[p2p-research] Wiki Organization

Mon Jun 7 00:58:35 CEST 2010

hi alex,

there is a fundamental reason why there are few extra p2p perspectives in
the wiki: I don't have the time, and there does not seem a lot of people
willing to do it, actually sepp's application content thing was the first
proposal I think ..

so, to explain, I do opportunistic updating about everything p2p related
that I find, and add 'discussions' by others when I find them

but there is always a p2p perspective involved in the selection process ,so
having systematically 2 cats seems redundant,

however, I use them in different way,

Governance has all p2p-aspected governance issues, but peergovernance is
specific to governance of peer communities, not society at large, same for
Business vs. peer production, and IP vs. peer property,

those are the only double's that we have,

again, I think it makes lilttle sense to create double categories because we
'should', as they will remain empty, but organically, as a section becomes
to big and broad, then the occasion for a specialized p2p category could
arise,

Michel

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've been fussing with some of the categories on the wiki.  There's a few
> big important pages on there that get the lion's share of traffic so I'm
> doing some work to copy what's working there and apply it in other areas.
>
> I was wondering about something.
>
> Do you think that we need to have "P2P Theory" and "Theory"?
>
> Background:  Wikipedia assumes you know nothing.  Do we make the same
> assumption?
>
> With our wiki there's a chance to look at an article and pick out the "P2P
> Perspective" but this isn't always clear, and it is by no means systematic
> across 10,000 pages.
>
> Let's use hyperbole to talk about a test case.
>
> Let's say I hear about a new initiative of the United States' National Rife
> Association.  The organization has heard from some gun owners that the group
> has created a train-you-neighbor  program, free, and that you can train
> anyone after looking at the website for 5 minutes.  When you finish, you go
> online and sign a petition.
>
> So, this program obviously has a P2P Perspective.  Gun owners training
> neighbors...neighbors as peers, everyone helping everyone to better wield a
> firearm.
>
> When I put this on the wiki I can put the stub into a few different
> categories.
>
> Here's what I'm thinking:
>
> Category:Articles
> Category:Training
> Category:P2P Training
>
> Do you sense any difference between Training and P2P Training?
>
> I think we need both.
>
> There's a new initiative of the United States' National Rife Association.
>  The organization has created a free training program.  Just sign up on the
> website and in 5 minutes you are certified.  You can sign a petition that
> you completed the program and that you support looser gun laws.
>
> If this went on the wiki it would go in:
>
>  Category:Articles
> Category:Training
>
> So, I think we need both, and there's a place for curating the Category
> pages for the P2P Foo categories to specify and differentiate.
>
> This hyperbolic example does beg a question, though: Why would the second
> article be on the wiki?  Ideas?
>
> Your thoughts are valuable.  Please do let me know what you think.
>
> One of the impacts of this is in regards to the structured taxonomy for the
> site.  Our category system has exploded, and to no great end it would seem.
>  50 categories have all the links, and the rest are flying solo.
>
> Custom pages here and there are working as directories, but they can't keep
> up with the number of growing links.  In general then, our categories need
> to support or  high traffic sections and, if possible, aid navigation down
> into those sections with subcategories.  Wikis, ugh.  But possible!
>
> This also means that "Top Level" pages like "Manufacturing" and "Design" do
> need to understand their important place in things as driving all the
> traffic for a particular category and also serving as a set of directions
> for how to add additional content.  Like my NRA story, there may be cases
> where an article decidedly doesn't belong because it doesn't link.  But,
> then, what if it can't be categorized?  I'm not a deletionist, don't get me
> wrong.
>
> If there are three design categories: Design, Open Design and P2P Design,
> then I would tell you that my bet would be on the P2P Design category as
> containing the 'stuff' most well-curated on the wiki, but this is not the
> case.
>
> In addition to this particular subject, I would add that most changes I'm
> making are non-volatile.  Redirects where need, lots of useful additive
> categorization.  Generally we should see a traffic increase as things move
> on.  The greatest benefit, though, will be a clearer way of linking your
> content on the wiki, and feeling confident about how to add links to
> categories like design so that they get properly showcased.
>
> By the way, this wiki is totally awesome.  Great work everyone!  :)
>
> Alex
>
> Help? http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Foundation_Wiki_Project_Leadership
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100607/c8d7c231/attachment.html>