11-30-2020, 06:39 PM
To finally follow up regarding the idea of a Law of One wiki, after a month...
That kind of thing depends a whole lot on the people doing the editing and how they work.
Personally, I would suggest formulating some simple rules. Simpler than Wikipedia's (which grew into bureaucratic complexity over the years), but in part similar in essence, in terms of making clarity and coherence and faithfulness to sources used requirements for the text. The biggest essential difference to Wikipedia's rules which would clearly be necessary is to reject and replace the neutrality and notability criteria.
Some distortions may be easy to harmonize, while others may not be. The tone may become more impersonal, making a sharp distinction between what truly follows and is well-suppported and what is only speculative. I think competing speculative ideas can be allowed when described as such, while the more clear-cut core ideas should ultimately be written to logically fit as a whole.
Well, I have the background of having tried making a wiki for another community, though I did not start from scratch with the contents (in large part imported from earlier online glossary). Neither did the wiki grow in membership, as a duo of myself and another did nearly all new work on the text, while frustrated with how almost everyone else seemed too inhibited to give it a try or even come with any feedback.
It was successful in terms of becoming better than and replacing the old resource, but it also depended on my spare time work, while I dreamed of eventually working more closely with the organization. Then it all fell flat, as I did not move further into the core of that community but instead away from it all. After a longer time of inactivity on my part, and not being contacted, the path of least resistance on the part of their main web developer turned out to be to take it down for technical reasons instead of looking into upgrading the software further (as may have been a simpler project for me). But I had moved so far away from being in tune with the heart of the Cassiopaea community that I was actually relieved that my work no longer represented it. (You can look at "thecasswiki.net" using web.archive.org, for how that wiki looked 4 years ago or so.)
With that past I have further ideas, and also experience tinkering with the MediaWiki software and extensions for it, before also leaving that behind 4 years ago. I could adapt only ideas (new and old) for a different wiki, or also catch up with the present state of the software and work with it and ideas for tweaking it.
But I've also spent a number of years not getting further in external life, after being too single-mindedly focused on ideals and another online community, already, with nothing to externally show for it except years of depressed inactivity after. So I feel strangely torn, between on the one hand having earlier done what I've felt to be the right kind of thing in the wrong place (and perhaps at the wrong time) and motivated to do it in a better setting on a different inner footing, and on the other hand not wanting to commit to spending much time on anything without first taking care of the problem of remaining a jobless drop-out living with my parents.
(That's part of a current pattern, perhaps best to further discuss elsewhere, of why I keep pendulating between sharing ideas and feeling hesitant about moving forwards with any personal involvement related to the ideas should the possibility open up.)
To end this with something more practical for a possible Law of One wiki, a little more than a year ago, another relative newbie made a short-lived wiki. See thread, "I made a Law of One Wiki". In response, I made some notes, including:
(11-10-2020, 07:19 PM)Steppingfeet Wrote: A Law of One wiki in general would be an incredible idea. Though I think that the alignment of diverse viewpoints necessary for a wiki on these often subjectively interpreted metaphysical concepts might prove elusive.
[...]
A wiki could have the benefit of harmonizing dogmas and distortions so that the Confederation's intended message and perspective may shine through; or, conversely, articles may become incoherent with inconsistent points of view. Be interesting to see!
That kind of thing depends a whole lot on the people doing the editing and how they work.
Personally, I would suggest formulating some simple rules. Simpler than Wikipedia's (which grew into bureaucratic complexity over the years), but in part similar in essence, in terms of making clarity and coherence and faithfulness to sources used requirements for the text. The biggest essential difference to Wikipedia's rules which would clearly be necessary is to reject and replace the neutrality and notability criteria.
Some distortions may be easy to harmonize, while others may not be. The tone may become more impersonal, making a sharp distinction between what truly follows and is well-suppported and what is only speculative. I think competing speculative ideas can be allowed when described as such, while the more clear-cut core ideas should ultimately be written to logically fit as a whole.
Well, I have the background of having tried making a wiki for another community, though I did not start from scratch with the contents (in large part imported from earlier online glossary). Neither did the wiki grow in membership, as a duo of myself and another did nearly all new work on the text, while frustrated with how almost everyone else seemed too inhibited to give it a try or even come with any feedback.
It was successful in terms of becoming better than and replacing the old resource, but it also depended on my spare time work, while I dreamed of eventually working more closely with the organization. Then it all fell flat, as I did not move further into the core of that community but instead away from it all. After a longer time of inactivity on my part, and not being contacted, the path of least resistance on the part of their main web developer turned out to be to take it down for technical reasons instead of looking into upgrading the software further (as may have been a simpler project for me). But I had moved so far away from being in tune with the heart of the Cassiopaea community that I was actually relieved that my work no longer represented it. (You can look at "thecasswiki.net" using web.archive.org, for how that wiki looked 4 years ago or so.)
With that past I have further ideas, and also experience tinkering with the MediaWiki software and extensions for it, before also leaving that behind 4 years ago. I could adapt only ideas (new and old) for a different wiki, or also catch up with the present state of the software and work with it and ideas for tweaking it.
But I've also spent a number of years not getting further in external life, after being too single-mindedly focused on ideals and another online community, already, with nothing to externally show for it except years of depressed inactivity after. So I feel strangely torn, between on the one hand having earlier done what I've felt to be the right kind of thing in the wrong place (and perhaps at the wrong time) and motivated to do it in a better setting on a different inner footing, and on the other hand not wanting to commit to spending much time on anything without first taking care of the problem of remaining a jobless drop-out living with my parents.
(That's part of a current pattern, perhaps best to further discuss elsewhere, of why I keep pendulating between sharing ideas and feeling hesitant about moving forwards with any personal involvement related to the ideas should the possibility open up.)
To end this with something more practical for a possible Law of One wiki, a little more than a year ago, another relative newbie made a short-lived wiki. See thread, "I made a Law of One Wiki". In response, I made some notes, including:
(10-12-2019, 03:12 PM)Asolsutsesvyl Wrote: [...]
A decade ago, I read some articles at wiki.lawofone.info, but that wiki went down when Tobey at lawofone.info replaced it for the re-listening project. I haven't asked, but perhaps he felt that the articles, which were fairly few, were not worth keeping as they were on their own. Anyway, if/when a wiki project proceeds, I think it would make sense to ask Tobey about copying the text of the old articles; I don't think he'd mind, if he has a backup. I'd have expected the old wiki to be available through web.archive.org, but in this case we're less lucky and the contents seem to be missing.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)