Metaweb talk:Metaweb introduction (Neal Stephenson)
From the Quicksilver Metaweb.
Please check permissions on these pages...
Is this really that different from Wikipedia?
We're running the same software, but we have different guidelines for content and different goals. There's a draft of an answer in Metaweb:An explanation of the similarities and differences between Wikipedia and Metaweb. Eventually, this will go into the Metaweb:FAQ. --Patrick 03:30, 24 Sep 2003 (PDT)
The focus on the historical period explored in Neal Stephenson's novel Quicksilver is also different. Err, just what and where exactly is that period? Baroque Europe?
The birth of Science in Western Civilization?
Neal says "if you have come here hoping to get an explanation of something that puzzles you about QUICKSILVER, then this site should serve that purpose. If you don't find an existing annotation that answers your question, you can request that I or someone else write one and post it."
Presumably it should mention the Metaweb_talk: page as the way to do that? Since the actual page here is protected... for some reason.
I think a good place to post a request for an annotation is in the "Discuss this page" section of "All Annotations by Page Number."Nealstephenson 17:40, 12 Oct 2003 (PDT)
Along the way, as you browse the site, you may stumble over a lot of information that seems to have nothing to do with the novel. This material has probably been put there by contributors who have decided to post explanations of things that they care and know about. Feel free to ignore, browse, or contribute to any of it as the spirit moves you.
Well, let's ask the question: Where, Neal, would you like this to go? Do you want to develop a whole Quicksilver universe that others can write GNU FDL books in, while you go off to do something else? Do you want to retain all rights to fictional characters you create, but let people describe or use them in other works so they take on a life of their own, kind of like sports teams or studios that have rights to players, but let them play in all-star games or star in other studios' movies? Do you want to just let chaos reign and see where this goes? Would it freak you out if metaweb were to become the preferred entry point for all web research, displacing google? If so, how annoyed and disappointed are you prepared to get as people "try things", many of which seem insane? Seems a good dialogue on this would be required, in order to un-intimidate contributors...
Speaking for myself, but perhaps doing a fair job of summarizing the positions of the other instigators of this site, I'd like to see this grow into a broad and deep collection of knowledge. It's fine if this collection is initially slanted towards Quicksilver, but I'd be happy if people go in other directions as well. This incarnation of the Metaweb is an experiment, and I hope people will take it in this sprit and try all sorts of things to see what works and what doesn't. --Pat 13:05, 11 Oct 2003 (PDT)
OK, but don't reinvent wheels. It took a long time for Wikipedia to figure out that it could not be "neutral point of view" and also serve as a textbook content base. See the Cookbook plan for a good overview of how different it gets when you start "instructing"...
It is certainly not about developing a Quicksilver universe, GNU FDL books, or any of that stuff. To tell you the truth, this has more to do with The Young Lady's Illustrated Primer than it does with Quicksilver. The hope is that people will contribute good explanations of a wide range of topics, none of which need have anything to do with Quicksilver. If the system is structured in the right way, then it ought to become a good place to go if you need an explanation of something. That is really the end goal: to explain things well. The people at Applied Minds have some ideas about how to do this that I think are pretty reasonable. But it's difficult to work on implementation of those ideas in a vacuum; a living site is needed.Nealstephenson 17:40, 12 Oct 2003 (PDT)
Applied Minds' model has some serious problems, but never mind that. The most useful comment here is that we may well be writing A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer from The Diamond Age in some sense. Fine. Let's start there. Neal, are you willing to GNU FDL the sections of the YLIP that you actually wrote as part of The Diamond Age? If so, we could complete it! Maybe including lots of links to the Simple English Wikipedia and Wikibooks (also GNU FDL'd) to actually make it a useful learning resource. Then translate to Chinese, ship it to China on CD-ROM, and we're off... Mouse Armies and all...
BTW Neal did you read the review of Diamond Age in the Wikipedia? Or do you track the reviews at Amazon.com? Which do you find intriguing, and which silly?
More importantly, on the question of addressing people in a vocabulary they understand on topics they care about, consider the following:
Simple English User Stories used to scope and guide the Simple English Wikipedia
List of Simple English Readings, maybe an equivalent structure could "evolve" here?
Sites to Visit Recommendations
Some of the most informative sites, well organized, highly pertinent sites are... Gaming sites;
Here are a couple/few
A site for Anarchy Online,
A site for Asheron's Call 2,
Ultima Online Stratics,
Gaming sites were among the very first sites I ever visited on the net, even before looking for porn!
UO Stratics blew me away. It was highly informative and, I thought, well organized. As I progressed within the game it became more and more valuable, unlike the manuals which were packaged with the Disks themselves (and were darn near useless as soon as you learned to move your character and do the least little thing, like equip a sword and attack a bunny), and far more than the Official site, which was even less valuable than the manuals themselves -- though the Home page had the manual on-line. I would go on to believe that everything, absolutely everything, on the internet would be organized in this manner, Well, that myth didn't last as long as the myth of the Manuals.
MUDs
Where as most of the sites I visit that deal with Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMO's) are pretty neutral sites - they have open points of view and seem far more interested in providing REAL, practical information, Real and Practical in a Virtual world are relative terms, mind you - Most of the sites I visit regarding other topics are biased in the extreme, and many seem to exist only to either bolster the image and ego of their creator, or to, as Neal said in the opening page, sell something.
Timber and Hew
I had envisioned a Traditional Timber Framing web site along the lines of UO.Stratics.com. Something that would be broken down into well classified, intuitively sorted, archives; their links easily reached from the main page. That point is what impressed me the most with Gaming Web sites, how darn easy they are to navigate from the main page, and how so much of the infomation FEELS like it's right at your fingertips -- that there was always more you could scrounge up by digging around a bit was just icing on the cake.
Parts of me still hold this dream, but there is also a fear, one that might be applicable to this discussion, especially since most of you seem to be in a business where your livelihoods revolve around intellectual property. I think many of the people who create Web sites, to serve one game or another, could realize some profit from finding a paying outlet for their work, but, expecially with the bottom dropping out of the ad revenues for these sites, most contributors don't realize much compensation at all. And yet they do it. And maintain the pages brilliantly.
I am trying to put together a series of articles on Hewing Tools for Backwoods Home Magazine, I think there are six altogether (Axes, Permanent Cribbing, Portable Horses and the dogging methods for each, Axe vs. Adze finishes and the Rubbings behind the Argument), ok, maybe less, maybe more all told. And a few on techniques. The point is that even though it's very little compensation, about 15 bucks a pop, I want to do these because I am first and foremost a Hewer, and there is Nothing, not on the Web, and not in Books, that goes into any sort of depth. Everything out there is terribly superficial, or just plain, err, crap.
I also want to break into writing, and this magazine seems an ok outlet for that, there are better ones, but, it's all nose-in-the-air stuff and your articles just become coffee table fodder. (just as an aside, there are no well organized, Community Driven Timber Framing sites, that I've seen, check out the best and the brightest we have, and see what I mean Timber Framers Guild -- Hot Damn! I just noticed that Richard Harris is going to be the speaker at TTRAG!)
My other point is that there is some fear that in contributing to a Web site, one would just be throwing away a thing of potent value; Most of my old Bosses, and Mentors, have written books on their take on the Craft, for this they get royalties, even though some of those checks are pretty darn small.
The thing is that it would be best if you could pull an article from one of Jack Sobon's books, follow it up with an article from Ted Bensons, and, even, if you were REAL desperate, you could follow that up with something from Dick's book, maybe. It would be a heck of a lot more useful if you had it in the setting of a web site, one with occasional essays, and the like to supplement the archives. Not to mention a forum.
But who's going to do that?
I'd put an article or two on a site like this one, if I could get over being a Chicken Shit, but, at least ya know that, on Backwoods Home someone's going to read your article, and actually take a swing at it, even if they are flag waving, gun toting, red necks, My kind of people :D timberbee
Objective truth vs. opinion
My main concern when perusing a Web site for "knowledge" is whether that material is verifiable and trustworthy. Has there been any talk about people fact checking what is put on here? Should we hold to the same standards as journalists do in posting material, making it accessible, listing sources, being accountable to someone or something, etc.? Do we have an editor for this? Should we know who this editor is (in case they have an agenda)? I guess I don't have any real comments per se - just a lot of questions. Help me answer them.
Consider Wikipedia - which operates without any of these controls, and seems to attract a lot of helpers. It does have agenda problems, notably its "ruling mailing list" and GodKing is dominated by people who have a quite clear authoritarian belief system (because authority decides it, it is true!) mixed with inconsistent libertarian type beliefs (whoever is here, is "The people", regardless of barriers to them getting here). But you can in general find out this by reading that list.
The Metaweb:faction proposal would deal with collective and alleged identity and with "avowed or alleged agenda" just as well. It would not require naming names, it would just let, among other things, a Whig say 'yes that's a Whig view' and a Tory say 'no, that's what Whigs say about Tories' so we don't end up having to have a single central authority deciding what is "true" about either.
PS There was a comment about Richard Harris, but I have no idea which one you mean because this is a common name. The man I think you're referring to passed away in 2002. Please provide a link next time?JonnyD 17:36, 16 Mar 2004 (PST)
All proper names should be linked, period. There are some people who believe that open links are bad. They are WRONG. In a wiki, open links are invitations to help. In a small wiki, they establish roughly how big the wiki is going to get (if you have 500 articles and 5000 links, and 90% of those links are empty, then, you know you are going to end up with 5000 articles - at which point, you might have another 3000 open links, etc., so you can figure out roughly what needs to get done - avoiding open links sabotages this and is effectively a power grab by those who discourage the open links only on SOME subjects). If you find an editorial bias, it will be in the patterns of objecting to open links.
Now you're merely lazy. It's not OPEN links it's EMPTY links that I find objectionable. There is a difference. - Sparky 00:55, 2004 Mar 18 (PST)
This distinction is purely ideological, or at best factionally defined. Some Metaweb:factions will think some are merely open, others will think they are destined to remain empty, or are determined to keep them empty, e.g. to the Golds and Blues there is no "proletariat", while to the Pinks and Reds there is no "free trade". The North sees no "overconsumption", the South sees no "overpopulation" Etc. And yes all these concepts were understood in the Baroque era.
Nope. Thick as a Brick is a quote for you. No one is Blue, Gold, Pink or Black here. If you're going to double-bracket words -- that you know we ALL know without making any attempt to make an MetaWeb-meaningful article to explain why -- its EMPTY POLITICAL action.
This is not an answer, and you are proffering only an ideology here.
You'd be wrong about that. - Sparky 19:14, 2004 Mar 23 (PST)
Your movements are always marred by red EMPTY LINKS and you've three means to fill them (at least). 1. Wikipedia 2. WikiInfo 3. Recyclopedia 4. Meta Wiki * Yes I know you think Trolls are heroic - many don't. Many see your stand as Bogus I hold the view your energy can be channeled.
Not by you. These "many" are ultimately engaged in thoughtcrime - either identifying it or committing it. The view that some group is more suited to do editing than another because it owns the infrastructure, or is politically approved by same, is bankrupt morally. Trolls don't answer to it.
-
I'm asking you to care for WHAT you plant as I care about the goals here. And it's just you. Thanks.
-
THEREFORE there is really no need for any of the above EMPTY links to be red. And most Internet capable adults know what proletariat means its moot again. Empty links and politics? Please keep them pertinent to the Metaweb - Sparky 21:25, 2004 Mar 18 (PST)
And what is "pertinent"? The Baroque era was a flourishing of ideas, and it would be very hard to find any political notion that had no roots in that era. Accordingly the right thing to do is to link them to local articles, rather than preferentially choosing one from another general-purpose wiki, and then write a short piece there to indicate the various views and their origins. That is, if this really is about that era, and not just Quicksilver?
- Any topic broached here is pertinent. Linking it to the Cryptonomicon/Quicksilver shared universe would be nice, You seem obsessed with The Diamond Age, so you could possibly link an article to that. Fair enough? - Sparky 23:43, 2004 Mar 20 (PST)