Talk:P2P Companion Concepts: Difference between revisions
GoodRollin (talk | contribs) m (Created page with 'Wow, this page is really growing. I am beginning to feel the need for caution and order. I am wondering how we might use integral theory to see our way through this to a collec...') |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Internal consistency == | |||
OK, so moving on from grand visions, I offer just the view of internal consistency as a baseline. | |||
There is the page [[List of Key Categories on the P2P Foundation Wiki]], and I do think there is merit in having, | |||
or at least thinking about, this level of organisation. | |||
Maybe there is no consensus beyond "it's too hard", or "it's not worth the time". | |||
If so, fair enough. | |||
But for my money, and my money is on ease of reading, ease of use, ease of learning, | |||
and not just ease of construction, this is still worth thinking about. | |||
I | Remember the saying that [http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/ If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter]. | ||
That speaks to the same value, in my mind. It's worth spending the time simplifying things for the benefit of others. | |||
Just my opinion. [[User:Asimong|Simon Grant]] ([[User talk:Asimong|talk]]) 14:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
** | |||
not sure what you are proposing here though ? | |||
--[[User:Mbauwens|MIchel Bauwens]] ([[User talk:Mbauwens|talk]]) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
--[[User: | |||
I'm wondering if there is any positive value to having this page distinct and different from the | |||
[[List of Key Categories on the P2P Foundation Wiki]]? | |||
If you think there is value, then we can try to explain it, and relate the two pages together in an appropriate way. | |||
If not, we could merge the pages. | |||
I still like your concept of a "perspectopedia", so if anyone really wanted to put together a page on concepts for one perspective on P2P or the commons, maybe that would fit in. I'm wondering, though, maybe better for the purposes of P2PFWiki to just have what '''you''' think are the Key Categories or Companion Concepts. | |||
One thing I will suggest, though: where there are different perspectives, let's try to keep the cross-links very salient, so that people do not get the idea that one perspective is '''it'''. :) [[User:Asimong|Simon Grant]] ([[User talk:Asimong|talk]]) 17:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
** | |||
but these things are entirely different; the categories is our meta-organization of categories | |||
the Companion page is a selection of key concepts of our huge encyclopedia, i.e. what are say the 250 key concepts of p2p amongst the 23,000 we cover ? | |||
this could be very useful for beginners or for crafting a printed P2P Encyclopedia | |||
--[[User:Mbauwens|MIchel Bauwens]] ([[User talk:Mbauwens|talk]]) 07:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
** | |||
I understand we see things slightly differently. I was thinking that there is virtue in having a strong link between topic categories and key concepts. Of course, not content type or geographical categories. But fine, I'm not pushing that! [[User:Asimong|Simon Grant]] ([[User talk:Asimong|talk]]) 09:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:23, 16 January 2017
Internal consistency
OK, so moving on from grand visions, I offer just the view of internal consistency as a baseline.
There is the page List of Key Categories on the P2P Foundation Wiki, and I do think there is merit in having, or at least thinking about, this level of organisation. Maybe there is no consensus beyond "it's too hard", or "it's not worth the time". If so, fair enough.
But for my money, and my money is on ease of reading, ease of use, ease of learning, and not just ease of construction, this is still worth thinking about.
Remember the saying that If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter. That speaks to the same value, in my mind. It's worth spending the time simplifying things for the benefit of others.
Just my opinion. Simon Grant (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
not sure what you are proposing here though ?
--MIchel Bauwens (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there is any positive value to having this page distinct and different from the List of Key Categories on the P2P Foundation Wiki? If you think there is value, then we can try to explain it, and relate the two pages together in an appropriate way. If not, we could merge the pages.
I still like your concept of a "perspectopedia", so if anyone really wanted to put together a page on concepts for one perspective on P2P or the commons, maybe that would fit in. I'm wondering, though, maybe better for the purposes of P2PFWiki to just have what you think are the Key Categories or Companion Concepts.
One thing I will suggest, though: where there are different perspectives, let's try to keep the cross-links very salient, so that people do not get the idea that one perspective is it. :) Simon Grant (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
but these things are entirely different; the categories is our meta-organization of categories
the Companion page is a selection of key concepts of our huge encyclopedia, i.e. what are say the 250 key concepts of p2p amongst the 23,000 we cover ?
this could be very useful for beginners or for crafting a printed P2P Encyclopedia
--MIchel Bauwens (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand we see things slightly differently. I was thinking that there is virtue in having a strong link between topic categories and key concepts. Of course, not content type or geographical categories. But fine, I'm not pushing that! Simon Grant (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)