| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ClassNotesJan24" |
|---|
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world." | | | The way this community is using the wiki is really interesting and new to me. I've seen wiki's used in lots of companies (I even implemented MediaWiki? at my last job, woohoo me) and their general purpose is to centrally store facts relevant to the community (a funny example I've seen is a wiki category devoted to providing definitions of nonsensical words that a co-worker notorious for making up her own adjectives commonly used). | |
>
> | | | | I guess there's no "wrong" type of content, but my point is that the general tone of conversation seems odd. I sort of expected more discussion specifically on ideas relevant to our readings, notices of other references to check out to expand understanding, etc. We so far have some of that, but we also have a lot of elaborate discussion on classroom management, predictions about what Eben is feeling or "wants" us to say/think, and general venting. I'm not trying to criticize, but let's think about this. Especially because, although participation in wiki discussions is probably limited by many factors (time, general interest, comfort with the technology, etc) I think the direction that the existing conversations take will influence how many people participate in this community at all. | |
>
> | | | | -- MakalikaNaholowaa - 26 Jan 2008 | |
>
> |
- I think this is an extremely important comment. One partial explanation that those who do work often with wikis will of course understand is that there are many people here to whom the experience is new, so they are doing a predictable thing: they are using a new tool in a familiar old way. In this case, they are blogging with it. We will start active refactoring later this week, which will melt most of the blog commentary away very quickly, because on editing we will find there's much repetitive rhetoric and unsupported speculation, which we don't need to retain. A few good points have been made along the way, and they will look all the more impressive when they're not enmeshed in the back-and-forth of commentary as they are now. But you can't learn anything about what we've read, or even about the less controversial and more theoretical portions of the ideas I have wound around the arguments we have read, by reading the wiki. Makalika is not only right that there's been much heartfelt blogging, but also that this has displaced doing the intellectual job one might have thought the wiki was here to help us do. I said the wiki was for active listening, and instead it's turned out to be for arguing with me and worrying about whether I am so retributive towards people who are arguing with me that people might stop arguing with me. We can and will change the direction, working together to use the wiki in a more conventional and collaborative fashion. But I think the best part of Makalika's comment isn't just that she has shown a problem. It's that she's asked us to think about why we have the problem--not only in the sense of determining what it costs us, but also what it helps us to do, and in what therefore its attractiveness consists. And that's a very important question. Because inexperience in using wikis is not by any means the only cause in giving this one--made in this community's image--the character it has.
| | | | |
<
< | Barb, thanks for your constant support. Makalika, I admire what you say. You burst my bubble in a tenth of the time it took me to blow it up. My response is, To take on a "consilient" view of the class and the world it's about, I have conflated the class's form with its content. The use of the TWiki itself, and everything else unconventional about the class management, is part of the education. Everything in this class is so new, to legal education and to us, that it must be an experiment. For better or for worse, I have started a dialogue that will permit us to EXPERIENCE firsthand the ideas we're talking about. That seemed to me to be the preexisting theme of the course. I suppose I might have asked privately, but I also assumed that in WikiCulture? , Secrets Secrets Are No Fun. | >
> | AndrewGradman wrote on the 26th that he understood and accepted Makalika's conclusion, but that "at some early point [he] internalized the idea that the class is precisely About Questioning Authority," for which purpose it is clear the wiki is very adaptable. In addition, he argued, it is impossible in this class to "distinguish, for certain, the Form from the Content." These seem to me lucid and valuable statements. | | | | |
<
< | Your last sentence is the most compelling. It does teach me a lesson, which is that I should stop asking meta-questions of "What is this class about," and confront the material head-on. Still, at some early point I internalized the idea that the class is precisely About Questioning Authority. It's entirely possible I just brought that assumption to the table -- a chip on my shoulder. Either way, it makes me hesitate to take any one stand against the material. It makes me schizophrenic. Really, can anyone in this class distinguish, for certain, the Form from the Content? | >
> | Formatted and commented upon, with slight refactoring, by way of conclusion. | | | | |
<
< | P.S. Eben, there is one thing I'd like to apologize for, and that is setting a precedent for referring to you in the third person. I need to fire my proofreader.
-- AndrewGradman - 26 Jan 2008
rms | >
> | -- EbenMoglen - 28 Jan 2008. |
|