12-06-2020, 05:27 PM
I wasn't sure about this Wiki idea at first, but it's starting to grow on me. The only thing I see available online that is similar to a LOO wiki is the LOO study guide on the David Wilcock website... and he's sort of been into 'interesting' interpretations of the LOO recently... 
for reference: Divine Cosmos Study Guide
(Sorry if there are better resources out there that I have not come across!)
But a community run Wiki on the LOO could be most awesome.
I think wikipedia is not the best example, as it seems to be trying to be more of a 'pedia' (encyclopedia that is) then a wiki. There are more better examples of community wikis from gaming communities. I recently got into MTG, and there are so many community resources made up around this game, it blows the mind. I don't think a wiki based on spirituality can be contained in something as rigid as an encyclopedia as there are just too many interlinking and interwoven ideas, as Peregrine has noted.
I really like how you've broken this down. It also brings up a good starting point, which is to just begin with categorising themes and spiritual concepts and then applying their definitions. The lawofone.info site already has a great list of categories on its main page from which questions have been sorted into already. These can be divided up even more, or completely reworked.
I also wanted to make mention that I believe Bring4th already has a great repository of information, but it's main drawbacks is it's sorting and retrieval capabilities. Seriously, some posts that have been made are so insightful, and it would be awesome to utilise that information in a wiki. There could also be links to the community threads that pertain to an idea.
I have done some work for a scientific paper, and the academia world has already invented a good system of this in its peer review process. Of course we would need reviewers, maybe selected from a 'board' of willing participants. A few reviewers (the minimum is three) would receive the notes that a person would like to submit. The reviewers would then offer edits/suggestions and a final yay or nay. The responses range from "perfect as is", to "passible if these things are changed/improved on" to "it's beyond fixable". Sometimes there has to be multiple submissions until all the reviewers pass an article for publication.
But I imagine that that would be late stage stuff. This kind of work takes a loooong time. But don't all good things take time?
I'm wary of too much of an open door policy. Perhaps there can be a comment section under an article for people who would like to contribute. Excellent comments may then be integrated into the main article over time.
for reference: Divine Cosmos Study Guide
(Sorry if there are better resources out there that I have not come across!)
But a community run Wiki on the LOO could be most awesome.
(12-06-2020, 04:02 PM)Asolsutsesvyl Wrote: The best idea I arrived at earlier is to copy Wikipedia's basic format for the main text. A paragraph or two on top written to give a clear-enough idea of what the topic really is (longer only if necessary), then the rest of the text divided into however many sub-sections below as makes sense. But more extensive quoting, relative to the volume of original text, can be expected compared to Wikipedia, I think. As in, initially writing on LOO topics could often make for copying various quotes from lawofone.info with links back there.
I think wikipedia is not the best example, as it seems to be trying to be more of a 'pedia' (encyclopedia that is) then a wiki. There are more better examples of community wikis from gaming communities. I recently got into MTG, and there are so many community resources made up around this game, it blows the mind. I don't think a wiki based on spirituality can be contained in something as rigid as an encyclopedia as there are just too many interlinking and interwoven ideas, as Peregrine has noted.
(12-02-2020, 01:24 AM)peregrine Wrote: Personally, I think that an article should offer (1) the known definition, (2) context to support the definitions, and (3) areas of application or connection to other ideas a reader might wish to pursue.
I really like how you've broken this down. It also brings up a good starting point, which is to just begin with categorising themes and spiritual concepts and then applying their definitions. The lawofone.info site already has a great list of categories on its main page from which questions have been sorted into already. These can be divided up even more, or completely reworked.
I also wanted to make mention that I believe Bring4th already has a great repository of information, but it's main drawbacks is it's sorting and retrieval capabilities. Seriously, some posts that have been made are so insightful, and it would be awesome to utilise that information in a wiki. There could also be links to the community threads that pertain to an idea.
(12-02-2020, 01:24 AM)peregrine Wrote: Of course, this would be dependent upon an authority figure to clean it up and delete the garbage, no? Yes? How would that work? Does the above ring soundly or as naive musings? Also, what do think about the target audience, initially, being newcomers?
I have done some work for a scientific paper, and the academia world has already invented a good system of this in its peer review process. Of course we would need reviewers, maybe selected from a 'board' of willing participants. A few reviewers (the minimum is three) would receive the notes that a person would like to submit. The reviewers would then offer edits/suggestions and a final yay or nay. The responses range from "perfect as is", to "passible if these things are changed/improved on" to "it's beyond fixable". Sometimes there has to be multiple submissions until all the reviewers pass an article for publication.
But I imagine that that would be late stage stuff. This kind of work takes a loooong time. But don't all good things take time?
(12-06-2020, 04:02 PM)Asolsutsesvyl Wrote: I think the focus at first can simply be to keep it welcoming and see how it may grow, unless/until there grows increased need for quality control. (The one big early exception to being welcoming: Keeping spammers out. With open editing or registration, you need protection against spammers just like on forums. A simple short-term solution is for people to only register by invitation - "give me your email address and you'll get a link to make an account" - but at length that may be limiting. Ease vs. easier growth enters over time.)
I'm wary of too much of an open door policy. Perhaps there can be a comment section under an article for people who would like to contribute. Excellent comments may then be integrated into the main article over time.