Ah! Exclamation! “What great ideas!” we say, “What a list!” One for the ages. Indeed. But ofcourse it’s impossible. Science fiction. Asimovian. Fleece all golden. But wait. Oh! wait. We, have, a, plan. Read More
No nonsense. No upshot. No cellphone burners. No chlorinated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon landfill children sorting through our metric cubic tonnes of discarded personal data. We want none of that. That is how it is. Not how it ought to be.
The ought of it, the way that we see it, is as realistic as utopias come. And the following is not a request, it is a demand. The following is hostage to the current environmental technological socio-political ransom. Unless this list is carried out, unless we consider what is at stake (and surely this age of information is as heralding as Joan ever was), the internet will eat your children*. Devour and consume them. Your children will drown in the belly of our clay-circuited golem. And so on.
For better.
There is a question, a simple question that is ringing out between our university halls and open air offices, our cubicle farms and our laptop-on-bent-knees freelancers. City workers, future farmers, academics-turned punk-rockers. They all hear it, and say it to eachother.
“When will the age of the Beta Version end?” Read More
Long live the ability to search, to copy, to share, to undo, to retweet. These actions all happen mere inches away. Upon our lap within a lovely device with glass to touch and a swipe of our finger and behold! Operations! Functions! Parenthetical clauses! Each with their own tidy slightly-roundish square that mock with animated response, “I am not tactile”. No matter. “No matter!” we say. This touching device has transcended traditional single-use gone-to-seed machinations. Say goodbye mere cellphone, mere GPS locator within-a-meter, mere calculator, mere space station. This machine knows which way is up, can sense its position upon the earth, can mimic our voice over great distances, can illuminate a dark alley, can lay its self open like a thousand libraries to the great touch, that gentle gesture, a flick; a single feather. Read More
I’ve been reading a lot of Nonaka lately and he has a diagram that describes the knowledge creation cycle that consists of Tacit to Tacit, Tacit to Explicit, Explicit to Explicit, Explicit to Tacit. As you move from one form of knowledge to another you produce new knowledge.
In order to help me understand how the cycle works I’ve interpreted the movements in my own way:
Tagged: knowledge creation, nonaka, reading
D VenessaMiemis Tentatively, my thesis is exploring the process of meaning-making of Wikipedians through their exchanges of edits. That’s the general idea.
In considering my thesis, I have come across a number of questions that have been at the forefront of my mind.
Meaning in communities of practice change over time. But the questions that are tugging at me are: how does meaning change, who has control, who stays, who leaves, who concedes, who prevails in the challenge to create lasting and valuable meaning. What are the flashes of meaning that are recorded, how does the information flow from one difference to the other. The last to post has the final say. What are the breaking points?
Jan 14 2011 — In revisiting this post now, I think that describing meaning does not quite get at what needs to be explored. It is true that meaning in communities of practice changes over time, but meaningful information is knowledge. Perhaps it is better to talk in terms of knowledge production instead.