The architecture of a discourse system

thanks to +Edward Morbius for his comments to <plus.google.com/u/0/104846054806852679393/posts/W6fdvQoXt6m>

====

Intelligence, knowledge, and ability within the participating community – This is one of many things I mooted / did end-run around.
"Even the fool has his story"; by shifting focus from technical correctness (Note: I wrote "shift focus" and meant it. Of course accuracy matters. But that isn't to say it need be central.) to "valence" i.e. "subjective narrative", the flow shifts. And the tone shifts. I think "This really pisses me off!" is an entirely valid contribution.
To illustrate, "What you wrote here really makes me think that you're malicious, as though you're conniving something nasty." is entirely valid, whereas "You malevolent motherfucker." is not. What a person feels and things is entirely valid. see http://groundplane.wordpress.com/gp-101 here. While a person can "know" the impression that has formed, the conclusion they're drawn to, they cannot know another's motives.

So the presence of SME (Subject Matter Expert, yes?) is important. And part of my strategy / business plan is to have institutional input / contribution, e.g. associations of, say, philosophers, economists, and political scientists / policy wonks. But this has to be done carefully as this affects the project's credibility … and concerning credibility, perception is reality.

A common culture – Where do parents celebrate the death of a child? Who enjoys abject poverty, or malnutrition / starvation? Who does not want security, justifice, and fairness? There is already a full platform w/regards to norms.
But this needs to be explored. And, in fact, this is the project's main aim. One person feels indignant at restriction on their ability to purchase and own fire arms. Another person feels indignant that they seem to always be surrounded by angry young men with guns. Point is: easy enough to understand / appreciate both positions, without stretching our "common culture". That doesn't mean that policy can be crude.

An administrator role – I simplified this by reducing it to core i.e. the only statements that appear are those that have surface validity: either statement of fact ("Joe Bloe from Idaho said that the world is flat; see URL") or personal statement ("I don't trust Joe Bloe's post because it appeared in a very biased blog.")
see above re: entirely valid

Noise controls – The design's core inspiration arose from, to a lesser extent, the need to increase S/R (SNR? signal to noise ratio) by reducing noise and, to a greater extent, by increasing signal amplitude/clarity for that reason, by devising threading and something like "routing", so that related propositions would be arrayed / presented in a way that serves discoverability.
see also above "administrator"

Participant choice in access tools – I think I know what you mean.
This was the hard part. It took me years.
FWIW I was using "Web2.0" techniques as early as 1999. Perhaps 1998. But those techniques do not suffice on their own. God knows they make the experience more entertaining / fun … but that's not actual productivity.
There are peripheral / ancillary functions (Have you seen BuddyPress in action? dandy support for building community.) And many of those. But "core" is particular and special. "Discourse-based decision support" … folk usually / often / regularly reframe that, reformulating to suit themselves, but almost never (as in "maybe twice in 15years") ever pay attention to what I'm saying there.

I'm protective of my IP. If I can cash out with $10M, that suits me fine. I'm not aiming for billions, but I want my share. I've plowed years of my life into this.

History – Curation and aggregation.
My line used to be this: "There's 1 war in Iraq, say. There are maybe 10K sites that support discussion on that. And maybe 200K threads. So over a million comments. And then there are blogs with multiple posts, each (perhaps) with more comments. But little of this serves community knowledge."
Hence my emphasis on Hesse's glasperlenspiel see: <soup.groundplane.org/post/126605253/Each-countrys-Commission-possesses-its-Archive-of>

Embedded Link

GP-101
To energize collective intelligence … … to magnetize the wisdom of crowds. Your opinion might be wrong, or it might be right as rain … … but either way: the fact is that you have an opinion…

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

Tags:

3 Comments to “The architecture of a discourse system”

  1. Intelligence, knowledge, and ability within the participating community – This is one of many things I mooted / did end-run around.
    "Even the fool has his story"; by shifting focus from technical correctness (Note: I wrote "shift focus" and meant it. Of course accuracy matters. But that isn't to say it need be central.) to "valence" i.e. "subjective narrative", the flow shifts. And the tone shifts. I think "This really pisses me off!" is an entirely valid contribution.
    To illustrate, "What you wrote here really makes me think that you're malicious, as though you're conniving something nasty." is entirely valid, whereas "You malevolent motherfucker." is not. What a person feels and things is entirely valid. see http://groundplane.wordpress.com/gp-101 here. While a person can "know" the impression that has formed, the conclusion they're drawn to, they cannot know another's motives.

    So the presence of SME (Subject Matter Expert, yes?) is important. And part of my strategy / business plan is to have institutional input / contribution, e.g. associations of, say, philosophers, economists, and political scientists / policy wonks. But this has to be done carefully as this affects the project's credibility … and concerning credibility, perception is reality.

    A common culture – Where do parents celebrate the death of a child? Who enjoys abject poverty, or malnutrition / starvation? Who does not want security, justifice, and fairness? There is already a full platform w/regards to norms.
    But this needs to be explored. And, in fact, this is the project's main aim. One person feels indignant at restriction on their ability to purchase and own fire arms. Another person feels indignant that they seem to always be surrounded by angry young men with guns. Point is: easy enough to understand / appreciate both positions, without stretching our "common culture". That doesn't mean that policy can be crude.

    An administrator role – I simplified this by reducing it to core i.e. the only statements that appear are those that have surface validity: either statement of fact ("Joe Bloe from Idaho said that the world is flat; see URL") or personal statement ("I don't trust Joe Bloe's post because it appeared in a very biased blog.")
    see above re: entirely valid

    Noise controls – The design's core inspiration arose from, to a lesser extent, the need to increase S/R (SNR? signal to noise ratio) by reducing noise and, to a greater extent, by increasing signal amplitude/clarity for that reason, by devising threading and something like "routing", so that related propositions would be arrayed / presented in a way that serves discoverability.
    see also above "administrator"

    Participant choice in access tools – I think I know what you mean.
    This was the hard part. It took me years.
    FWIW I was using "Web2.0" techniques as early as 1999. Perhaps 1998. But those techniques do not suffice on their own. God knows they make the experience more entertaining / fun … but that's not actual productivity.
    There are peripheral / ancillary functions (Have you seen BuddyPress in action? dandy support for building community.) And many of those. But "core" is particular and special. "Discourse-based decision support" … folk usually / often / regularly reframe that, reformulating to suit themselves, but almost never (as in "maybe twice in 15years") ever pay attention to what I'm saying there.

    I'm protective of my IP. If I can cash out with $10M, that suits me fine. I'm not aiming for billions, but I want my share. I've plowed years of my life into this.

    History – Curation and aggregation.
    My line used to be this: "There's 1 war in Iraq, say. There are maybe 10K sites that support discussion on that. And maybe 200K threads. So over a million comments. And then there are blogs with multiple posts, each (perhaps) with more comments. But little of this serves community knowledge."
    Hence my emphasis on Hesse's glasperlenspiel see: <soup.groundplane.org/post/126605253/Each-countrys-Commission-possesses-its-Archive-of>

    cc: +Edward Morbius … and apologies for so over-burdening you by replying at length to your long comment. just my bad manners.

  2. Nothing wrong with responses.  What I ask:

    – Be considerate of my time.  I'll respond as / when I can.
    – If you'd like me to respond specifically to something, ask me if I can, and link directly to the piece in question so I can find it.  _You_ know what you're referring to, best I can do is search and guess.

    And realize that I may or may not have anything meaningful to contribute, or that I may not share your views, etc.

    I posted at length to the referenced article.  You're welcome to copy/past that here if you wish.

    As I said in that response:  communications and discussion tools are useful, but just that:  tools.  I've got tasks I wish to apply those tools to, and ultimately community matters more than the technology of any given tool.  I'll take my discussion to where the people are, rather than perfect the ideal soapbox in the middle of the desert.  If long-form pieces require a separate platform, I'll use those.  Blogs, Wikipedia, and other tools exist.  They're sufficient for me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *