I am interested in seeing if folks want to set up some guidelines for our online collaboration. I am going to add one or two here and then, if you think this will facilitate our collaboration, you should add your own. Hopefully this will increase comfort level with the medium and, as a result, increase engagement.

1. Don't make assumptions about a contributors personal story (class, country of origin, etc.)

2. Read something twice, assuming the best intentions of the author, before responding (reading your own comments twice before posting)

3. Criticism should be both constructive and respectful in order to facilitate collective learning (SC)

-- AdamCarlis - 25 Jan 2008

Criticism is an important part of debate and discussion. But, our goal is to learn collectively so criticism should reflect that goal. It should be both constructive and respectful.

-- StephenClarke - 25 Jan 2008

N+1: An author should indicate, where relevant,
A. What stage of completion his post is at (e.g. early draft, late draft, final), and
B. What form of critique he prefers (e.g. none until edited, answer the questions only and/or put other critiques on a new thread, suggest improvements).
N+2. Respect those requests.
N+3. As soon as JustinColannino is no longer editing this document, someone can assign a value to N and delete N+3.

-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

I think that most of the non-Gradman norms so far pretty much boil down to what most of us would consider (construct as, sure) common sense.

However, I disagree with Andrew's drafting protocol (though as a practical matter I am sure people will respect such requests if they're reading carefully enough). The RSS and e-mail update notifications--even WebChanges--are a lot more useful if you draft your work in its own place (your computer, another web service, the Sandbox, or where-have-you). Why not wait to post until you're ready for people to reply?

-- DanielHarris - 25 Jan 2008

Some folks WANT a burger and fries without a soda, an HP without ink cartridges, a lift ticket without insurance. If you'll predict whether my half-baked ideas have a future, I'll withdraw the ones that don't, and save us both the misery.

For example: now I won't tell you what rule N+4 was. (Hint: it violates rule 3)

-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

Rule N+5: No prior restraint.

-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

---

---

Please Take Note

1. On the specifics of draft marking and so on, I should point out for those who aren't experienced with wikis that one property of wiki systems is that they save every version of every document. If you haven't yet experimented with the diffs button, you might want to do so. You can and should draft in the wiki. People can then see how your thinking (and their thinking, and everyone's thinking) evolves. The usual practice is to "refactor"--or consolidate--pages periodically, by replacing the long threads of discussion with a responsible summary of the points made; the person refactoring is accountable to the group for the clarity with which she or he renders the points made, briefly, transmitting the essence of each point of view. That's another part of the active listening test. I will soon begin assigning people to refactor the discussions that are building up on certain topics. Once refactoring begins, the diffs of the page become even more important, because they show what was summarized and allow judgment of the quality of the editing.
2. On the question of freedom to mark up, I'm going to use the technology at our disposal to enforce the following standards:
   • Any topic not specifically restricted can be edited by anyone. Remember that all previous versions can be restored by anyone else, which simply makes a new version in turn. The latest version and all the diffs constitute a complete history of the topic's evolution, and no one version is "final" or "right" as against all other versions. Freedom to revise is not dependent on format: Just because a topic doesn't have a Comment box doesn't mean you can't edit it. The edit button means what it says around here, which is also the local definition of freedom of speech.
   • All topics consisting of essays submitted as part of the evaluation process will be restricted. Only I and the student submitting the paper will initially be allowed to mark it up. Students submitting papers can however opt at any point in their evolution to put a comment box on their paper's topic page, after which discussion can then be generated there in the usual way and editability will be restored. I would ordinarily expect people to work their papers through the evaluation process with me, placing the comment box on each essay when it is in the finished form in which it was or will be graded.
   • Other topics can be technologically restricted when created, at the request of the topic's initial author.

-- EbenMoglen - 26 Jan 2008

It turns out that wiki is a very good medium for active listeners.

I should have noticed this. I erred in saying that our only mandate was that the TWiki be "some kind of a learning tool." In isolation, I read that as our Declaration of Independence. Moglen's post reminds me of this second mandate. (I say "mandate" because I actively listen descriptive statements into prescriptive ones).

Apparently, in the land of active listeners, I'm not just a revolutionary but an illegal immigrant -- i.e., a poor active listener -- a Lenin, who came to exploit a captive audience of active listeners and hear himself talk. To clumsily extend the metaphor (as one does, when he is actively listening only to himself), I thought TWiki was a more fertile audience than the classroom, and besides, the classroom power had forged my passport. Blowback, as they say.

It scares me a little to know that someone's going to refactor my words, I'm not gonna lie. Had Lenin known how his words got refactored by his next spokesman, he might have spoken more carefully. Even he would have passed that active listening test. Unfortunately, he was dead.

It's tempting to insert footnotes under

Lesson learned: Revolutionaries die, but their words live on, and they're their words live aft, and now I get to suffer the indignity of watching them get "refactored" by a bunch of Trotskyites.

but the whole idea of "captive audiences"

of gradegivers The usual practice is to "refactor"--or consolidate--pages periodically, by replacing the long threads of discussion with a responsible summary of the points made; the person refactoring is accountable to the group for the clarity with which she or he renders the points made, briefly, transmitting the essence of each point of view. That's another part of the active listening test. I will soon begin assigning people to refactor the discussions that are building up on certain topics.

-- AndrewGradman - 26 Jan 2008