At 09:52 PM 9/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
>At 08:54 PM 9/12/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> ><snippage/>
> >My vision of this one, is that only the most relevant points are actually
> >shown as part of the graph. New responses, and ones that are not deemed
> >valuable, can be accessed from a drop down list at every node. It is also
> >at this point where readers can vote to transform a message the is
> >currently only accessible in this way, into a node rather then a menu
> option.
>
>So, who gets to play God and decide what is relevant and what is not? How
>is the "value deeming" process performed?
>In the fully-facilitated process, it would seem that there are issues
>related to the facilitator not interfering with the creative process while,
>at the same time, guiding the process.
Hey Mr. Snippage, you cut this part out of my prior post:
I was thinking more of ratings based on relevance to a particular
subject. Or truth. Say non-obvious interesting facts would be highly
rated, while obvious or uninteresting statements would get a low
rating. ********The 'who' that the facts are interesting to, would be the
participants in the forum, with the goal being to come up with a single,
objective (within the group) opinion.*********
-----
It's a democratic process, right? No one is playing god.
><snippage/>
>
> >The ultimate goal as I see it is the creation of a "Collaborative
> >Rewritable Document Editor".
> >
> >We've got code reuse, but not text reuse. So much time is wasted by
> >scientists and journalists all over the place on simply rewriting what has
> >been said before them. Wouldn't it be nice if people were able to settle
> >on an accepted description of a certain issue, and then refer back to it,
> >rather then rewriting the material. This would create symbolism on a
> >higher lever then just words. Paragraphs would come to be reusable
> >tokens. If someone thinks that they could say it better, then they could
> >try, and then people could vote on which version they like. Ok, I have
> >more to say on this issue, but I need time to gather my thoughts. Maybe if
> >someone disagrees, it would help me to form a response.
> >
> >--Alex
>And, now you're getting awfully close to the Xanalogical Structure of Ted
>Nelson, where everything is one huge string and you can slide a window
>along that string and call that window whatever you want -- e.g. a
>paragraph. It's available to all who want it.
>
>No disagreement here, however.
>Jack
I hope I am not getting close to any such notions. At least if this:
http://gisol.org/gisol/merci2.html is what you mean. Well, maybe the world
isn't ready yet for my grand vision of the future. That's why I'll just
keep working on the practical present.
--Alex
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Get it Now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/n7RbFC/zhwCAA/yigFAA/IHFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Sep 12 2001 - 22:07:02 PDT