What would knowledge structuring look like if it were invented today? |
please flag with care:
| |
| 2009-09-19 | No history |  | Add My version | |
download mind map 157953271.mm (mindmap file created by FreeMind)
| | |
| this mindmap links to the collaborative writing experiment
announced here on 2009-09-14: http://friendfeed.com/danielmietchen/aebb7790/invitation-to-experiment-collaborative
current participants: Claudia Koltzenburg and Daniel Mietchen | |
 | |
| outline | |
What would knowledge structuring look like if it were invented today? (e.g. do away with any print analogies)
1 "paper" limitations vs. "online" possibilities
1.1 "spatial arrangements of sheets of paper vs. numeric arrangements of digital documents"
1.1.1 why oppose these two aspects (only)?
1.1.2 ?
1.2 NB: just saying "online" does not do away with pervasive print analogies
1.3 why oppose limitations and possibilities?
1.4 ?
2 make openly accessible
2.1 paper-based scholarly journals
2.1.1 NB: in OA journals that also have a print edition the online version often is available prior to print
2.2 ?
3 peer review
3.1 how many print analogies are inscribed into the process as it is traditionally known today?
3.2 what might non-peer review contribute to the quality of a contribution?
3.3 ?
4 ?
5 open accessibility
5.1 open to whom? (read / write / delete / revert / admin... ?)
5.1.1 who is sought for?
5.1.1.1 where is the project announced?
5.1.1.2 by whom is the project announced?
5.1.1.3 in which language(s)?
5.1.1.4 initial special invitations?
5.1.1.5 ?
5.1.2 who is welcome?
5.1.2.1 if they come on their own accord
5.1.2.1.1 by chance
5.1.2.1.2 by search
5.1.2.1.3 by ...
5.1.2.2 if they are recommended
5.1.2.2.1 by whom?
5.1.2.2.2 for what reasons?
5.1.3 any other aspects of the attention economy relevant here?
5.1.4 ?
5.2 barriers? (NB whose privileges are inscribed into the project's setup)
5.2.1 barriers too high
5.2.1.1 (technological) knowledge barriers?
5.2.1.1.1 e.g. do I know such an opportunity exists?
5.2.1.1.2 e.g. do I know how best to use the tool?
5.2.1.1.3 e.g. do I know what is appropriate to contribute?
5.2.1.1.4 e.g. do I know what is acceptable (not) to do?
5.2.1.1.5 e.g. when is it to be published and where?
5.2.1.1.6 who decides how on the when and the where?
5.2.1.1.7 ?
5.2.1.2 language barriers?
5.2.1.2.1 e.g. am I comfortable with the language(s) this discussion is in?
5.2.1.2.2 e.g. may I contribute in a language other than the one(s) used already?
5.2.1.2.3 ?
5.2.1.3 technical barriers?
5.2.1.3.1 e.g. what is the level of infrastructure needed?
5.2.1.3.2 e.g. (where) do I get an internet connection?
5.2.1.3.3 e.g. how much of a daily effort to get to the box?
5.2.1.3.4 e.g. how reliable is my internet connection?
5.2.1.3.5 e.g. how fast is my internet connection?
5.2.1.3.6 e.g. which programmes do I have access to?
5.2.1.3.7 e.g. which non-freeware programmes can I afford?
5.2.1.3.8 ?
5.2.1.4 financial barriers?
5.2.1.4.1 e.g. how much do I have to invest in money?
5.2.1.4.2 e.g. can I afford to spend my time on this? (what will be my gain with respect to what I am being paid for)?
5.2.1.4.3 ?
5.2.1.5 cultural and social barriers?
5.2.1.5.1 e.g. what may be written about in public?
5.2.1.5.2 which hegemonies are at play here: race/ class/ gender/ 'abledness'/ sexual orientation/ age/ religion... world views?
5.2.1.5.3 e.g. what is advisable (not) to talk about here?
5.2.1.5.4 e.g. better just read and not write anything myself?
5.2.1.5.5 e.g. better to not show I am here?
5.2.1.5.6 ?
5.2.1.6 legal barriers?
5.2.1.6.1 e.g. may I read this even though I am not sure how to reference it?
5.2.1.6.2 ?
5.2.1.7 yet other barriers?
5.2.1.7.1 ?
5.2.1.7.2 effect: too few bytes added
5.2.2 about fine
5.2.2.1 amount of people participating
5.2.2.2 kinds of interests involved
5.2.2.3 focus of topic agreed on
5.2.2.4 aim of topic agreed on
5.2.2.5 branching out here and there is welcome
5.2.2.6 time / space of 'publication' agreed on
5.2.2.7 ?
5.2.3 barriers too low
5.2.3.1 too many bytes added
5.2.3.2 ideas start wandering without due attribution (provide a tool and some technical help on the how to)
5.2.3.3 vandalism
5.2.3.3.1 attacks on technological basis of collaboration tool
5.2.3.3.2 taking away too much by deleting
5.2.3.3.3 other
5.2.3.4 ?
5.2.4 hurdles unknown/ invisible as yet
5.2.4.1 habits/ ways of doing things?
5.2.4.2 ?
5.2.5 ?
5.3 ?
6 open co-authorship
6.1 "who has overcome all the barriers and respects the (implicit) rules of the game is welcome"
6.2 (see also above 'open accessibility')
6.3 ?
7 "micropublishing" (ff Michael Nielsen)
7.1 insert new information at any time
7.1.1 e.g. make blog post updates on a wiki page (a proof of principle e.g. for scholarly reviews on a topic)
7.2 ?
8 attribution
8.1 author attribution
8.1.1 lists all author names
8.1.2 author identites?
8.1.2.1 only one author by this name?
8.1.2.2 which of the persons by this name is meant here?
8.1.2.3 is the name a pseudonym?
8.1.2.4 multiple identities?
8.1.2.5 non ego-centric / 'communist' / queer?
8.1.2.6 ?
8.1.3 ?
8.2 micro attribution
8.2.1 what / when / by whom (time slider)
8.2.2 how much / how useful (ranking of author names - unless ranked alphabetically)
8.2.3 ?
8.3 ?
9 simultaneous writing
9.1 needs a good version management (of not available, time span agreements useful)
9.2 authors must be aware of what may cause any trouble
9.3 may be easier if authors work in different time zones
9.4 ?
10 meta-level(s) and writing level(s)
10.1 relation of
10.2 how visible is this relation?
10.3 how are the levels of this organized?
10.4 ?
11 contextualisation (consider language / language independence / file format)
11.1 interlinking (vice versa)
11.2 via hyperlinking
11.3 ontological framing
11.4 redundancy
11.4.1 kinds of : function : purpose?
11.4.2 intended audience?
11.5 ?
12 any other aspects?
12.1 ?
12.2 ?
12.3 ?
|
| |