Blistiki - Revision history

Jess at 12:41, 13 May 2009

2009-05-13T12:41:04Z

Jess at 12:39, 13 May 2009

2009-05-13T12:39:27Z

Jess at 14:34, 27 April 2009

2009-04-27T14:34:44Z

Jess at 22:29, 2 April 2009

2009-04-02T22:29:34Z

Jess at 12:34, 27 March 2009

2009-03-27T12:34:38Z

Jess at 15:57, 25 March 2009

2009-03-25T15:57:56Z

Jess at 13:53, 23 March 2009

2009-03-23T13:53:23Z

Jess at 12:27, 17 March 2009

2009-03-17T12:27:36Z

Jess at 13:29, 11 March 2009

2009-03-11T13:29:32Z

Jess at 17:04, 3 March 2009

2009-03-03T17:04:56Z

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 See several other [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_mailing_list ''Wikipedia''] entries for descriptions of ''listserver''s.
-Here's my take on this:  When one person is writing diary-like entries meant to be read by others, it is a ''blog''.  If several people are keeping ''blog''s on the same server and there is some dialogue going between them, it is more like a public version of the original Email listserver; we could call this a "''blist''", for lack of a better term.  When several people want to coauthor a single document, the ''wiki'' is an ideal environment.  So if several people want to engage in a dialogue where each grant the other limited editing privileges on their own postings, we need the mechanism of a ''wiki'' with a "netiquette" somewhere between that of a normal ''wiki'' and a "blist".  I call this setup a '''''blistiki''''', and this is one.
+Here's my take on this:  When one person is writing diary-like entries meant to be read by others, it is a ''blog''.  If several people are keeping ''blog''s on the same server and there is some dialogue going between them, it is more like a public version of the original Email listserver; we could call this a ''"blist"'', for lack of a better term.  When several people want to coauthor a single document, the ''wiki'' is an ideal environment.  So if several people want to engage in a dialogue where each grant the other limited editing privileges on their own postings, we need the mechanism of a ''wiki'' with a "netiquette" somewhere between that of a normal ''wiki'' and a ''blist''.  I call this setup a '''''blistiki''''', and this is one.
 Experience has taught me that any of these forms is extremely unstable with respect to collective behavior: a group of people who enthusiastically participate in a listserver will clam up when offered a chance to immortalize their creative efforts and/or critical analyses on a ''wiki'', and yet a ''wiki'' that is perceived as "already established" (like the remarkable ''Wikipedia'') will draw participation like a magnet - thoughtful, earnest and self-critical participation to boot!  The Tragedy of the Commons seems not to apply to this mode of communication, for some miraculous reason.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 See several other [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_mailing_list ''Wikipedia''] entries for descriptions of ''listserver''s.
-Here's my take on this:  When one person is writing diary-like entries meant to be read by others, it is a ''blog''.  If several people are keeping ''blog''s on the same server and there is some dialogue going between them, it is more like a public version of the original Email listserver; we could call this a "blist", for lack of a better term.  When several people want to coauthor a single document, the ''wiki'' is an ideal environment.  So if several people want to engage in a dialogue where each grant the other limited editing privileges on their own postings, we need the mechanism of a ''wiki'' with a "netiquette" somewhere between that of a normal ''wiki'' and a "blist".  I call this setup a '''''blistiki''''', and this is one.
+Here's my take on this:  When one person is writing diary-like entries meant to be read by others, it is a ''blog''.  If several people are keeping ''blog''s on the same server and there is some dialogue going between them, it is more like a public version of the original Email listserver; we could call this a "''blist''", for lack of a better term.  When several people want to coauthor a single document, the ''wiki'' is an ideal environment.  So if several people want to engage in a dialogue where each grant the other limited editing privileges on their own postings, we need the mechanism of a ''wiki'' with a "netiquette" somewhere between that of a normal ''wiki'' and a "blist".  I call this setup a '''''blistiki''''', and this is one.
 Experience has taught me that any of these forms is extremely unstable with respect to collective behavior: a group of people who enthusiastically participate in a listserver will clam up when offered a chance to immortalize their creative efforts and/or critical analyses on a ''wiki'', and yet a ''wiki'' that is perceived as "already established" (like the remarkable ''Wikipedia'') will draw participation like a magnet - thoughtful, earnest and self-critical participation to boot!  The Tragedy of the Commons seems not to apply to this mode of communication, for some miraculous reason.

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ==[[War On]]==
 ==[[Good Business]]==
+==[[Pit Bulls]]==

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ==[[Wide Screen Effect]]==
 ==[[War On]]==
+==[[Good Business]]==

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ==[[Requiescat Rule of Law]]==
 ==[[Wide Screen Effect]]==
+==[[War On]]==

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ==[[You are God.  Me too!]]==
 ==[[Bear Market]]==
+==[[Requiescat Rule of Law]]==
 ==[[Wide Screen Effect]]==

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ----
+==[[Stupid or Free]]==
 ==[[Political Correctness]]==
 ==[[Give Him Some Rope!]]==

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ==[[Please Don't Beam Me Up!]]==
 ==[[The Evolution of God]]==
-==[[You are God.  Me too!]]==
 ==[[Implications of Afterlife]]==
+==[[You are God.  Me too!]]==