Semantic web of views: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''semantic web of views''' is a fictional way to represent [[instructional capital]]. It combines [[semantic web]], [[politics as usual]], [[business as usual]] and in the end is supposed to somehow end up neat, clean and agreed on. | The '''semantic web of views''' is a fictional way to represent [[instructional capital]]. It combines [[semantic web]], [[politics as usual]], [[business as usual]] and in the end is supposed to somehow end up neat, clean and agreed on. | ||
This seems unlikely, if not stupid. | This seems unlikely, if not stupid. [[Wikinfo]] is the closest anyone has come so far. Accordingly we might ask [[Fred Bauder]] his opinion on this question: | ||
:''Can one objectively define a [[point of view]] and [[what to accept as fact|statements regarding reality]] that are clearly attributable to that view?'' | |||
::If so, [[faction]]s are the obvious way forward | |||
::If not, then clearly a [[Research Wiki]] or even a [[Publish Wiki]] will always contain a lot of what some people call "[[opinion]]". | |||
Latest revision as of 16:55, 5 August 2004
The semantic web of views is a fictional way to represent instructional capital. It combines semantic web, politics as usual, business as usual and in the end is supposed to somehow end up neat, clean and agreed on.
This seems unlikely, if not stupid. Wikinfo is the closest anyone has come so far. Accordingly we might ask Fred Bauder his opinion on this question:
- Can one objectively define a point of view and statements regarding reality that are clearly attributable to that view?
- If so, factions are the obvious way forward
- If not, then clearly a Research Wiki or even a Publish Wiki will always contain a lot of what some people call "opinion".