks for the great link, Alex. Minutes later I stumbled on this paper: http://www.blueoxen.com/papers/0000D/ which heavily references Doug’s lifelong focus on this topic.
MattisManzel: Keith, up to now the day-page sets had only instructions about using day-pages on their mother-page - that’s the one all the day-pages get attached to. It should contain the distilled document mode. I first demonstrated it on wiki-net: wiki-net server. At the end of the mother page you find click here to add to today’s talk, followed the youngest contribution. So the latest talk and the end of the document have a common border a common “hot zone” somewhere in the middle of the page. The line to divide document and talk is kinda the equator of the page.
Editing it is ugly at the moment as you do not have access to read the rest of the document while editing a day-page of the set. But: Alex has a clever function to show the contents of the page to comment on above the edit window in the comment-function for oddwiki - the comment function which is not in use on the wikis I made. Maybe he can somehow unlatch it? It’s a bit difficult to say what should be visible above the edit window for a day-page. In any case the document-mode / mother-page. And maybe the youngest two or three day-pages. Needs experimenting. If we get it done it saves us several hundred kilometers of scrolling per year. The end of the page is the beginning of the talk and it’s unlikely that people usually dive that deep.