(MeatBallWikiParTerre? → page à migrer sur MeatBall:CommunityWiki)
The community wiki is about communities. (Doh!)
http://www.communitywiki.org/ The wiki is CopyLeft.
It is a MultilingualWiki? It uses NearLinks to MeatballWiki? It shares some contributors with Meatball See also MeatballAlternatives?.
One thing I’m thinking of doing with a WikiGateway-based WikiClient? would be to make a client which would show the same page in MeatballWiki? and CommunityWiki, in two side-by-side panels. This would match the interface to my conception of “one ‘wiki’, but, with two corpuses of text which must remain separate due to copyright reasons” (I don’t have much time for these projects this year, though, so don’t expect anything soon unless you want to do it..) (this idea was discussed on another page somewhere; anyone have the link?) – BayleShanks
Well, you could do that, but I can guarantee you that copyright isn’t the only thing separating CommunityWiki from MeatballWiki?. The cultures are very disparate. That you’d even think that you could relate the two sites merely through their texts is just another example of how our views are separate. MeatballWiki?’s DefaultCopyright is just to enable an OralCulture? here. And to that end, I don’t even understand what it means to copyright what we are doing. It’s like copyrighting phone conversations, which is the case if they are recorded, but really missing the point. CommunityWiki uses CopyLeft because it sees itself more in terms of a PrintCulture??. It wants to publish documents for the wider world. The irony is that MeatballWiki? is better at producing republishable texts and CommunityWiki is more oral, but hey, that’s the kind of backstory art historians love. – SunirShah
MeatballWiki?’s DefaultCopyright is just to enable an OralCulture? here
Perhaps true in theory, but I have the feeling there are some PrintCulture??-ists hiding out here too :)
The irony is that MeatballWiki? is better at producing republishable texts and CommunityWiki is more oral, but hey, that’s the kind of backstory art historians love.
ha ha..
– BayleShanks Basically Sunir wants Meatball to be a timeless non-serial conversation between a whole bunch of people, not a document to be published and crafted. It’s just print is somewhat like that too in many ways, and the articles can become print quality, thus this entire issue we have here. --MahyarMcDonald??
If MeatballWiki? is for talking and CommunityWiki is for writing, that’s just makes unification even easier. People could think of MeatballWiki? as the telephone, and CommunityWiki as the typewriter.
Certainly the same groups of people sometimes both talk to each other, but also write together. There are different cultural norms in each context. To rephrase that: the two sets of cultural norms can coexist in the same group of people, but applied to their appropriate contexts.
The confusion/irony comes in with LifeInText?. Some people (like me) would rather do most of our talking on the typewriter, so to speak, to make later transcription easier should I want to save anything I’ve said. Other people (like Sunir) feel that the easiest way to talk on the telephone, so to speak, is to create beautiful essays.
Note that this metaphor is a little wrong because the “typewriter” and the “telephone” spoken about above don’t differ in their technological realization, but rather in their copyright permissions (they differ in their cultural contexts, too, but the metaphor takes account of that part).
If I were an art historian looking at this discussion in the future, preparing a lesson plan for a group of undergrads, I’d want to strangle us for being so obtuse. CommunityWiki and MeatballWiki? are just very different spaces because we are very different people. If CommunityWiki uses more TechnologySolutions? and is CopyLeft, then that’s because we have different SuperordinateGoals?. I think it would be better to disambiguate the two spaces as much as possible so that we can both accomplish our goals without hurting or hampering each other. It would certainly be less confusing, and thus demand less words dedicated to understanding the difference between the two sites. Anyway, to that end, http://meatballsociety.org/cgi-bin/openmb.pl – SunirShah
I tried for a long while to understand the differences and disputes between Meatball and CommunityWiki, and why many people still think it’s legitimate for people there to launch SnipingCriticism? at me while I am not given the same PrincipleOfConstantRespect?. I have boiled it down to the following. I invite you to disagree because that may be the only way to come to some sort of closure on the whole affair.
CommunityWiki was founded on two premises. One, CopyLeft is very important (I mostly agree). The other is WikiCanonicalization??: that wikis should be split by topic focus (I mostly disagree). MeatballWiki? was founded on the premise of BarnRaising?: that we help you work on your project in return for you helping us work on our project. Meatball is about creating PersonalRelationships? and interacting with one another. CommunityWiki, based on those premises, is about creating material for external publication.
It makes little sense to me to CopyLeft MeatballWiki? if the value is the active exchange and interchange between participants. The viewpoint that MeatballWiki? should be copyleft prioritizes the text here over the people writing it, and that in my view devalues the people here. It objectifies their contribution, saying their only value is their work, not their selves. That isn’t to say that there is no text here that is valuable in and of itself, as an object, but when people come here to exchange resources or help, forking the discussion in several locations (or at least between MeatballWiki? and CommunityWiki) undermines the discussion.
The idea that MeatballWiki? is composed of a number of topics that need to be split misses the point entirely. It’s composed of a number of people with different interests and personal projects. This viewpoint again sees only the text as an object, and not the people writing it. I’m not alone in thinking this ContentOverCommunity perspective is past its time in our society (e.g. CluetrainManifesto?), but I personally am certainly strongly against it.
In summary, Meatball is based on PersonalRelationships?, BarnRaising?, LifeInText?, and adding value by exchanging value model--i.e. people first. CommunityWiki is based on text-as-object, TheAuthor? and TheAudience?, CopyLeft model--i.e. text first. The dispute is over which creates the greatest value. A text-as-object that is distributed or broadcast to a wide audience, or a text-as-conversation that facilitates people to achieve their best individually. I strongly believe in the latter for many deep reasons, and I feel I deserve the same respect I maintain for CommunityWiki to take my own individual path. – SunirShah
It may create a problem to talk here about what CommunityWiki is or isn’t. But the facts are that the reality of cw is very far - perhaps farther than any other wiki I know - from the founding vision. Although cw is CopyLeft, there is hardly any activity to produce content that’s usable to be copied. What it is: a breading board for oddmuse engine developments, a wiki in brainstorming mode that acclaims any new idea - good or bad, a community of politically thinking people that are deeply critical towards our current political systems and symbolize this by their CopyLeft-confession (way back I started to name them SocialIdealists??). I think cw as it is will not harm Meatball. Through its author-image-thread-system it is more of a closed system than most other wikis. It has become a completely separate social system that moves away from MeatballWiki?. – HelmutLeitner There are two halves; CommunityWiki harming Meatball, and CommunityWiki harming me. The stronger Meatball is though, the better off I am. Let’s get on with solving some of the CurrentWikidomProblems?. – SunirShah
The server for EmacsWiki / CommunityWiki seems to be down.
down at 2004-11-28 22:00 CET down at 2004-11-29 09:50 CET only green screen at http://www.communitywiki.org on 2005-10-24 Works fine for me at 2005-10-25 17:43 BST - perhaps there’s a technical problem with your browser. – ChrisPurcell
Drat. So what do I do now? --TedErnst Try setting your browser’s text encoding to UTF-8 or something. Failing that, contact AlexSchröder directly. – ChrisPurcell
It’s already set at UTF-8. I’ll contact Alex. Thanks. --TedErnst There are currently problems rendering pages in IE. Alex is working on them, I think.
I posted a fix on CW’s weblog. – SunirShah
CategoryOnlineCommunity?