Should we delete the "how-to" stuff?

I have posted rather pretentious but I hope relevant content inspired by Kernan. Take it and change it, throw it out and post something else, ... let's do this thing.

I deleted it all before I read your comment. Heh. No matter, if any one wonders how to "do this thing" they can click on the history link at the bottom of the site's home page and view the first version. I'm highly supportive of your rather pretentious content and think it's full of all kinds of potential energy.

I posted some ideas for a plan of action as to what we might do with our wiki on the blackboard groups page. That forum seems to be somewhat defunct, so as Lizzie suggested, here they are in our brave new forum:

Drawing on the inspiration of Wikipedia and the Enlightenment encyclopaedism that inspires it, we could use our wiki-space to create an anonymously collaborative set of encyclopaedia entries for terms and ideas we have encountered on the course thus far. I imagine the end product (which will of course have no end, but scroll indefinitely out into a bright extropic future) to be somehting like Raymond Williams' Keywords for cyber-space. So, we could isolate a series of key terms from the class (Gravity, Literature, Emergence, Simplicity, Complexity, History of the Real, Virtuality, etc) and produce a series of entries that explain them in relation to both science, literature and their genealogical histories. This would be similar to Wikipedia in view of its anonymous, collaborative and revisable nature, but also different in that our terms and definitions will be organized within a specific intellectual frame (the histories of science and literature). They would also be different, in that they would pay close attention to the changing use of our terms over time (a cyber-genealogy, if you will).

What does everyone think?

I like it. I think it's a nice mirror to have an emphasis on linguistic changelog-ism.
On the other hand, one of the thinking habits I'm trying to break for myself is being dazzled by pretty mirrors...

But in general, I think it's great. There's a quick wiki way to create new pages simply by setting a word to be a link-- it's a nice user interface touch: when you're editing , just put the term in square brackets; it will show up as hyphen-underlined, and when you click on this it is a link to a new page you can edit.
That is my tip-of-the-day and vote of approval!

I also like the idea about posting terms & definitions relevant the course. What if we designed an algorithm for editing the entries? This would make it different than wikipedia in that we would be constrained by a simple external generative procedure. We could establish a limited set of operations for adding data (let's say 4) that had to be repeated by each user in order. I'm not sure what the 4 operations should be, but I was imagining a set of actions such as: 1) add a course-related term+definition, 2) add an image file, 3) add a quote from ANY text, 4) add something else (sound file?)... leading back to 1) add a [different] "term+defintion" related to the course. Any suggestions for what the steps of the subroutine should be? We could add or change any entry as long as we run the same program in order. In other words, each wiki user is like a computer that can only do 4 things (steps 1,2,3,4) and only in that order. We can repeat this 1,2,3,4 program as many times as we want. How we choose what entries on which to operate doesn't matter: I can do step 2 and 3 on one entry, switch entries and do step 4, switch entries and do step 1 and 2, etc. It might be interesting to see what emerges from these constraints/algorithms/feedback loops. I'm not sure if we're supposed to posting on the Blackboard site as well, so I'll put these ideas on our Group page as well.

I think it's a fantastic idea--and, additionally, I think we should limit the number of "base" entries to...4? Is that too few? And then for new definitions we would define words within those definitions, so that we would be creating a network of terms that literally inter-relate, rather than a list. I think this allows for more emergent results.

I think the algorithm procedure sounds like a great idea. Maybe we could do something like: a) term b) elucidation of term in relation to the Enlightenment c) elucidation of term in relation to contemporary digital moment d) image e) quote f) hyperlink to a relevant web source. That way we don't just settle for static "definitions" that elide the historical trajectories of the terms that we're dealing with.

So that we can get started: lets begin by collecting terms. Pile them on top of each other. Create new pages with the bracket trick. File new words inside of old words. This way we have something to work on while we work on what we're going to work on. What words do we want to define, what are there relation to each other, etc.

I think the six steps of a-f may be a little to complex...I think our algorithm should be a little more simple. However, I like the addition of the Enlightenment and the digital age and of hyperlinks.

<b>Lets do this:
1. define. 2. image 3.any quote from enlightment or current age 4. hyperlink to larger online universe.</b>

If you agree say Yay and if not say Nay.

(what's a clever way to say "net universe"? Netiverse...webiverse...digiverse...ooo, I like that one.)

note to self and to others: text tags do not work in the comment area. Also, if you hit enter to create a new paragraph, it will all look like one blob of text anyway. Ho hum.