Note: OGM Forum is no longer active. This is a static snapshot as of February 2022. You can browse the site to see posts, but the functional features of the site will not work. You can search or download a zip archive of the files from the site at github/OpenGlobalMind/

An OGM Wiki: Preview & Planning

For a while now, OGM has needed better shared memory. I’m going to make a bold assertion and say that a good platform would be a wiki – an OGM Wiki.

I’ve been holding off of even really suggesting such a thing because all the wiki platforms haven’t quite fit our needs. But together with a few others – Bill, Charles, Vincent, and Jerry – I think we’ve come up with a platform architecture that will serve OGM well.

It’s minimally usable now, but it will become a lot more user-friendly in a month or two. I don’t want to focus too much on the platform yet (unless you really want to geek out with us to help make it more user-friendly!).

But with the platform coming together, I think it’s a good time to talk start talking about the contents and operation of the wiki itself. What would we use a wiki for? What teams of volunteers do we need to make it a community asset? How would we arrange information and knowledge in a wiki? How would an OGM wiki interface with other communities’ knowledgebases?

Let’s explore those and any other questions in two pop-up OGM exploration calls I will host this week:

Tuesday 3/16, 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 5:30pm UTC / 6:30pm CET
Wednesday 3/17, 8:00am PDT / 11:00am EDT / 3:00pm UTC / 4:00pm CET

We’ll record and share the meetings. Don’t worry if you can’t make it this time, these are early explorations, and we’ll continue to do more over the coming weeks and months.


Congratulations to you guys for making the leap from thinking about it to action!

@peterkaminski how would you describe the overall purpose of the OGM wiki?

I can see a variety of needs that it may serve, but the dream of its inceptors is a large factor in the original conditions that will have an even larger impact on the wiki’s evolution as a complex adaptive knowledge system!


Thank you, George!

the overall purpose of the OGM wiki

I only have a meta-dream, to help elicit an overall purpose for an OGM wiki from OGM community.

the dream of its inceptors is a large factor in the original conditions

I definitely agree! I would also add that if the community doesn’t have a strong overall purpose for a wiki, it’s best to hold off until it does.

I’m looking forward to seeing the process unfold!


Speaking of Wiki Dan Whaley

founder of Hypothesis put it best:
“I love this concept of the wiki-link: just name it and it’s created. So powerful. It should be everywhere and in everything.”

If you haven’t watched this talk by Ward Cunningham, it’s well worth it.

“When you reach the edge of your knowledge, conjure up a name for what you know is out there and create a page for it with that name.”


collective knowledge co-gardening of all that is and/or potentially is “OGM”

ps — thx to the hungarians for energizing here :smiley:

I only have a meta-dream, to help elicit an overall purpose for an OGM wiki from OGM community.

@Technoshaman, I guess this answer, while true, is also a little glib and misses some of the point of your query. In particular, the meta-inceptors will be providing scaffolding which will hopefully start to elicit an overall purpose for an OGM wiki from the OGM community, which will inevitably affect original conditions.

The first things I imagine in an OGM wiki that is both practically useful in the short term, and a scaffold for community ownership of the complex adaptive system in the longer term:

  • people directory
  • guilds directory
  • general calendar
  • general information about OGM
  • collected pointers to call artifacts (recordings, transcripts, etc.)
  • meeting notes
  • patterns
  • the start of some topic-based discussions
  • whatever other bits and bobs will help to illuminate and ignite social processes around understanding the purpose of the wiki, starting to structure, garden, and improve the information space

Some straw ideas of phases:

  • Preview & Planning meetings (2-4 weeks)
  • Introduction to Wiki meetings and mentions in regular calls (2 weeks)
  • Wiki Barn Raising meetings (4-8 weeks)

@lovolution and I have talked also about a CSC Commons + CICOLAB wiki, which would be evolving at the same time the OGM Wiki is evolving.

I’m starting with the opinion that it will help the OGM community to start with a separate wiki, rather than to participate in a commons wiki, but 1) with the platform we’re using, it’ll be reasonably easy for wikis to federate, and 2) the opinion is very weakly held, I’d be happy to change my mind.

1 Like

OGM Wiki meeting attendees:

Here is some TOTALLY OPTIONAL prep for this week’s OGM Wiki call. We may use some of these technologies, we may not. Attendees will not have to use any of them, I’ll be screensharing and explaining as necessary, if necessary.

Also to note, these technologies are levers we’re using for now, and I do not mean to say that everyone will need to know or use them in a few months!

I am somewhat surprised at this topic suggestion. I joined this group because I had gotten the perhaps wrong idea that OGM itself was to become something like this – something akin to the concept I have been working on for years under the heading 'planning discourse support platform, where I could offer my non-expert ideas for discussion by people more expert in the skills needed to actually develop and run such platforms. The ideas I see so far look like nothing ever had been thought or done about the need for something like this before – and they seem to be preoccupied with ‘administrative’ issues like membership lists and ID passwords and captchas, etc. (ok, I admit they are needed, but can’t that draw on existing tools?), not with the content issues am worried about. Content that will lead to agreements about ideas for real change or improvement of what we (global WE,) are doing or should be doing.
To be more specific (but of course not ‘exclusive’) about this ‘content’ issue:
Can the expertise and insight and wisdom of folks in a group like this (I know several of the usual suspects that qualify…) be activated to discuss and articulate meaningful proposals, recommendations about what to do about the various challenges we face? That is, proposals that are not just proposed manifestoes and wishful thinking, even breathless comments about why the … humanity can’t see its evil ways and repent, but actually examine arguments pro as well as con, ideas for reconciling them, and present their recommendations as the result of transparent, thorough evaluation.
Perhaps that is asking too much? I have made various proposals, for discussion, that suggest that we can do this. Likely just first steps, with many improvements both needed and possible / feasible.
Having no resources (living on retirement and doing this without institutional support) for actual development and testing and marketing all that, I have sketched out the overall concepts – ( in articles like ‘P D S S - REVISED’ on and some FB group archives) as well as scaled down versions like the ‘pilot’ platform that could be implemented on the FB platform for experimentation. Are such things of interest to this group?
I noticed Jack Park’s reference to IBIS, which is also the basis for my work, but adding the element of evaluation of arguments (which I feel is essential to the usefulness of such tools. It looks like he has given up on that, and perhaps even resorting to older concepts like ‘Ontologies’ for problem domains, to be the basis for structuring such platforms. (Please correct me if that impression is mistaken, Jack?).
The more realistic and feasible principle is, in my still ‘ibissified’ opinion, that the structure of the record will emerge with the discourse, according to the issues /topics injected, and their relationships as introduced by comments. But that is perhaps just prematurely jumping into the discussion before it is even on the agenda – perhaps a general agreements must be reached about what is the difference between a general KB, a Wiki, a discussion format like the current OGM structure (which I find difficult to navigate), an IBIS ( with its different incomplete incarnations like Compendium or Debategraph etc…) or the pilot proposal I suggest we try out? The purpose of each? And the basic principles for their design?


In my Back to the Future “Research programme” that I wrote up as a paper submitted to the International Semantic Web Conference in 2019 I envisaged building a Kernel for Web 3.0 and get it started by being able to Weave a Decentralized Semantic Web of (Personal) Knowledge
Since then I found and teamed up with Building on top of their WebNative file system created the possibility of delivering a Kernel for Web 3.0 so that we can be weaving a decentralized inter Planetary and Inter Personal Networks of People connecting through shared Intents/Meaning and significance AND tinkerable commons based peer produced capabilities. In a way it is the simplest possible kernel for a new paradigm of collaboration built from trust for trust. I am trying to sell the community the stone, so that people can make their own soup. A minimal workable prototype will be available here real soon . It will be a community wiki for all interested in engaging in conversations that would inform and actually contribute to boostrapping such capabilities and work together to build that great list of capabilities listed above real fast real soon. This could all be a way to “feed” and complement the emerging OGM Wiki that is better placed to federate and hold together the wider OGM community with ready pathways from Personal networked thinking tools.

OGM Wiki call, Wednesday 3/24

I will be hosting a 1-hour OGM Wiki call Wednesday 3/24 (tomorrow) at 15:00 UTC / 08:00 PDT / 11:00 EDT / 16:00 CET.

(The best time for those who answered yesterday’s Doodle poll is tomorrow morning, so that’s when the call will be. Apologies for the short notice on the call!)

Draft Agenda

  • 20 minutes on MaSVF Wiki Starter Guide (pre-release version)
  • 10 minutes transition time / check-ins
  • 30 minutes on OGM Wiki content, organization, purpose

Call Recording

I’ll record the call and post the recording to YouTube afterwards.

Here is the YouTube playlist with all (2 so far, lol) the OGM Wiki calls:

About OGM Wiki

A team of adventurers is coalescing around the creation of an OGM Wiki. We hope it will help OGM:

  • introduce anyone and the world to who we are and what we do
  • provide an entry roadmap to who we are and what we do
  • help distill what we’ve learned and share it easily with others
    • e.g., pattern languages
  • keep track of things
  • and much more!

You’re welcome to join us at one of our calls, or at our Mattermost chat channel: