AIW’s 2010 launch meeting, November 23rd 2010 at CRI

#AIW on Twitter,, Live Cast, TwitterStreamGraphs, Collecta, flickr

Attended activities

Tour de table


  • Google case study
    • legal proxy
      • use Google court appeal on "AI" to "box" your problem
  • Nicholas Carr

Breve synthese

  • themes en regroupement
    • rapport humains au web
  • comment se fait-ce que l'on se retrouve a etudier un objet que nous avons nous-meme cree

Back to the Menu

Personal preparation

Constructing knowledge in community, architecture and consequences of the collaboration methods and tools used

slides presented : AIWProposal

From PIM small and heterogeneous community example to a general pattern within a competing environment

Between, Seeks, OurP.IM and of course major actors like Google, is there some form of emerging "organized notes" as "distributed cogitive processes communities" competition starting? Are there networks of cognitive agents self-organizing over nearly hermetic platforms? Is it equivalent to institutions we had until now?

Institutions have a goal, values, rules, methods even sometimes knowlege management system but now it's as if the KM or platform itself and its usage by the community is such an important decision that it shapes the community and its ability to reach the overarching goal and the goal of individual members.

Main questions

  1. what is the pattern?
    1. what is the canonical example?
    2. how is it structured internally and with links to others?
      1. improved results through active or passive collaboration
      2. group recognition
  2. what are the consequences for an individual to pick one over another?
    1. how can one stay informed of alternatives?
  3. is the hermetical aspect necessarily negative?
    1. what are the consequences of such platforms and practices being potentially all interconnected?
  4. how does being part of a community rather than another shapes back the cognitive habits of a member of this community?
    1. if one community is believed to before efficient than another, is a border build even though the goals of the two communities are similar? (some sort of justified tool elitism)
    2. should such borders be defined explicitly and if so, what would be the most efficient way?
      1. could those be directly embedded within the tool itself?
  5. is it really a competitive landscape?
    1. since one can only spend so much time participating to so many communities and actively constructing or passively generating knowledge, what are the consequences?
  6. are boundaries more important since geographical or spatial boundaries disappeared yet focus and attention did not increase?


  • wikis
  • FLOSS dvcs
    • GitHub, HG, SourceForge, ...
  • ML-driven social searches
    • Seeks, Google, ...
  • bibliography sharing
    • Zotero, Mendelei, ...
  • semantic web tools
    • DERI tools,
  • ...

Specify for each instances

  1. principle
  2. objective
  3. tools


To explore

  • computing languages and the decision to use one over another often relying on the access to the community knowledge
  • SocialNetworks, Tools especially communities
  • Wikipedia:Linguistic relativity, Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
  • discussion with TheSheep in freenode/#wiki 19/11/2010 10:50AM
  • discussion with Bocar in Joseph's place 20/11/2010
    • Le Geste et La Parole de Leroi-Gourhan
    • to generalize to anthropology and tools used in specific communities, their consequences on the group structure and success
  • MIT Center for Collective Intelligence (CCI)
  • one should not chose a community for its tools
    • yet should one leave a community for its bad choice of tools?
  • explicit rule system
  • apply EvolutionaryEpistemologyAsAScientificMethod
    • is the selection of the tool selections back who will be part of the community?
    • can the process be sum-up to the evolution of explicit or implicit community rules?
  • evolution of systems of rules (SoR) for collaboration aimed at knowledge construction
    • build a tree or chronological network of those systems of rules
      • for each SoR list features F with
        • outcomes Fo(like goal reached, amount of pages, number of participants, length of the project, etc)
        • specificities Fs(explicit rule systems, no boundaries, applying the 8 rules, implicit contribution, explicit contribution, nominative contribution, see contributions from other contributors, can directly contact other contributors, etc)
        • note that outcomes and specificities are not limited to technical features, as some might be available yet not used why others might be "enforced" socially
      • extract correlation of specificity to outcomes Fs -> Fo
        • determine SoRideal, eventually multiple non-existing SoRideal that would maximize list of Fo
  • visualization
    • network of participants, distinction of each platform (or SoR instances), distinguish categorizations (mutually exclusive SoR instances
    • cf example in paper notebook
  • apply evolutionary game theory to test and compare the list multiple non-existing SoRideal generated earlier
  • The Immuno-Dynamics of Conflict Intervention in Social Systems, PLoS ONE August 2011
  • Self-organization in Communicating Groups: the emergence of coordination, shared references and collective intelligence by Francis Heylighen, Language and Complexity Barcelona University Press 2011

Back to the Menu

Own objectives

  1. get feedback on structure of my proposal
  2. learn
  3. propose collaboration on Cognition#WikiBrainMapping

Back to the Menu

Other reviews

  • here

To do

  1. improve Template
  2. 14 dec
    1. fin de semaine prochaine pr la proposition de papiers a lire
      1. et a proposer !
  4. consider
    1. read
  5. synthesize current proposal, add above link
  6. move to AIW02 with trail

<< | AIW events | AIW02 >>