Sorry taking that long to reply. I think, Thomas, Rich and Tobias are talking about the same, and I can can write just one message covering all the topics above.
Thomas, It's great that you are interested in marketing TiddlyWiki platform! If we think it's a good time to grow into a (non-profit social?) enterprise, for example, we should start thinking and acting as an enterprise. The main idea behind this enterprise could be volunteering for whatever roles are required. As soon as TW Project gets traction and funding, those positions would be transformed into the jobs. TiddlyWiki Vacancies <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/TiddlyWiki-Vacancies> list is just created. I am happy to consult and manage development of the Findability and Discoverability for Reuse <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Findability-and-Discoverability-for-Reuse> functionality but would appreciate someone else taken the role of a manager of the project. I believe, the role of TW Director is not disputable. I would appreciate Jeremy Ruston <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/114069544/Jeremy%20Ruston> agreed with this position. I think, Thomas Elmiger <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/114295437/Thomas%20Elmiger> will be happy with the "Marketing" position. The ideas are recorded at the TiddlyWiki Intents Map <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/TiddlyWiki-Intents-Map>. To realise our current and future ideas, we need a person who would focus on management of funding for the project. CrowdFunding <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/CrowdFunding> could be one of the options here. >From my experience, a business plan is viable only when the core values of participants coincide with TiddlyWiki Users Experience <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/TiddlyWiki-Users-Experience>. At the moment, I am willing to contribute my expertise in "findability", as a consultant. Apparently, we have the marketing and coding covered. Fundraising and a few more positions are missing. I will try to push in all those missing positions but my time resources are also limited. Ideally, we need to research the business models of Mozilla or other open source software. Orion Health <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Orion-Health>, for example, offers customisation, development, service, maintenance and support to their solutions. If TW users express this kind of interest to fill the gaps in the business model, it will be viable. If not, then not. We may need to see also the history of Mozilla, for example. How did they startup and developed? Currently, I am at the stage of collecting information (initial stage of collective intelligence) for decision making, ASAP. I would appreciate participation and help. The sooner the information is collected, the higher our chances of smooth and fast startup. Rich, thank you for the great observations. Would you have an idea what was so attractive with TWC compared to TW5, or was it just a "market saturation"? I think, we are in the same boat regarding the TiddlyWiki Users Experience <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/TiddlyWiki-Users-Experience>. Would you help me with figuring out what is missing from the page, what are our potential users and what are their expectations? Ideally, we'd need to realise what our "market segment" is the biggest and focus on it first. The alternative strategy could be decided on what Minimal Viable Product <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Minimal-Viable-Product> could be and focus on it's development first of all. "TW5 has not really had that same spike even though there are many TW5 applications that are amazing." can well be that an integrity of a functionally product may have more value for the end users than a collection of amazing but separated tools hard to manage. Rich, thank you for your support. I am personally at the stage of collecting information about TW platform and community. Please feel free to join and participate in any way you find valuable and interesting for yourself. Dear Josiah, I am sharing your feelings about the Google Groups: Knowledge Network vs Forums <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/64408923/Knowledge%20Network%20vs%20Forums> . LikeInMind is designed to support building Personal Associative Networks <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Personal-Associative-Networks> online. When published, it becomes an "external memory" of a person. When a number of Personal Virtual Associative Networks <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/102745051/Personal%20Virtual%20Associative%20Networks> (PVANs) are collected in the same Unified Conceptual Space <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Unified-Conceptual-Space>, their nodes of similar sense can be found / discovered and merged into Sense Domains <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/102662947/Sense%20Domains>. This theory is based partially on AI methods of semantic matching, partially on systems dynamics principles where systems are thought of having stable structures or behaviour around "attractors" but their actual condition is defined by the "locality" of each particular system. When combined, PVANs form a "Collective Memory", that is an important part of "Collective Intelligence <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Collective-Intelligence>" process. Sorry for the extensive theoretical excursus but I think we need to know the subject we are working with. We need to know to what degree our system can be described, and to what degree it is chaotic and unpredictable. I do not have an answer myself, every system is different. I am just trying to follow the selected course of systematic and systemic studies of the matters I am dealing with. I am sure that even in our conversation, for example, we have a language to communicate (a "structure") and a chaos (that keeps our conversation alive). Regarding the consensus, I don't think we need it. Agile style of project development, I am trying to follow, is focused on solving the problems within the frames of company's policies and standards. How namely those solutions are achieved is not very important. If we think of transferring TW into an enterprise, we would need to follow the company's regulations. Those who is not comfortable with them will not be a part of a company. This is, again, just one of the models of sustainable development of a project. I can't tell I know everything about everything for 20 years ahead. We need to "sit and talk" and decide what is important to each of particular (group of) participants. Only that will define our "vector" of development. I can't agree with "there is NO reliable public way to form a KNOWLEDGE NETWORK other than, basically, your own powers of reading & memory". LikeInMind (LiM) is the example. ANY particular topic can be found within 20-30 seconds of time: Findability Experiment <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Findability-Experiment>. That's how this huge number of links to relevant pages can be easily generated, for your reference only. You don't have to read them all if you understand, follow and/or agree with what is being discussed. This page is interlinked with the number of relevant pages on LiM and is one of the nodes of the LiM Knowledge Network. Could you tell me more about "My point is that EMERGENT properties are become severely inhibited. And my overall impression is that if you are not a keen *bricoleur * <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bricoleur>it can be hard work.", please? Regarding the "Marketing, Mass Apps (e.g. e-pubs), Sub-project Threads (e.g. UI issues) etc" and other applications, I do not see any difficulties (because Anything Is a Tiddler <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Anything-Is-a-Tiddler>) except a need in systematic building your own PVAN, for your self first of all. Only when published your ideas can be found / discovered and reused not only by you but by the TW team that is even more important due to the cumulative effect of knowledge. "As it is, the history of THIS thread itself will shortly be lost." is absolutely true. However, we can refer to the Transmedia <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Transmedia> principles of work with information of very different sort and origin. The trick is - to cross-reference all the relevant sources - within a Single Entry Point <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Single-Entry-Point> platform and - being as specific as needed (Atomisation of Information <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/105597135/Atomisation%20of%20Information>) And finally (chronologically, not by importance!) Tobias! Leverage is needed only if we decided to be more user-oriented and switch to the company or other format or our organisation. I personally need a quick result from TW in order to provide quality service to my customers in organising their businesses based on TW products. In it's present form, I can't figure out how TW can be applied. You are right "there's a point when pushing an agenda really isn't what people are after, and when that's more disturbing than actually contributing." Wikipedia Participation Rate <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Wikipedia-Participation-Rate> is thought about 0.01%. That should probably mean that on a well developed platform each of the editors has about 10,000 readers in average (rate of social impact?). That should probably also mean the barriers to active participation and that we can't ask from volunteers more than they can deliver "for free". This current situation sounds comfortable to many developer but probably annoying to many end users. If we want to scale up TW platform, a shift from the "Brownian Motion" of "free arts" to a predictable product development, a new organisational model is required. And that model could be an enterprise, or similar, a matter of discussion of TW Community, I think. As to me, I am no good in programming. However, I have some experience in "findability" (FDR). I am happy to contribute and facilitate development of TW in this direction, and would appreciate that enormously. Regarding the requirements to TW platform, Tobias is absolutely right, we need to find what "practically works well for most people, processes, environments, technologies that are simple and inviting enough for people to join and keep participating". Tobias is absolutely right about "the game is not about finding the missing pieces and point out just how missing they are, but to solve the puzzle, if you care." Just for me, for example, inability to find bits and pieces of particular information is a barrier to participation (coding in this case). And yes, I will be collecting the missing bits of puzzle "under the same umbrella" until it is solved. Currently, I appreciate the services PBWorks offers (for free!!). But later all those 30,000+ topics will be transferred onto the new P2PCI platform I am dreaming for about 20 years now. Hopefully, that platform will be TiddlyWiki based. What I can see as a newcomer to this house, our intents are very diverse. Some of us need pieces of puzzle as visible as possible, others would appreciate a book on the very basic of TW environment, some are focused on narratives, actual communication, online, face-to-face, in any other means. That's great! The more diversity we show, the higher our chances of "filling the organisational gaps" and succeeding in this project!! "At this point, TiddlyWiki is not the communication platform around TiddlyWiki. There are places people talk about it and find useful application for this little Swiss Army knife of atomic knowledge mgt. See, if you want some Google for TiddlyWiki, to make it easy to find stuff, and also some more social chatter to have people talk and find solutions to problems, answers to questions, like-minded people for projects, and what not... perhaps TiddlyWiki itself isn't the right place to look for it, and neither is this group." - it's an absolutely awesome note to me. "TiddlyWiki is not the communication platform around TiddlyWiki" but it can become a "universal communication platform" if we only wished to. Because "Anything Is a Tiddler <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Anything-Is-a-Tiddler>", because the Unified Conceptual Space <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Unified-Conceptual-Space> allows non-conflicting contribution and co-working of unlimited number of participants, and therefore works pretty well, as a method. - "There are places people talk about it and find useful application...", - "Google for TiddlyWiki, to make it easy to find stuff", - "social chatter to have people talk and find solutions to problems, answers to questions, like-minded people for projects", etc., all are the pieces of our "Collective Intelligence" environment. I can't see only one element of CI linking them all together, a "collective memory". This collected memory is developed and tested on LiM. It is ready and waiting for implementation on a platform more suitable for the "Collective Intelligence" purposes. "If you find a better environment for your own ambitions, that's fine. But don't go around reminding people how much they're missing. If they think it's worth a shot and compelling, then you better make it so. Should you get there, telling others how much better that is and much worse it is whatever they do... never works." - agree! Building knowledge networks by just a few people is a hard job. It will be much easier and much more effective if we worked as a team of "free thinkers". Each of us is free to record what he thinks is true. The others are free to either follow, or create something new but based on already created, visible and easily accessible tiddlers. Because Anything Is a Tiddler <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Anything-Is-a-Tiddler>. Because every particular field of knowledge is actually limited. From my experience, it takes only 2 man/years to create a complete reference on any particular field of knowledge. A group of 10 people have a chance of completing the job within a couple of months. And yes, the task of development of a product like P2PCI is a huge job for just one person. We NEED co-operation and sympathy and trust in each of other and in the goal we are trying to achieve. And Trust comes first, or may be sympathy? Let's try to think what's going on with the documentation on TW. How many "entry points" do we have? I have counted 3: TiddlyWiki Documentation <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/TiddlyWiki-Documentation>. How many do we need to find / discover reliably and fast? I think, just one: Single Entry Point <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/Single-Entry-Point>. Should we think on how the TiddlyWiki Single Entry Point <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/114249473/TiddlyWiki%20Single%20Entry%20Point> should look like, how to organise and where to place it, to be found easily and intuitively? SEP doesn't mean that everything must happen "on the same page". Any participant is free to discuss anything on any kind of media convenient for him and his mates. However, all the key knowledge and contacts must be published on just one platform, all the communication media can be interlinked via only one environment and one page per every single topic. That's my experience, as well as a theory. What is also important that we all are coming to forums with the similar goals, to find like-minded people. Some of us are looking for pieces of code, others for pieces of best practices, some others for understanding and support their hope in doing right things. Not all are strong enough to complete a job on their own. Many need attention, understanding and support. TW would not be successful if based on different principles, I think. Still, I agree about fruitless projects. I am tired from them too. "fit all the knowledge of the world into a little box in my skull" is not physically possible. That's why I need my "external memory". If someone found "my memories" worth of browsing, I would be just pleased and happy. If we find a few of like-minded people ready to share what they think is important for them, that's already sound like a success. "Things are messy, things get lost, things gain and lose relevance, daily... it's the nature of the game." The other side of the medal is that we all need something stable to rest on, our family to keep love and peace, or friends to share what we've got valuable, our "technology" to have job done as fast, as reliable and as reproducible as possible. That can be called "a structure in the world of chaos". How much of structure and how much of chaos we need is always a question. But, both are equally needed, without us even not realising what is what. "What is the practical value for it to reside in my or your or even our collective memory?" only to be found and reused, as soon as needed. Only to save a bit of time from our limited lives. To add a bit more of value to our lives too? I don't know. What is our personal memory needed for? May be, same function the "collective memory" has, or should have? Sorry, I still need to see "less is more <https://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_less_stuff_more_happiness>". I will try to. Thank you very much for reading this enormous text. Please write your thoughts, hopefully leading to actions too. Many thanks again, Dmitry On Sunday, 8 January 2017 02:34:11 UTC+13, Tobias Beer wrote: > > Hi Josiah, > > I hope you allow me to respond to your assessments from a more critical, > call it provocative perspective. > > >> 1 - VERY difficult to gain leverage >> > > And what would you want or need leverage for? I like the humble nature of > how this project unfolds. > > 2 - Difficult to form sustainable sub-groups pursuing one thread. >> > > There are plenty reasons for (sub)groups not making "it", whatever "it" > is. Different or unclear, or mostly individual goals and ambitions and > divergent capabilities and perspectives. You see, it may be honorable to > have great ambitions, but there's a point when pushing an agenda really > isn't what people are after, and when that's more disturbing than actually > contributing. > > 3 - VERY difficult to form consensus on anything. >> > > When and where do you need concensus? Make decisions, do what you can and > want and for the rest of it, let go... or find someone who can and wills > it. And let it be manageable, actionable steps, not mere abstract ideas > with no practical leverage. > > >> Some folk do make note of threads and go back to them. But there is NO >> reliable public way to form a KNOWLEDGE NETWORK other than, basically, your >> own powers of reading & memory. >> > > Precisely, so try your best at it, personally. Find your sweet spot, > things you like and know best. However, making everyone follow whatever > your potentially best way for everything is will hardly ever work, unless > that is something that practically works well for most people, processes, > environments, technologies that are simple and inviting enough for people > to join and keep participating. > > While it may not be easy to find everything, the google groups are an easy > environment to join and dive in whereas Github provides more formal, > advanced ways of participation. > > Google groups are not a knowledge base, we got that. You want one, to > cover all of the TiddlyWiki experience? Well, have your try, but try not to > expect too much. It's easy to see all the missing pieces to a puzzle you're > trying to solve. Well, the game is not about finding the missing pieces and > point out just how missing they are, but to solve the puzzle, if you care. > To me, it's really more of a narrative, of words spoken here and there, > tricks applied, methods learned, things achieved. I don't need a TiddlyWiki > for Dummies book to cover every topic I never needed, I'd rather be part of > a community that doesn't treat you like one and helps you meet your ends, > insofar as everyone's capable. > > At this point, TiddlyWiki is not the communication platform around > TiddlyWiki. There are places people talk about it and find useful > application for this little Swiss Army knife of atomic knowledge mgt. See, > if you want some Google for TiddlyWiki, to make it easy to find stuff, and > also some more social chatter to have people talk and find solutions to > problems, answers to questions, like-minded people for projects, and what > not... perhaps TiddlyWiki itself isn't the right place to look for it, and > neither is this group. > > If you find a better environment for your own ambitions, that's fine. But > don't go around reminding people how much they're missing. If they think > it's worth a shot and compelling, then you better make it so. Should you > get there, telling others how much better that is and much worse it is > whatever they do... never works. Let me repeat: never works. Youtube was > successful because people liked to watch videos and it turns out to also > create and share those. Please do invent a TiddlyTube people find useful to > share and create rich content for. But just don't go to the google groups > and say how much better reddit is or go to vimeo to comment on how youtube > is so much more... who knows what. > > My point is that EMERGENT properties are become severely inhibited. And my >> overall impression is that if you are not a keen *bricoleur * >> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bricoleur>it can be hard work. >> > > I feel no inhibition and I think that is so because I keep my expectations > as well as ambitions adequate. Why waste much energy on abstract, > theoretical ideas one thing perhaps doesn't cater for while igoring all the > brilliant ways you can make good use of it? You see, not sure what > everyone's ambitions are, but if you feel like you can't make it, there are > two options: either your ambitions are way out of your league or the steps > you take to get there are unfit, or too big, have you procrastinate from > one minute to the next, so you can't manage. So, chunk 'em up, do the > little steps and if it turns out you're not getting anywhere it's time to > let go. > > However, if you're serious about some TiddlyWiki marketing, have your try. > Find an ecosystem to work it and people who care to join. Possibly, > overloading this group with a bigger project like that wouldn't be a > meaningful approach. Some two years ago the *TiddlyWikiDocs* group was > created to provide a more focused entry point to topics around > documentation. There was some turnout to it, but it's nobody's fault if > there's nobody left participating in it. And I think it makes sense that > people rather learn the Github workflow to practically contribute, rather > than make all kinds of theoretical considerations that never see the day of > light, practically speaking. > > >> IMO, if this situation were improved questions like Marketing, Mass Apps >> (e.g. e-pubs), Sub-project Threads (e.g. UI issues) etc would likely gain >> a clearer place and likely to gain TRACTION. >> > > I never read an e-pub. So, do I want that? Who knows. If people think > that's what they want and realize TiddlyWiki as a great tool for that, > someone will come along and do it... otherwise, maybe neither "e-pubs" are > all too attractive to people or perhaps TiddlyWiki isn't the right tool to > create one, after all. > > If people build "Apps" around TiddlyWiki, fine. Does TiddlyWiki need that > (and all the added complexity)? Who knows. If you have some clear project > and goals that you are actually able to fulfill, work 'em, other than that, > I find it important not to burden the rest of the world with hopes and > wishes or even expectations that poorly resonate with reality. Not that > those are bad in any way, in themselves, but there's a point when a little > or big personal dream of someone else, constantly regurgitated, creates > more noise than sound or song ...and when I feel like I'd rather focus, on > one, small, specific thing I can do something about, rather than fit all > the knowledge of the world into a little box in my skull, somewhere between > those ears and behind those eyes. Things are messy, things get lost, things > gain and lose relevance, daily... it's the nature of the game. > > I welcome everyone's ambitions and I know quite well, that not everyone > else shares mine, whatever you or I might think they actually, practically > are. > > As it is, the history of THIS thread itself will shortly be lost. >> > > And why wouldn't it be? What is the practical value for it to reside in my > or your or even our collective memory? > > So, to sum things up, to me "LIM" mostly stands for less is more > <https://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_less_stuff_more_happiness>: *<=>* and > at this point i have little ambitions to rewire that acronym. > > Best wishes, > > Tobias. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/3496e7c8-7d34-413c-a02a-8a541e40b513%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
