From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Jun 13 15:15:22 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:15:22 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Welcome, and first steps for pilot project
Message-ID: <009c01c68f36$dcd5e890$7e02020a@D6WD1391>
All,
A hearty welcome to the new folks!
Please respond to this mail--five questions below, to which I would like
your answers.
I'm posting this to both the [textop] and [textop-en-phil] mailing
lists. Please post any follow-ups to [textop-en-phil] (subscribe here:
http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop-en-phil), because
that's where the pilot project (for philosophical texts to be included
in the Collation Project) will be discussed. Non-philosophers *are*
(yes, you are!) welcome on textop-en-phil, precisely because important,
generalizable pilot project preliminaries will be discussed there. I'd
like us to reserve the [textop] mailing list for broader project issues.
I'm happy to say that there are now 12 people subscribed to
[textop-en-phil] (32 on [textop]!), and while perhaps this isn't a
quorum to get serious work done, it is definitely enough to start
talking about the following questions.
As a preliminary, let's define "likely participant": you expect to have
time actually to do work in the next few weeks (!), you feel motivated
to participate, AND you have a bachelor's degree in philosophy *or
equivalent study* (don't worry, we'll be flexible here for the pilot
project at least).
(1) This is a question for everyone, not just "likely participants."
Now that you've seen the wiki, and you've seen how I propose to use it
to do a collation (at
http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sample_outline), what do you
think of the idea of using the wiki *for* this pilot project? There
*are* other options. E.g., we might use writely.com (somehow). Maybe
someone could quickly crib together some minimally usable software
(although this I kind of doubt). Maybe we could use OPML Editor
(although I don't think so--I just don't see how we can include the
chunks under the nodes using OPML Editor, but it might be worth
investigating). Your critical creativity here would be very useful.
(2) Next, and this is important, ALL POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS, please
consult http://tinyurl.com/fw546 (which redirects to a wiki page) for a
list of possible works to use. Feel free to suggest other works not
listed. IN PARTICULAR, please send me (personally) a list of all
English language works of philosophy (in the public domain) that you (a)
have studied and (b) to which would like to give the Collation Project
treatment (http://www.textop.org/collation_summary.html).
I'll put together and post a list of candidate works, and we might do a
vote or whatever. Once we've settled on a list of works, we'll try to
get some more participants based on the list. (We should be able to get
several more people, once we know which works we're going to tackle.
It's very exciting!)
(3) Again, if you regard yourself as a likely participant, I want your
candid opinion, either privately or on the list: do you want to use the
work I've done on Hobbes' *Leviathan*, partially wikified at
http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sample_outline, as a starting
point? Or do you want to start completely from scratch? I can go
either way, and I won't be hurt if you say you want to start from
scratch.
(4) If you're a likely participant, please create a user page using your
own real name on the wiki (http://www.textop.org/wiki/) and say
something (accurate) about yourself, if you don't mind...not a
requirement. But if you've got a CV online, please link to it.
(5) Finally, for everyone, let me know: would you personally be
interested to have a telecon, perhaps a Skypecast
(https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/home), for purposes of general
chatting and getting acquainted and answering questions?
ALL questions (and misgivings, criticisms, etc.) at this point are very
welcome, either to me personally or to the list. Let's try to get on
the same page. Free flow of communication is very important now.
--Larry
----------------
Dr. Larry Sanger
Director of Distributed Content Programs, Digital Universe Foundation
100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA 95066
larry.sanger at dufoundation.com http://www.digitaluniverse.net/
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Jun 14 11:27:15 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:27:15 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Introducing myself
Message-ID: <000501c68fe0$29672670$7e02020a@D6WD1391>
Hello all,
OK, so my kick-off message (viewable here for the new folks:
http://tinyurl.com/noafp) maybe asked too much--five questions, oy. So
let's start with the basics. Who are you?
My name is Larry Sanger, I studied philosophy (epistemology and early
modern philosophy especially) at Ohio State with George Pappas, got my
Ph.D. in 2000. I'm living just north of Santa Cruz (near, practically
in, the Bay Area of California). My wife and I have a brand-new
firstborn son (May 18). I had the idea for Wikipedia and got it started
in 2001 (my apologies if they're in order) and I've been bouncing back
and forth between academia and the Internet since, like, 1998. I am
*extremely* excited about Textop, more than any other project I've taken
on (Wikipedia included). I really do think it will be revolutionary (in
a good way).
Would be nice to know who ya'll are...as many details as I gave are not
necessary, if you're shy (or not the type to give out personal info on
mailing lists)...answers to any of those five questions would be nice,
too.
If you want to chat on the phone, individually or as a group, let me
know.
--Larry
----------------
Dr. Larry Sanger
Director of Collaborative Projects, Digital Universe Foundation
100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA 95066
larry.sanger at dufoundation.com http://www.digitaluniverse.net/
From phmartin at phmartin.info Thu Jun 15 00:01:57 2006
From: phmartin at phmartin.info (Philippe MARTIN)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:01:57 +1000
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Welcome, and first steps for pilot project
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:15:22 MST"
Message-ID: <200606150701.k5F71vtd012316@pc070372.sci.griffith.edu.au>
Hi everyone,
> (1) ... what do you think of the idea of using the wiki *for* this
> pilot project?
A wiki seems an adequate tool.
> (2) ... Feel free to suggest other works not listed.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html because
1) it permits to introduce some interesting topics although
some of them are (unfortunately) segregationist,
2) I have begun to work on it.
However, Hoppe's argumentation is weak!
> (3) ... do you want to use the work I've done on Hobbes' *Leviathan*,
> as a starting point?
I'd prefer ideas/topics/texts much more modern: from the few dozens
pages I have read, Hobbes' ideas (or Locke's ideas, and hence may be
other philosophers of the same period) nowadays seem annoyingly
obvious or naive. (At least I felt so).
> (4) ... please create a user page using your own real name on the
> wiki something (accurate) about yourself, if you don't mind...
http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Phmartin
> (5) Finally, for everyone, let me know: would you personally be
> interested to have a telecon, perhaps a Skypecast
> (https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/home), for purposes of general
> chatting and getting acquainted and answering questions?
That may be interesting.
Philippe
From rdh8268 at fsu.edu Thu Jun 15 23:45:47 2006
From: rdh8268 at fsu.edu (Diane Henderson, PhD)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:45:47 -0400
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Welcome, and first steps for pilot project
In-Reply-To: <009c01c68f36$dcd5e890$7e02020a@D6WD1391>
References: <009c01c68f36$dcd5e890$7e02020a@D6WD1391>
Message-ID: <4492539B.7010005@fsu.edu>
Larry and all,
I have no problems using the wiki for this pilot project as I am unaware
of any other currently existing software that would allow this to
smoothly flow along in an early stage such as this.
I must say that the Leviathan is not a book I would have chosen as a
first attempt - I would prefer Locke's "Essay Concerning Human
Understanding". Upon reading your outline of the Leviathan, I
immediately saw the potential for references indicating precursors of
Hobbes' thought which inevitably leads to the question of limiting the
pilot, at least, to English language works. It's very, very difficult
to cover philosophical ideas if we limit ourselves to those works
originally published in English - or is this not what you intended by
the phraseology.
As far as my own expertise, my dissertation research was on the concept
of causality as it has been used in philosophy, the law and in science
and I focused on a very specific problem - that of toxic torts. Since
receiving the PhD in 1999, I have spent most of my time reading and
continuing research in the field of causality.
I will be pleased to help where I can.
Diane Henderson
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL
Larry Sanger wrote:
> All,
>
> A hearty welcome to the new folks!
>
> Please respond to this mail--five questions below, to which I would like
> your answers.
>
> -------------------------
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Fri Jun 16 16:31:54 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:31:54 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Welcome, and first steps for pilot project
In-Reply-To: <200606150701.k5F71vtd012316@pc070372.sci.griffith.edu.au>
Message-ID: <002601c6919d$0d4e8320$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
Philippe,
Thanks very much for the reply.
> > (2) ... Feel free to suggest other works not listed.
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html because
> 1) it permits to introduce some interesting topics although
> some of them are (unfortunately) segregationist,
> 2) I have begun to work on it.
> However, Hoppe's argumentation is weak!
Well, I'd like to begin with something better-known--classic works of
philosophy. If we begin with a *relatively* obscure, contemporary political
philosopher, that will turn off people who disagree with his politics, or
who think that the work is not worth such prominent attention in the early
stages of the project.
> > (3) ... do you want to use the work I've done on Hobbes'
> *Leviathan*,
> > as a starting point?
>
> I'd prefer ideas/topics/texts much more modern: from the few dozens
> pages I have read, Hobbes' ideas (or Locke's ideas, and hence
> may be other philosophers of the same period) nowadays seem
> annoyingly
> obvious or naive. (At least I felt so).
Having studied and taught these guys quite a bit over the years, I think
there's quite a bit more to them than might appear at first glance.
Moreover, I think that the Collation Project is perfectly suited to show
*exactly* how much there is to them!
But definitely let's include a work or two or three from the 19th century
and early 20th century. Offlist, another philosophy professor has suggested
Mill's Utilitarianism and The Subjection of Women, among others.
> > (4) ... please create a user page using your own real name
> on the wiki
> > something (accurate) about yourself, if you don't mind...
>
> http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Phmartin
Thanks. I've updated mine a little:
http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Larry_Sanger
> > (5) Finally, for everyone, let me know: would you personally be
> > interested to have a telecon, perhaps a Skypecast
> > (https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/home), for purposes of
> > general chatting and getting acquainted and answering questions?
>
> That may be interesting.
I'll have to count, but I think we're getting close to a quorum. Anyone
else game?
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Fri Jun 16 16:47:58 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:47:58 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Welcome, and first steps for pilot project
In-Reply-To: <4492539B.7010005@fsu.edu>
Message-ID: <002c01c6919f$4c199390$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
Diane,
Thanks for the reply!
> I must say that the Leviathan is not a book I would have chosen as a
> first attempt - I would prefer Locke's "Essay Concerning Human
> Understanding".
Yes, I personally prefer Locke--but this started out as a personal project
in which I was going to start by going through, in historical order, a dozen
or so classics of English-language philosophy. That accounts for the
Hobbes. Then I thought that so much more could get done if I invited a lot
of people to help me. That's how this got started. I greatly look forward
to tackling Locke, myself.
> Upon reading your outline of the Leviathan, I
> immediately saw the potential for references indicating precursors of
> Hobbes' thought which inevitably leads to the question of
> limiting the
> pilot, at least, to English language works. It's very, very
> difficult
> to cover philosophical ideas if we limit ourselves to those works
> originally published in English - or is this not what you intended by
> the phraseology.
I agree--the only question is *when* we should take up works in other
languages. I think it is important that those works be presented and
chunked at first in their original languages. But internationalization (or
what should it be called?) then poses all sorts of logistical problems (see
http://www.textop.org/internationalization.html) that can be deferred until
after we have familiarized ourselves with the more basic problems associated
with simply doing an outline (in one language) at all. That's why I've been
insisting on English language only--not, of course, because I think only
philosophers writing in English are worth collating!
Here is what I suggest: we choose something like 3-6 works of philosophy to
collate into the outline I've started
(http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sample_outline). (But do check
to see that you're comfortable with the latter suggestion.) Once we're
finished, a few short months from now I hope, we'll have all sorts of
recommendations to make about how to proceed in terms of procedure, rules,
software, governance, and so forth. Then I'd like to get software written
that handles internationalization intelligently, so that we can really
launch the project in as many languages as possible.
I'd like to make some decisions, fairly soon, about which works we doing the
pilot project should use. Once we've settled on a list, it will be much
easier, I think, to get some people excited about helping out. I'll
approach specialists on the texts we choose, and ask them to ask their
graduate students to get involved (and you'd be welcome to do the same).
> As far as my own expertise, my dissertation research was on
> the concept
> of causality as it has been used in philosophy, the law and
> in science
> and I focused on a very specific problem - that of toxic
> torts. Since
> receiving the PhD in 1999, I have spent most of my time reading and
> continuing research in the field of causality.
>
> I will be pleased to help where I can.
Pleased to meet you, and thanks for getting involved.
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Fri Jun 16 17:59:36 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:59:36 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Text frontrunners
Message-ID: <007901c691a9$4d902270$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
All,
Collating the recommendations from six different people, on- and off-list,
and including suggestions made earlier on the [textop] list, here's the
tally so far (number of "votes" in parentheses):
Bacon, Essays (1)
Hobbes, Leviathan (2)
Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding (4)
Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government
Berkeley, Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1)
Berkeley, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (1)
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1)
David Hume, Essays concerning Human Understanding and morals (1)
Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1)
Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Women (1)
J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1)
J. S. Mill, On Liberty
J. S. Mill, On the Subjection of Women (1)
C. S. Peirce, selected essays
William James, Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking
Herbert Spencer, The Data of Ethics
G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica (1)
Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy (3)
Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind (1)
Hoppe, "Democracy: The God That Failed" (1)
The numbers represent the number of people who have said, sometime, that we
might use the text in question. Each person may "vote" for as many texts as
he or she wishes (just not more than one vote per person per text)--and very
strong suggestions will count for something too.
As you can see, the frontrunners are currently Locke's Essay, Russell's
Problems of Philosophy, and Hobbes' Leviathan.
Do feel free to vote, if you think you might be participating, and in that
case you really should join [textop-en-phil], here:
http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop-en-phil
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Jun 20 12:29:08 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:29:08 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Proposed voice discussion time - RSVP soon
Message-ID: <002c01c6949f$cd21e7a0$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
All,
We definitely have a quorum of people interested in Textop telecons. Having
thought more about it, and given the inevitable difficulty of reconciling
many schedules for meetings, I think the best way forward is just to set a
regular time and use turnout data to decide how often to meet. Personally
I'd like to meet every week.
What I propose TENTATIVELY is:
Fridays
9 AM Pacific
Noon Eastern
5 PM GMT
PLEASE RSVP PRIVATELY SOON, SO I CAN ADJUST THE MEETING TIME IF NECESSARY.
Please let me know what other days of the week might work for you, and if
this has a *regular* conflict with your schedule. As far as start times are
concerned, I don't think we should deviate much from the range of 8-10 AM
(Pacific) for a start time, so that we can get Europeans involved. But on
weekdays other than Friday, I think we could start as late as 11 AM Pacific
(7 PM GMT).
LET'S USE SKYPE: I know long distance (even international long distance) is
cheap for most of us, but it probably isn't for everyone. So, to make it as
inexpensive as possible for people to participate, and also to be able to
record the proceedings for others to enjoy, I propose to do a "Skypecast,"
accessible via this page:
https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=1274
4
(I've linked this from the textop.org homepage.)
EASY DOWNLOAD NECESSARY: To participate, you'll have to download (for free)
Skype (http://www.skype.com/download/) and make a user account. If you've
never used Skype before, don't worry--it's unusually user-friendly. If you
don't have a headset or microphone (I have a headset that I find very
convenient, $15 at an office supply store), you can always just listen
through your computer speakers.
AGENDA: for the first meeting, let's get acquainted, do a Q&A about the
project as a whole for those who simply want to ask questions, and (if we
have time) talk about governance. Let's aim for one hour (unless people are
motivated to go longer). Next time we might divide our time between
governance issues and the pilot project kickoff.
Comments? Questions? Proposals?
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Jun 20 15:45:03 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:45:03 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Next steps (important, please read)
Message-ID: <001101c694bb$2b60fed0$7e02020a@D6WD1391>
All,
It appears all nominations that are going to be made have been made, for
philosophy texts. So we will be using the following texts, at least to
begin with:
Hobbes, *Leviathan* (2 votes)
Locke, *Essay Concerning Human Understanding* (4 votes)
Russell, *Problems of Philosophy* (3 votes)
Here's what I propose we do next (I would like your feedback and
alternative ideas, if you have any, on the list or off):
(1) Look for experts on these texts, meaning people who have published a
significant amount of credible work on them, to serve as text editors.
The role of text editor, as I see it, is neither to direct work or do
most of the work, but instead serve as a decisionmaking resource: to
make decisions and settle disputes about how texts are chunked,
summarized, and placed within the outline. So I *hope* we'll be able to
find at least three people to do this. If you have any nominations or
ideas about people to approach, please let me know!
(2) I will also be getting in contact with various people via their
websites and mailing lists to get more people to work with these books.
It's possible that, as a result, we'll get enough people interested in
doing another one or two. Personally, three is my minimum.
(2a) If step (2) generates significantly more people, we'll ask them to
nominate texts and, if there's interest, start up another one or two
texts. Notice, if you (e.g., Clea) had your heart set on some text and
you were the only person voting for it, all you'd have to do is find
*one* other person who says he or she will work on it with you; then
we'll find an editor for that text.
(3) Next, I think we should create a wiki page for each text, and have
all who are working on a given text put their names on that page. Then
the contributors volunteer to work on this section or that, and the
editor portions out work.
(4) Then work gets started! The actual work procedure, I think, should
go like this:
(a) Upload the texts to the wiki (probably several different
pages per text, for convenience).
(b) Chunk and summarize the text (i.e., *part* of the text, you
can't do it all at once). I will compose a general guide to how to
chunk and summarize a text, and post the guide on the wiki. We'll work
on it and update it on the wiki as we proceed. (I'll do this soon.)
(c) Use a canonical mark, say "[XXXXX]", to mark the point in
each file where you left off work. If work has not started yet on a
page, make that character string the FIRST item on the page.
(d) While people should work on the part of the text they are
assigned, everyone should feel free to raise questions and even to edit
each other's work if necessary. In other words, while there aren't yet
enough people here really to work in a strongly collaborative way, we
can at least act as each other's reviewers.
(e) We need to decide on a forum and method for settling hard
questions. While editors can settle questions with respect to each of
their texts, often the questions will be *general* questions, not just
about individual texts, and there needs to be a forum whereby these
things are actually hashed out. From my personal experience I can tell
you that, if we work thoughtfully and conscientiously, we will have
zillions of questions and discussing them could be very interesting. I
would say that most of the *general* discussion (about rules, about
general choices of outline headings, and so forth) should happen on
textop-en-phil (this mailing list), while discussion of particular
matters could happen either on the "Discussion" page attached to a
text's homepage, or just via e-mail among a text's collaborators. The
results of discussion should be summed up on the wiki whenever
generalizable.
(5) We will co-write a report based on our experience, making
recommendations and so forth, when we are done. I hope we will be
finished in no longer than, say, four months.
=====
You might be a hard-headed "I'll believe it when I see it" cynic, but
I'll say this anyway--just think: we could be starting something really
historic here. If we manage to do even a modest "proof of concept," as
I think is probable (not certain, of course), we'll generate
considerable excitement about Textop as a project. We'll be able to do
a press release and more general recruitment. We'll get more people
involved as a result, probably get some programming talent interested in
building/adapting open source software for us to use. So I'm pretty
excited. I'll be working pretty hard myself on the wiki, and I hope you
will too--it really is a worthwhile project. These first few steps will
be challenging, but very interesting too, and worth the effort.
The above is posted and editable at
http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Collation_Project_pilot_launc
h_plan
--Larry
----------------
Dr. Larry Sanger
Director of Collaborative Projects, Digital Universe Foundation
100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA 95066
larry.sanger at dufoundation.com http://www.digitaluniverse.net/
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Thu Jun 22 17:35:13 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:35:13 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] First voice discussion (Skypecast) soon
Message-ID: <002601c6965c$e41273d0$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
All,
A reminder: please join me for a kick-off discussion, via "Skypecast," of
the Text Outline Project tomorrow (or later today, for those of you in
Europe):
Friday:
9 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Noon Eastern Daylight Time
4 PM GMT
To join the discussion, you'll have to download Skype (for free) if you
don't already have it:
http://www.skype.com/download/
If you just want to listen, your computer speakers should do fine, but if
you want to participate, you'll need a microphone or better yet, a headset
(with a built-in microphone).
Then join the discussion by clicking on the "Join this Skypecast" link on
this page:
https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=1274
4
Agenda: let's get acquainted, do a Q&A about the project as a whole for
those who simply want to ask questions, and (if we have time) talk about
governance. Let's aim for one hour (unless people are motivated to go
longer).
--Larry
----------------
Dr. Larry Sanger
Director of Collaborative Projects, Digital Universe Foundation
100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA 95066
larry.sanger at dufoundation.org http://www.dufoundation.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dufoundation.org/archive/textop-en-phil/attachments/20060622/081a7664/attachment.htm
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Fri Jun 23 23:58:31 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:58:31 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Report about our first Skypecast
Message-ID: <000c01c6975b$9aab3f10$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
All,
I thought I would share my impressions with you about our discussion this
morning via the "Skypecast." Others who were involved said (promised??)
that they would elaborate certain things they were saying in e-mails to one
or more of the lists.
In attendance were Anat Biletski, a Hobbes specialist and distinguished
professor from Tel Aviv University now visiting at Boston U.; Kunal Sen,
Executive Director, International Digital Product Development for
Encyclopedia Britannica; Philippe Martin, who researches knowledge
representation; Howard Burrows, physiologist, information theorist, and
project manager who has lived in much of our problem space; and Dave
Cormier, EducationBridges moderator who gave me useful advice about how to
manage the Skypecast. My apologies if I left anyone out, but as you can see
it was an excellent (and very international!) group, if small.
Prof. Biletski asked about how feasible the project is, anyway. (It was
more complicated than that, but that was the gist of it, I think.) My
answer in brief was that there are aspects of the project that are obviously
feasible, because I've shown how to do them (e.g., chunking texts and
providing summaries of the chunks), while the feasibility of other, probably
more interesting aspects remains obviously unproven. (I always hedged my
bets in a similar way about the prospects of Wikipedia, you know.) I don't
think we really began to explore the question of feasibility, though. I
think another point that was brought up in some back-and-forth involving
Philippe and Kunal and myself was the following. Given that the Collation
Project will involve chunking small (paragraph-sized) parts of texts, rather
than encyclopedia articles or books etc., and putting them into an
*extremely* detailed outline, some of the more obvious concerns about
feasibility connected to the difficulty of dealing with vague and ambiguous
categories might be finessed.
Kunal Sen asked two excellent questions (and showed himself to possess
professional expertise on two or three completely different aspects of this
project): (1) while it is simple to map chunks onto a pre-existing
ontological (or taxonomic) structure, how do you create the ontology in the
first place? My answer: nodes of the outline (ontology/taxonomy) are
created at least initially on a more or less ad hoc basis, just to
categorize chunks. Nodes are *not* created "a priori," i.e., before any
chunks can be found to put into them. Beyond that, it's (a) a practical
matter of deciding on a procedure for arriving at agreement among the
outline-builders, and (b) deciding on (or, better, elaborating and refining)
principles according to which the outline is built out. Not that either (a)
or (b) is easy, but they are both issues I've thought a fair bit
about...and, I would add now, a main purpose of the pilot project is to
start working out solutions to these problems.
(2) For nonphilosophical or mathematical subjects, such as Russell's
Principia, how could that be chunked? My answer was that, for a lot of
proofs in logic texts, it might end up one chunk per proof, to which Kunal
said that that is what he thought, but that then the chunks might end up
being pages long, because the proofs are sometimes pages long. I then
suggested that sometimes it will be possible to identify subproofs, or
discussions of particular premises, which can be placed at subheadings
underneath the heading for the main argument. (This did not, I see now,
answer his main worry, that taking proofs apart in this way would render the
original argument hard to follow. But I don't think so: proofs that require
pages generally speaking have typical *parts* that are discussed by other
theorists, i.e., subproofs and key premises that are discussed at great
length by many different theorists who present their own versions of the
proof in question.)
Howard Burrows and Kunal Sen also discussed the similarity and differences
between the Collation Project and Mortimer J. Adler's *Syntopicon*. Howard
urged me to read Adler's introduction to the Syntopicon, which is very
relevant to our endeavor. I think we agreed that the main difference
between the Collation Project and the Syntopicon is that the latter is much
more coarse-grained in two ways: its outline is not as detailed as ours will
be, and it indexes sections of works, rather than individual sentences and
paragraphs. (And, of course, the Collation Project will be digital and use
lots more books!)
Toward the end of the call, there was a (for me) somewhat
difficult-to-follow exchange by two very subtle thinkers who have (it seems)
different approaches to what we're doing, Philippe Martin and Howard
Burrows. Philippe defended his notion that an *extremely* fine-grained
approach to (some of) Textop's projects is possible, while Howard emphasized
some conceptual difficulties inherent in interpretation and classification.
One thing that came out of that last exchange was that there is in principle
nothing wrong with making initial outline nodes "placeholders" ("placing a
flag in the sand" I think someone said) useful for an initial
categorization, not bound by any strict rules of ontology. My own
conclusion was that, if the outline ever can be made to follow some formal
or semi-formal rules of ontology, it will happen only after a great deal of
"data" (text chunks) is found in a particular area. In other words, the
more chunks are placed in some part of the outline, the more conceptually
coherent the outline will become. I think you can see this with my outline
of Hobbes' *Leviathan*: the "Metaphysics" part is skeletal and puzzling,
while the "Law" part is relatively well-developed. Of course, that's just a
reflection of the fact that Hobbes himself discussed law a great deal more
than he did metaphysics, in *Leviathan*.
We didn't get to talk about project governance at all. Next time, perhaps.
Let's do it again next week, same time; if not so many people show up next
week, maybe we'll make it every other week and/or try a different time. But
I was happy with the showing, considering the relatively small number of
people on the Textop mailing lists (total of 40, maybe?).
By the way, if you want to participate, please do get your hands on a
headset. It makes it easier for you and you reduce the chance that your
hardware set-up will cause noise that will force me to mute you. :-)
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Jun 27 18:04:48 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:04:48 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] FW: Need editor and participants: "collating"
Russell's Problems of Philosophy
Message-ID: <009101c69a4e$da095890$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
All, please see below and offer your opinion as to what we should do.
--Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:larry.sanger at dufoundation.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:04 PM
To: 'russell-l at informer2.cis.mcmaster.ca'
Subject: RE: Need editor and participants: "collating" Russell's Problems of
Philosophy
Ken,
Thanks for the reply. I can't answer any of your questions. We haven't
made any decisions as to the edition, but we would not think of collating a
version that is not in the public domain (we're not about to infringe
copyrights). You make an excellent point, that Russell last edited PoP in
1967. I didn't know that; I knew of a 1912 edition and didn't even think of
the possibility of later versions.
This is a pilot project. So we do not, for current purposes, care so much
about getting the text *exactly* right. When and if we start the project in
earnest, we will definitely want to use an excellent edition, by scholarly
standards. If that means that we cannot use the best edition of PoP,
because its most recent revisions (by Russell himself) are not in the public
domain, then so be it.
I'm going to post this to textop-en-phil (Textop's mailing list for
philosophy in English). Perhaps we'll choose another text instead. We
might just proceed with the (a) 1912 text, and wait until more recent
editions come into the public domain.
Are you aware of any good reason to think that the 1912 text is not in the
public domain? Its existence online for free is (only) prima facie reason
to think it is.
--Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: russell-l-admin at mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
> [mailto:russell-l-admin at mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf
> Of Kenneth Blackwell
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:12 PM
> To: russell-l at informer2.cis.mcmaster.ca
> Subject: Re: Need editor and participants: "collating"
> Russell's Problems of Philosophy
>
>
> Larry,
>
> Not to disparage your project -- which reminds me a little
> of Mortimer Adler's approach to analyzing the great books,
> culminating in the Syntopicon -- but I do have a couple of questions.
>
> Is _The Problems of Philosophy_ in the world public domain
> or just the American public domain? In either case, since
> BR made revisions to his book right up until 1967, which
> text of PP are we discussing? So far as I know, no one has
> collated the various versions of the text in the usual sense
> of "collation" that results in a variorum text with scholarly
> apparatus.
>
> Just this month two more reprints of PP arrived in BRA, one
> from Barnes & Noble with an intro by Hye-Kyung Kim, and one
> from Dover. The texts are not identical. I believe there are
> now 3 different intros now, and more reprints than that. As
> well, there is more than one free online edition.
>
> Ken Blackwell
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:10:18 -0700
> "Larry Sanger" wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'll try to make this as efficient as possible. The purpose of this
> > mail is to try to find an editor and (more) participants for our
> treatment of
> > Russell's *Problems of Philosophy*, as part of a pilot project for
> > something called the Collation Project. This is a subproject of
> > the Text Outline
> > Project (http://www.textop.org), which is itself
> > affiliated with the Digital
> > Universe (http://www.dufoundation.org).
> >
> > The Collation Project involves, essentially, "collating" chunks of
> > classic works into a single outline. Imagine a library shelf
> > full of public domain
> > works, snipping out each paragraph and putting it on an
> > index card, and then
> > arranging the index cards into a single giant outline.
> > The idea is that, in
> > time, the outline will become increasingly detailed and
> > specialized, and
> > scholars will be able, with unusual ease, to find
> > discussions from multiple
> > eras and fields and languages all talking about the
> > precise same subject.
> > This is ambitious but, with our rapidly-developing
> > understanding and
> > acceptance of collaborative processes and software, it is
> > probably now
> > possible for the first time.
> >
> > We're starting a pilot project involving, to begin with
> > at least, Hobbes'
> > *Leviathan*, Locke's *Essay*, and Russell's *Problems of
> Philosophy*.
> > We chose these works because they're in English (we'll be chunking
> > works in their original languages, and we want the pilot to use
> > just one language)
> > and they're in one discipline (philosophy), and a
> > discipline full of people
> > who will quickly grasp a lot of the niceties involved in
> > this project.
> >
> > Anyway, we are looking for (1) a Russell expert, i.e.,
> someone who has
> > published about Russell, and who is thoroughly familiar with the
> > *Problems*, mostly to serve an oversight role, which need not be
> > terribly
> > time-consuming; and (2) people who are very familiar with
> > the *Problems* and
> > who have an amount of study in philosophy at least the
> > equivalent to a B.A.,
> > actually to serve as "collators."
> >
> > To get involved, you'll want to look at the documents available on
> > http://www.textop.org, but it's absolutely essential that you
> > subscribe to at least one mailing list:
> >
> >
> http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop-en-phil
> >
> > It might also prove essential to join the general project list,
> > here:
> >
> > http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop
> >
> > Russell experts interested in serving as editors should write me
> > directly (larry.sanger [at] dufoundation.org).
> >
> > We're also still looking for a Locke editor (we've got Hobbes
> > covered)--please forward this to any Locke experts you
> > know who might be
> > interested!
> >
> > Best,
> > Larry Sanger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger)
> >
> > ----------------
> > Dr. Larry Sanger
> > Director of Collaborative Projects, Digital Universe Foundation
> > 100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA 95066
> > larry.sanger at dufoundation.org
> > http://www.dufoundation.org/
> > Office: 831-227-2602 Cell: 831-359-0582 Home:
> > 831-335-3521
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/russell-l
> > Russell-l is managed by The Bertrand Russell Research Centre,
> > McMaster University
>
> KENNETH BLACKWELL
> Editor, _Russell_ http://russell.mcmaster.ca/journal
> Hon. Russell Archivist http://bracers.mcmaster.ca
> http://www.mcmaster.ca/russdocs/russell.htm
> Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, McMaster University
> _____________________________________________________
> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/russell-l
> Russell-l is managed by The Bertrand Russell Research Centre,
> McMaster University
>
From cfrees at imapmail.org Wed Jun 28 11:58:05 2006
From: cfrees at imapmail.org (Dr. Clea F. Rees)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] FW: Need editor and participants: "collating"
Russell's Problems of Philosophy
In-Reply-To: <009101c69a4e$da095890$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
References: <009101c69a4e$da095890$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
Message-ID:
Not a definitive suggest - just a comment:
Project Gutenberg states that the 1912 edition is in the Public Domain in the
United States. They do not commit themselves generally, but then that is their
standard practice.
I am personally much more interested in working on PoP than on Locke or Hobbes.
On the other hand, I do not think we should risk legal issues undermining the
pilot. So, if it isn't possible to establish that PoP is in the Public Domain
(globally), then I would back dropping it from the pilot.
I also think that, ultimately, it would be good to have a means of indicating
differences between different (public domain) editions in the final outline.
(Similar to the way the Cottingham et al. editions of Descartes's writings
indicate differences between the different versions Descartes wrote.) This
suggestion might be premature, however.
If PoP is not possible, might it be possible to select an alternative text for
the third spot? One advantage of PoP it seems to me is its relatively short
length. It would allow us to show some sort of results relatively speedily. But,
as I say, I have a personal bias in favour of Russell.
I was also wondering if somebody could fill in the help page for the Wiki. I
tried to add a homepage with links, but it looks a bit peculiar as I don't
actually know how to edit Wiki pages. I'm especially interested in knowing how
to do footnotes.
I also accidentally ended up with two pages and two accounts. Is it possible for
me to delete one of these or is there somebody I can ask to do it on my behalf?
CFR is the one I've set up as best I can. Cfr is a mistake I'd like to get rid
of. (I didn't realise it would capitalise Cfr and I usually use "cfr" as a
username. I cannot stand "Cfr" though and couldn't figure out how to correct it
without starting over.)
Thanks,
Clea F. Rees
On 27/06/06, you seem to have written:
> All, please see below and offer your opinion as to what we should do.
>
> --Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Sanger [mailto:larry.sanger at dufoundation.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:04 PM
> To: 'russell-l at informer2.cis.mcmaster.ca'
> Subject: RE: Need editor and participants: "collating" Russell's Problems of
> Philosophy
>
>
> Ken,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I can't answer any of your questions. We haven't
> made any decisions as to the edition, but we would not think of collating a
> version that is not in the public domain (we're not about to infringe
> copyrights). You make an excellent point, that Russell last edited PoP in
> 1967. I didn't know that; I knew of a 1912 edition and didn't even think of
> the possibility of later versions.
>
> This is a pilot project. So we do not, for current purposes, care so much
> about getting the text *exactly* right. When and if we start the project in
> earnest, we will definitely want to use an excellent edition, by scholarly
> standards. If that means that we cannot use the best edition of PoP,
> because its most recent revisions (by Russell himself) are not in the public
> domain, then so be it.
>
> I'm going to post this to textop-en-phil (Textop's mailing list for
> philosophy in English). Perhaps we'll choose another text instead. We
> might just proceed with the (a) 1912 text, and wait until more recent
> editions come into the public domain.
>
> Are you aware of any good reason to think that the 1912 text is not in the
> public domain? Its existence online for free is (only) prima facie reason
> to think it is.
>
> --Larry
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: russell-l-admin at mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
>> [mailto:russell-l-admin at mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf
>> Of Kenneth Blackwell
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:12 PM
>> To: russell-l at informer2.cis.mcmaster.ca
>> Subject: Re: Need editor and participants: "collating"
>> Russell's Problems of Philosophy
>>
>>
>> Larry,
>>
>> Not to disparage your project -- which reminds me a little
>> of Mortimer Adler's approach to analyzing the great books,
>> culminating in the Syntopicon -- but I do have a couple of questions.
>>
>> Is _The Problems of Philosophy_ in the world public domain
>> or just the American public domain? In either case, since
>> BR made revisions to his book right up until 1967, which
>> text of PP are we discussing? So far as I know, no one has
>> collated the various versions of the text in the usual sense
>> of "collation" that results in a variorum text with scholarly
>> apparatus.
>>
>> Just this month two more reprints of PP arrived in BRA, one
>> from Barnes & Noble with an intro by Hye-Kyung Kim, and one
>> from Dover. The texts are not identical. I believe there are
>> now 3 different intros now, and more reprints than that. As
>> well, there is more than one free online edition.
>>
>> Ken Blackwell
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:10:18 -0700
>> "Larry Sanger" wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I'll try to make this as efficient as possible. The purpose of this
>>> mail is to try to find an editor and (more) participants for our
>> treatment of
>>> Russell's *Problems of Philosophy*, as part of a pilot project for
>>> something called the Collation Project. This is a subproject of
>>> the Text Outline
>>> Project (http://www.textop.org), which is itself
>>> affiliated with the Digital
>>> Universe (http://www.dufoundation.org).
>>>
>>> The Collation Project involves, essentially, "collating" chunks of
>>> classic works into a single outline. Imagine a library shelf
>>> full of public domain
>>> works, snipping out each paragraph and putting it on an
>>> index card, and then
>>> arranging the index cards into a single giant outline.
>>> The idea is that, in
>>> time, the outline will become increasingly detailed and
>>> specialized, and
>>> scholars will be able, with unusual ease, to find
>>> discussions from multiple
>>> eras and fields and languages all talking about the
>>> precise same subject.
>>> This is ambitious but, with our rapidly-developing
>>> understanding and
>>> acceptance of collaborative processes and software, it is
>>> probably now
>>> possible for the first time.
>>>
>>> We're starting a pilot project involving, to begin with
>>> at least, Hobbes'
>>> *Leviathan*, Locke's *Essay*, and Russell's *Problems of
>> Philosophy*.
>>> We chose these works because they're in English (we'll be chunking
>>> works in their original languages, and we want the pilot to use
>>> just one language)
>>> and they're in one discipline (philosophy), and a
>>> discipline full of people
>>> who will quickly grasp a lot of the niceties involved in
>>> this project.
>>>
>>> Anyway, we are looking for (1) a Russell expert, i.e.,
>> someone who has
>>> published about Russell, and who is thoroughly familiar with the
>>> *Problems*, mostly to serve an oversight role, which need not be
>>> terribly
>>> time-consuming; and (2) people who are very familiar with
>>> the *Problems* and
>>> who have an amount of study in philosophy at least the
>>> equivalent to a B.A.,
>>> actually to serve as "collators."
>>>
>>> To get involved, you'll want to look at the documents available on
>>> http://www.textop.org, but it's absolutely essential that you
>>> subscribe to at least one mailing list:
>>>
>>>
>> http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop-en-phil
>>>
>>> It might also prove essential to join the general project list,
>>> here:
>>>
>>> http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop
>>>
>>> Russell experts interested in serving as editors should write me
>>> directly (larry.sanger [at] dufoundation.org).
>>>
>>> We're also still looking for a Locke editor (we've got Hobbes
>>> covered)--please forward this to any Locke experts you
>>> know who might be
>>> interested!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Larry Sanger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger)
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>> Dr. Larry Sanger
>>> Director of Collaborative Projects, Digital Universe Foundation
>>> 100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA 95066
>>> larry.sanger at dufoundation.org
>>> http://www.dufoundation.org/
>>> Office: 831-227-2602 Cell: 831-359-0582 Home:
>>> 831-335-3521
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________
>>> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/russell-l
>>> Russell-l is managed by The Bertrand Russell Research Centre,
>>> McMaster University
>>
>> KENNETH BLACKWELL
>> Editor, _Russell_ http://russell.mcmaster.ca/journal
>> Hon. Russell Archivist http://bracers.mcmaster.ca
>> http://www.mcmaster.ca/russdocs/russell.htm
>> Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, McMaster University
>> _____________________________________________________
>> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/russell-l
>> Russell-l is managed by The Bertrand Russell Research Centre,
>> McMaster University
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textop-en-phil mailing list
> Textop-en-phil at lists.dufoundation.org
> http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop-en-phil
>
--
Dr. Clea F. Rees
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Philosophy
Cowell College
University of California
Santa Cruz
CA 95064
U.S.A.
Tel: +1-831-459-5045
+1-831-459-2609 (msg)
Fax: +1-831-459-4880
NB: From UK, dial 00 before the appropriate number to access the
international system.
cfrees at imapmail.org
http://people.ucsc.edu/~cfrees/
From cormier at edactive.com Wed Jun 28 12:45:30 2006
From: cormier at edactive.com (cormier at edactive.com)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:45:30 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] FW: Need editor and participants: "collating"
Russell's Problems of Philosophy
In-Reply-To:
References: <009101c69a4e$da095890$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
Message-ID: <1411.137.149.66.102.1151523930.squirrel@edactive.com>
Couple of interesting links i've found looking for info on pop and public
domain. I may be the only one who hasn't seen them...
online phil dictionary
http://www.swif.it/foldop/whole.php
This one has a bunch of info on international book rights
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html
this last link contains the contact information necessary to figure out
the rights on POP. Of course, someone could just call Oxford Press and ask
them. That would probably be the easiest course of action.
cheers,
dave.
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Jun 28 15:43:31 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:43:31 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Progress finding editors
Message-ID: <000f01c69b04$483d28e0$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
All,
I've been approached by two different Hobbes experts interested in helping
out, possibly, as editors; but no luck with a Locke editor or a Russell
editor (assuming we'll still be doing Russell...more later on that). We do
have 21 people on this list, though, which I'm happy about!
I'd like to throw this problem open to your creativity. How should we find
someone to serve these roles? I am thinking that perhaps we can find some
money for a small honorarium. The other option, if we can't find any
specialists willing to do this, is to proceed without assigned editors, at
least for the pilot project. There's no knock-down industrial-strength
argument that says we must have an editor for each text that I'm aware of.
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Jun 28 16:45:11 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:45:11 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Skypecast #2: some governance questions
Message-ID: <001c01c69b0c$e5277900$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
All,
Let's have another "Skypecast" discussion, same time, access via this link:
https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=1430
4
Friday 9 AM PDT, 12 PM EDT, 4 PM GMT
I propose that we talk about the following two governance questions (and
feel free to start talking about these questions on the [textop] list).
(1) What more generally ought to be the source and top-level flow of
authority in the project? Who, and by what method, decides how the most
responsible roles are filled?
Here is my own vague thinking on these questions. Generally, I
think there should be (as was said on [Textop] earlier by others) a
separation of powers, and the "powers" in question will probably include:
(a) an outline editor (see question (2) below), who acts as project director
for the Collation Project; (b) other project directors; (c)
subject/discipline editors (e.g., the Philosophy editor); (d) text editors
and other editors (e.g., editor of our treatment of Hobbes' Leviathan, or
the editor of the Debate Guide's treatment of Economics debates); (e) the
rank and file.
I'm toying with the view that project directors and subject editors
should be chosen by partition from among text editors and other editors,
while the latter are chosen based on merit by subject editors, with input as
necessary by other subject editors.
My own role in the future project will be unclear. This is by
design: unlike certain other Internet projects I could name, I do not want
Textop to be a cult of personality. Instead, by vesting genuine authority
in participants, the
(2) How should decisions be made with regard to the outline? How are
disputes to be resolved?
On this, I have been toying with two ideas: (1) final decisions are
made by an outline editor, serving a one-year term, who is chosen by
sortition from among (willing) text editors; and (2) the outline editor (and
those advising him or her) must create, consult, refine a body of rules in
making decisions about the shape of the outline. Previous "important"
decisions are, as they are in law, enshrined in the rules. New outline
editors are bound (generally but not strictly) to follow precedent.
On such questions, see:
===
To be clear, we are not *settling* these questions in this discussion, and
you should feel free to weigh in on these questions anytime. In terms of
settling on project governance, ultimately the procedure I intend to follow
is this: we will discuss and collaborate on a charter on the [textop] list
and the wiki; then the charter will be put before the advisory committee,
which will be invited to debate and revise and, ultimately, approve it.
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Jun 28 17:14:00 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:14:00 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Skypecast #2: some governance questions [revised]
Message-ID: <001d01c69b10$ebd49f40$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
[I accidentally sent this before it was finished. Sorry! Here is the
complete version.]
All,
Let's have another "Skypecast" discussion, same time, access via this link:
https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=1430
4
Friday 9 AM PDT, 12 PM EDT, 4 PM GMT
I propose that we talk about the following two governance questions (and
feel free to start talking about these questions on the [textop] list).
(1) What in general ought to be the source and top-level flow of authority
in the project? Who, and by what method, decides how the most responsible
roles are filled?
Here are my own vague first thoughts on these questions. Generally,
I think there should be (as was said on [Textop] earlier by others) a
separation of powers, and the "powers" in question will probably include:
(a) an outline editor (see question (2) below), who also acts as project
director for the Collation Project; (b) other project directors (e.g., the
director of the Debate Guide Project); (c) subject/discipline editors (e.g.,
the Philosophy editor); (d) text editors and other editors (e.g., editor of
our treatment of Hobbes' Leviathan, or the editor of the Debate Guide's
treatment of Economics debates); (e) the rank and file. (a)-(c) might, or
might not, serve on a committee of project leaders; but perhaps that
wouldn't be necessary. Finally, some grouping of all of these people serves
as an appeal committee.
I'm toying with the view that project directors, subject editors,
and appeals committee members should be chosen by partition from among text
editors and other editors, while the latter are chosen based on merit by
subject editors, with input as necessary by other subject editors. The
reason I am leaning toward *some* sort of partition (for all but text
editors), rather than top-down appointment or bottom-up democratic election,
is that I very very much want to avoid the sort of political problems that
have plagued such projects as DMOZ and Wikipedia. Given the amount of
influence a really successful Textop could have, I want to ensure that its
management does not fall to people who do not have the best interests of the
project, and humanity generally, at heart. Power, even power in Internet
projects, does tend to corrupt, and it tends to attract people who want to
use it for their own personal purposes or idiosyncratic ideologies rather
than, as in this case, for the good of the project according to its own
lights. Persons chosen by partition, who are surprised that they must lead
(so to speak), will be more likely to serve out of a sense of duty than out
of a sense that they can use the project to save the world, or make their
mark, or whatever. Furthermore, a process of partition might reduce the
unpleasant politicking and formation of cliques (or parties) that comes with
elections. People might still have acrimonious debates, but they will be
over policy, not over who should be in charge.
My own role in the future project is unclear to me. Unlike certain
other Internet projects I could name, I do not want Textop to be a cult of
personality. Instead, by vesting genuine authority in participants, we
thereby increase the motivation to take responsibility for some part of
what, to succeed, must become a vast enterprise. I think I will ask you,
however, to make me project director of the various subprojects as they get
started: I want to make sure that they get off on the right foot. After
that, I might claim a reduced or limited role; that's the only thing that is
consistent with partition as a method of selection. Obviously, this has to
be decided and articulated.
(2) How should decisions be made with regard to the outline? How are
disputes to be resolved?
On this, I have been toying with two ideas: (1) final decisions are
made by an outline editor, serving a one-year term, who is chosen by
sortition from among (willing) text editors; and (2) the outline editor (and
those advising him or her) must create, consult, and refine a body of rules
in making decisions about the shape of the outline. Previous "important"
decisions are, as they are in law, to be enshrined in the rules. New
outline editors are then bound (generally but not strictly) to follow
precedent.
On such questions, see:
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/6/22/22936/7559
===
To be clear, we are not *settling* these questions in this discussion, and
you should feel free to weigh in on these questions anytime. In terms of
settling on project governance, ultimately the procedure I intend to follow
is this: we will discuss and collaborate on a charter on the [textop] list
and the wiki; then the charter will be put before the advisory committee,
which will be invited to debate and revise and, ultimately, approve it.
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Jun 28 17:41:31 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:41:31 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Copyright issues
In-Reply-To: <1411.137.149.66.102.1151523930.squirrel@edactive.com>
Message-ID: <002801c69b14$c4015270$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
Thanks very much Clea and Dave. Dave, thanks for the links, they really did
clear some things up. Clea, I think I agree with you, that if there is some
question as to the copyright status of PoP in the U.K.--if, for instance, a
U.K. citizen could not legally read our copy of PoP--then we should not
potentially shoot ourselves in the feet in this way. Besides, Hume and Mill
are *definitely* in the public domain.
I would like to re-open nominations: who is interested and able to do works
by Hume and Mill, or any others on the list?
For help with the wiki software, check out the User's Guide:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User's_Guide
To learn how to do footnotes, see the source code for any article that uses
footnotes. E.g., see this URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&action=edit
(see the [ tags)
Or see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes
Also, on the wiki, I see only a [[CFR]] page, not a [[Cfr]] page.
Thanks again...
--Larry
From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Fri Jun 30 09:14:29 2006
From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:14:29 -0700
Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Skypecast switched to telecon
Message-ID: <000401c69c60$43fd8740$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591>
All,
Howard and I are the only ones in the Skypecast after ten minutes, so we're
switching to a telecon. If you'd like to join us right now, use dial-in
number: 831.227.2509 x3602
Also, please let me know what you think of using regular phone rather than
Skypecast in the future.
--Larry
]