This journal will be the sketchbook for whatever I have the compulsion to write at any time on any subject. It is the noodling place. Having this one rambling, unstructured area without clear boundaries lets me just toss stuff in when it strikes, and not have to ever worry about organization later. It's my Junk Drawer.
About to embark on a journey into darkness with naught but the stars--and a set of headlights--to point the way. This is a renewed connection and extension from another trip that began in 1995. I can't say my hair is grayer--it was all white then--but the technology is better, and I hope I'm a bit wiser in my use of it.
As I dig deeper and deeper into the work of Elinor Ostrom, it's like every frontier: it expands with every step, and even as I learn more, I also learn that "learning" actually means apprehending how much more ignorant I am than I thought. On the other hand, that's like an endless energy supply to the curious ones, so I rather like it. At some point, I hope that I'll leave sight of the familiar shore and slowly begin to metamorphose into a denizen of the Knowledge Commons rather than a mere spectator.
As much as our book (Carol Stimmel and I are writers and editors of a book to be published in late 2016 by Taylor and Francis) will try to cover all aspects of the Knowledge Commons moving into the future, we had thought to downplay the political implications. But is this possible? What institutions are most threatened by such an outlook?
Richard Stallman and Euclides Mance issued a statement in 2012 that tied this to the free/libre open source software movement. site
I am particularly struck by this declaration from that page: "As supporters of the free software movement and solidarity economy, we denounce and reject all use of IT for actions of oppression and domination, be they with software that is free or not."
A Solidarity Economy is one in which the improvement of standard of living is realized through not-for-profit endeavors. How does this relate to Knowledge Commons? site
If nothing else, I'd like to hear some expansion of this statement from Stallman and Mance: "This idea contrasts with the purely practical philosophy of open source, which renounces freedom as a value for those of functionality or success."
Would it be possible to gain Mr. Stallman's confidence to contribute 5000 words (new or already penned) to lead off our effort in Chapter One?
A minor scare on Wiki today. My Welcome Visitors page was not in the same state it was the last time I added items. Fortunately (and there is something I don't understand about forking), I was able to step back to see my page as it was when I last touched it by hovering and touching the forked icon, and then I could newly fork it and make it the current page with all its associated pages.
Today, November 25, 2015, my old mind was officially blown by something Ward Cunningham said in the video 09 Wikimainia Growth Limits in front of a slide titled "Adaptive Federation." He is discussing the switch from the original Wiki Wiki Web, where everyone shares the same page on a subject, to the federated wiki where one can share or reference or copy into one's one space any page. And this copying around the networks can have a very interesting and even profound effect. Emergent Organic Consensus
And in the same day, November 25, 2015, mind blow # 2: from When Replicators Unite: "The key steps in the evolution of life on earth had been driven by a small number of “major evolutionary transitions.” In each transition, a group of individuals that could previously replicate independently cooperate to form a new, more complex life form."
So we are the RNA and the text inside federated wiki is the DNA? I've got to think about this for a while.
My revelation for the day: The "Internet of Things" cannot happen without a true Knowledge Commons.
I'm having trouble shaping my writing to fit this federated wiki paradigm, but I'm trying to improve and the adaptation has had a positive effect. As much as I accept that a medium of communication can alter the content, I still wonder if there is a point where the content becomes corrupted because of the demands of the medium. Twitter, of course, comes to mind, as does television news, but perhaps no corruption occurs because it's always possible to Tell Truth in Any Medium.
Das Buch "Navigating the Knowledge Commons" ist Tod, at least so far as I am concerned.