|
Top-level
 > To me it looks like a great way to *socialize*, but a horribly inefficient way to *discuss*. If you refer to #fediverse ( #pleroma, #mastodon et al) then I fully agree with you here. And it is very frustrating to see how much good information is lost in unobserved branches that immediately sink into history to be forgotten about. 8 comments
 @tinyrabbit This is why I create the charts. I started using the original C2 wiki shortly after it was invented, and the original idea was to have free-flowing, free wheeling "Discussion Mode" pages which, over time, got distilled down into "Document Mode" pages that captured the information in a form appropriate for future reference. It worked beautifully, until it got too big, and was invaded by people who refused to be enculturated. So it died. To me ... CC: @humanetech @tinyrabbit ...I see many discussions and exchanges on "Social Media" that have really, *really* useful information scattered in the social exchanges, and I want to capture that knowledge for my future reference. So I've developed tools to help me do that. Charting discussions here is a part of that. Serious discussions don't belong on FB, Twitter, or here, but they don't really belong in "forums" either, because again, the actual information is lost amongst the "discussion". CC: @humanetech @ColinTheMathmo @humanetech I've had similar thoughts to your "Discussion Mode" wiki; my idea was to have a forum platform where some users have the role Curator. After a certain time of inactivity in a thread the Curators would be notified of it, and if they deemed the topic/conclusions/posts to be worth the effort they could mark posts in the thread for archival. It would then remove all other posts, change all the usernames in the thread to Anonymous, and set the thread as read-only. 1/2 @ColinTheMathmo @humanetech Of course more advanced export features could be added in order to transform fruitful and informative discussions into persistent information. 2/2 @tinyrabbit In the original C2 wiki that's what happened, but there were no "admins" or "advanced users". That was fine in a small community, but it's abundantly clear that wider access needs to be controlled. Heavily. People don't like to be censored, though, and don't like their words to be changed, and their "contributions" to be discarded, so there are problems. And now people say: "But we have wikipedia ... why bother?" But yes, to all you've said. CC: @humanetech @tinyrabbit With a little effort in the reading, @Chartodon is doing quite well with this widely branching discussion: https://www.solipsys.co.uk/Chartodon/106860815077351260.svg As I say, I have tools to collapse nodes and branches, and may eventually distill the conversation, but even so, I'm finding it useful. CC: @humanetech @ColinTheMathmo @humanetech Also: your tool is probably a great help if the goal is to curate and archive information when a discussion has run its course. I can really see the benefit of using it there. |
Gregory's Server
@humanetech @ColinTheMathmo It's in the nature of social media to have low information density and short cycles, though. It's an ephemeral medium (and I don't really think we should hold on to posts forever).
I've never understood why people try to use facebook (even facebook groups) or twitter for serious discussions. Each to their own, I guess, but it doesn't work well for me.