Hello Fridemar, your links to your blog at blogspot seems to be blocked due to spam links linking to this domain. I don't know if these spam links occured often or not. -- MarkusLude
Hi Markus, nice to make your acquaintance. I moved the current content of my homepage to the CommunityWiki,leaving a BidirectionalLink. Reason: it is currently impossible to get an external link to my blog address in MeatballWiki. I am sticking to the principle of CommunityWiki:OnceAndOnlyOnce, Wiki:OnceAndOnlyOnce . It looks as if here are partners for the idea of WikiBlogging and WikiWeaving in the CommunityWiki and its connected wikis. I remain strongly connected to MeatballWiki and offer to join the Anti Wiki Spam group here. To defend against WikiSpam we need to make AffiliatedWikis, helping each other with their wo/manpower. By the way, let's make TwinPages of the BeggingTwinPage? of the CommunityWiki with WardsWiki ;-)
Hey Mark, what magic do you use here? -- FridemarPache
Have you read DigestedSummary, Fridemar? -- ChrisPurcell
Thank you Chris, I have read it now completely. Inspired by this, I try to:
Indeed daunting, but it makes life much easier for everyone else ;)
Essentially, the goal is to inform people whether they will enjoy reading the changes, not to reiterate the changes. I've got a few suggestions:
Does all this make sense? DigestedSummary is an on-going experiment, but I believe these guidelines are helpful. -- ChrisPurcell
Thank you Chris, Lion: as you can see from my latest digest and as I can see from your friendly notes, I feel we get more and more into resonance. -- FridemarPache
Regarding your recent spate of page-creation, could you not just pick one name for a page and standardize on it? We also don't need plural->singular redirects for simple plurals, as one can write e.g. TwinPages. If you must create a redirect, could you mark the edit as a CopyEdit in the digest, to avoid HijackingRecentChanges? (Not that there's a lot of changes to hijack right now, but it's good practice ;) -- ChrisPurcell
It doesn't take long to learn the syntax, but if you want to create the plural forms, be my guest. However, it's best to standardize the name as early as possible: if nothing else, using four names for the same concept makes it harder for people to get up to speed on a topic ("what's TwinBall? *click* oh, it's the same as TwinWikiBall. well, TwinWiki must be the same then...") IMO -- ChrisPurcell
Thank you Hans: yes, I am still using DiiGo for social bookmarking and social annotations, I even founded a Diigo usergroup for CommunityWiki:SecondLife, inspired by CommunityWiki (thank you Lion for discovering and sharing the awareness for SecondLife). Together with DiiGo, I now use TrailFire, a free social annotation service, that too has nearly reached Wiki-functionality. All earlier ideas condense now in the DomainsWiki project, where currently only the tip of the iceberg can be seen. I know you as a pioneer for innovations. So it would make me very happy to see you and all similar minded wikizens in the boat. -- FridemarPache
Thank you Bayle, nice to see you back in Meatball. Do you know, how to update my portrait in CommunityWiki:FridemarPache. I remember faintly, initialising it was rather complicated. As you know better than myself the inner workings of Community Wiki, your advise would be appreciated. -- [fridemar]
Disclaimer: The authors of this page and all other pages distance themselves from the content of all those links, that contain illegal or unethical content. All produced links are only for the convenience of exploring the Wiki and the Web for similar, but legal ideas and openening up legal and ethical forms of explicit and IncidentalCollaboration. -- FridemarPache
TwinPages:[MoinMoin] [WardsWiki] [CommunityWiki][CraoWiki]
Fridemar, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, your uber-hypertextual writing style creates a ForestFire, not just on MeatballWiki, but across several competing but similar meta-critic services (Diigo, TrailFire, your blog), makes it seem like you are having a conversation with yourself where others are meant to be mere spectators. Speaking from my own experience at managing collaborative projects successfully and unsuccessfully, if you continue to make opaque decisions about the project, you are failing at being an OpenBusiness (cf. OpenProcess), and so I predict others will have a hard time collaborating.
Make it possible for others than yourself to predict where the conversation is continuing. The best way, actually, is to join in someone else's already ongoing conversation by adding something of value that they both want and need. That will establish the foundational PersonalRelationships that will carry you forward.
Spending more time actively listening to what others have to say is more efficient than pushing forward (and occasionally laterally to another hyperspace when the forward direction seems blocked) through an active but as yet unsupportive engagement. This is because a conflicting interaction is exactly the kind of interaction that you want, as it demonstrates active interest in what you're doing, even if the person has not yet converted to being a supporter. They are at least listening to what you have to say, which is a rare event that needs to be cultivated, not deflected. -- SunirShah
To be honest, Fridemar, I'm not sure I understand any of your recent additions. For example, what is the link you added to ForgiveAndForget meant to do? Are the titled Google searches on CreatingAndSharingWealth supposed to act as some form of meta-SisterSite linkage? Also, what is the point of adding Google searches for "Bill Gates" and even "fridemar" to the bottom of the page? I'm getting a distinct feeling of InformationOverload. -- EarleMartin
Fridemar, over the years, there is a repeated anti-pattern where community members that want to see you succeed explain their repeated frustrations that they cannot understand what you're saying. They consequently offer suggestions in good faith they believe will help clarify things, and you suggest a counter-solution which is to keep doing what you were doing. Eventually, there is some more frustrated response decrying what you are doing, and then you disappear for 6-18 months.
After 7 years, how successful has this cycle been? I like that you are here, and I want to see you succeed. However, I also wonder if both of us can do better, because there has been little effectively accomplished in all this time from this cycle. -- SunirShah
Sunir, definitively. I think so too, that we both and we all can do much better. I am very happy on your emotional message and the growing common awareness.
So (with a good feeling) let's peer-review my following answer, I had written, before I reentered this page, such that it reflects better, what I mean, in plain English . My question is: How would you, as a native English speaker, reformulate my part, such that it is easier to grog?
On it goes:
Sunir, thank you for your friendly hints. I just was going to write another contribution to seed new value, to attract "supportive engagement", instead of mostly "unsupportive engagement", as you exactly describe it.
I think ForestFire is not the most helpful term, to describe my intentions. Let me term it "Friendly Constructive Social Chain Reaction With The Goal To Create A Social Common Wealth" to neutralize implied moral judgements.
Then this hopefully evolving idea wouldn't be loaded with all the negative associations, that are bound to Forest Fire.
To avoid Forest Fire in the sense of information overload, I used external Google links instead of intra wiki links, which are meant to save time for readers (included myself), who want to explore the broader context and at the same time serving as a tool to stimulate inter community communication.
Let me "uber-hypertextual writing style" reformulate for fairness as "link-rich writing style". Concerning Diigo and Trailfire, I use link-rich annotations for the advancement of the wiki principles in annotation engines and communities. It cost me an incredible amount of worktime to convince decision-makers to incorporate more wikiness as well as some new ideas, which I sketched in TagWiki.
"conversation with yourself where others are meant to be mere spectators". Happily you and Earle are just helping me out of this trap. We all know that being connected makes us much more happy and efficient, than monologues.
"continue to make opaque decisions about the project". We two agree, that opaque decisions as BackRoomDecisions are counterproductive to OpenBusiness. However, I am not aware of opaque decisions on my part, on the contrary: I didn't exchange private messages with anybody to offer business opportunities in Meatball. Did you notice my open letter to Bayle? Sunir, feel free to pinpoint to anything, to increase my awareness and sensibility.
Let me reformulate it for fairness as: Having the courage to act in an until yet unseen provokative open process, taking the risks of being ridiculed, you have made it easier for other peers to practise open business in wikis.
To make me more predictive, would mean that I myself would become a prophet on my own inspirations. Every now and then there are coming new ones. No peer here can predict their forthcoming ideas.
Information is measured by the degree of surprise.
Listen and joining other peer's conversation. Giving value. Wants and needs. D'accord. We all like that. Me too ;-) Open Personal Relationships, not Opaque Personal Relationships, if I understand it right.
At the same time, I pondered, how to source-out the workload, necessary to build up the new paradigm of HoofSmith team-working. If googling for OpenBusiness, OpenBusinessWiki, I found "only" places, where the ideas of open business are "discussed", however not practised in a consequent way.
Perhaps a lot more must be said to improve understanding. I hope our conversation will converge to something, we all are happy with.
Hi Earle, thank you for asking. Let's try to be more conversational, i.e. shorter questions and answers, doing it together, step for step. What was the problem with ForgiveAndForget? Did you click the TrailFire annotation link at the bottom of the page? In case you have not installed the Trailfire plugin, you might have had problems with the popup annotation window. I ask this, because I couldn't check it myself yet on my PC at home without deinstalling the plugin. Next week, I am in the library, where I can check it from an external PC, where there is no Trailfire plugin installed. I don't want to deinstall it temporarily .. you know: "never change a running horse" :-) So please tell me if the annotation window came up properly? -- Fridemar
Fridemar, I agree with Sunir. I don't think that your interaction pattern for "friendly social construction of value", in my words "hyping domains to create $" is successful, especially here, at the down-to-the-earth, over-realistic meatball community. As far as I see, there is nobody interested in fighting your idea, most just note that they do not understand it and are not motivated to participate. So the network of pages will probably exist here until you run out of energy, in 6-12 months, and then be refactored into a description of an experiment. The interesting question that I get out of this is, what do SocialConstructions need to succeed? -- HelmutLeitner
Helmut, since I agree with Sunir on the constructive parts, I agree with you too.
The same holds for the non-constructive parts, where I currently don't agree with Sunir and in the same I don't agree with you. In this sense, I don't agree that words like "hyping domains to create $" help us each other. Anyhow, thanks to your hint: the author made this now more explicit in the new intro of SocialCommonWealth. The re-formulation: "developing domains to create wealth" is more down-to-the-earth and doesn't discriminate the peers.
E.g. look at the concept of a TagWiki, which has a real value by sketching the concept. The author doesn't say: "The rest is left as a trivial exercise", because he knows to appreciate the programming part from his own experience. I'll perhaps sketch it out even more, to make it more valuable and attractive.
I don't agree with "nobody is interested". Such a statement could do harm to the author, HansWobbe, SamRose, the project, MeatballWiki and you too. So let's help each other to use [NonViolentCommunication].
At last I supported your [BrainStorming] SocialConstructions [SocialConstructions] initiative, by deleting the Deleled Page pragma and reformulating the critical part, externally assigned to Fridemar, to make it more helpful for each other.
Fridemar, I don't believe your are acting in bad faith. I am worried about three things:
What do you suggest to help each other to be successful.
What is the measure for the success of the Social Common Wealth? What do you suggest to help each other to be successful?
-- SunirShah, reformulated again
Fair enough. I'd like to hear your constructive ideas. -- SunirShah
Sunir, I am happy to see, that we both are flexible learners. -- Fridemar
I'm getting a bit frustrated. You can keep rewriting what I am saying over and over again, but you're not really addressing or respecting what I, or anyone else, is saying. To me, it seems that you are implying the communication breakdown is on everyone else's shoulders, and you have no responsibility in the relationships. -- SunirShah
I'd also like to point out that I had not originally put any question about your intentions, merely the efficacy of your approach. However, as a conversation has failed to develop, it would be helpful to know if it actually matters to your objectives whether or not we understand or are interested in your project. If we're talking apples and oranges here, it would explain a lot. As Steve Jobs once put it, it's all well and good to argue about how to drive to San Diego, but if one person secretly wants to drive to San Jose, nothing will get done. Maybe we're aiming for different outcomes. -- SunirShah
Sorry Sunir, I don't want to frustrate you or anyone else and in the same I don't want be frustrated. So let's try to calm down both, while I am pondering on constructive answers to your questions. I think we both are very sensible and it needs some time to recover. -- fridemar
Fair enough. My goal is see your response rates improve, not to be a ColdBlanket. -- SunirShah
So let me first address the strategy of spreading my ideas. Of course, I am aware, that no single person can own an idea, but s/he can support it. The claim to 'own' an idea, is probably the most efficient method, to stop it from propagating. So I have mixed feelings when talking on "my" ideas. The best thing, is of course to support such ideas, that help solve problems for a lot of people. You pointed into this direction. Therefore I think a SocialCommonWealth is such an idea or goal, that deserves it to be spread. (A) There must be already recognizable forces into the direction of the goal. And indeed Social Bookmarking, Social Annotation, Social Collaboration are definitively there. (B) Social Communities have the power to disseminate ideas for nearly zero costs, abstracting from work. Therefore their replication power attracts such commercial players, who want to propagate their "ideas", e.g. to "buying beer from our company is a good idea".:-) . This frustrates of course a lot of members, because it disturbes the flow of their community-specific interactions. (C) Now Links are a shorthand for messages, that point to some external more or less qualified "ideas". If such unwanted links are inserted in Forums or Wikis, or worse: overwrite community stuff, then they produce a lot of different, even anticipatory, repelling reactions of their target community or administrators. (LinkSpam) To improve the response rate :), I make a pause, listening what you and the other peers have to say until yet. -- fridemar
Ok, I'd like you to consider this. Ideas aren't spread through links, but through people. Outside an established relationship where a lot of context has already been pre-established, a link is not a message. If we've learnt anything about hypertext in the last 10 years, links are distractions from getting your point across. They merely support messages, but often they get in the way. The last ten years has been a strong repudiation of hypertext theory from the 1980s. When your goal is growing an idea, your primary mission is to establish new relationships with people, maintain your existing ones, and invest in all of them.
By the way, we had an argument about this very same thing five years ago, when you argued that links mattered more because of TheSingularity, and thus machine agents were the primary readers. Are you still operating under that frame of reference? -- SunirShah
Sunir, I think we both are right. Ideas are spread through people. Yes. Our common ethics is based on interacting peers to help each other. "Love your neighbour as yourself". BarnRaising, the fundamental message of the MeatballWiki. Now the practical question is: how can we reach all those scattered people, "being in resonance", relating to each other, joining forces? Writing until here, I embedded two links in the text, that support my arguments. Every peer in our Wiki of course knows most probably the above mentioned link targets from the MeatballMission  statement. But in the wider blogosphere and the annotation communities, in which I post this answer to your questions, this goes not without saying and linking. I think until here we can agree without efforts. Warning: Don't click on all the following links now, if you have not special interests in a subset of these links. [InformationOverload] might be experienced. These links are for different potential audiences. Now comes the tricky part, where I hope to convince you and as many as possible peers that [RichLinkText] language is an efficient style to create [IncidentalCollaboration]. I wrote these [LongMixedCaseTags] with a simple [AutoHotkey] macro, I jotted down in , given as annotation. Such tags, even generated tiny tools, produces obvious benefits. Not only for me, but also for all the peers, who can use it out of the box, to reduce their typing effort. It creates value for the readers, who need less keystrokes to get Google search results and it creates value, by taking away the burdon from the author to make longer texts to bring over his argument, that can be found expanded at the targets. There are some benefits for the readers: [BrainStormingByGoogle]. Looking for interesting WikiPages, that might exist, listed by Google or that are [WantedWikiPages]. By the way, Google solves the [WikiPluralProblem], as I often noticed, when searching with a plural form and getting results with the singular. Most of the time the author found (not empty references to wiki pages or such Long Mixed Case Tags communities, who use them as high precision tools. The idea of a [GoogleTagWiki] is on my todo list. Sorry for the stance for Rich Link Text. I don't do it to annoy people, but hope to stimulate some new research tools, where machine agents support [RichLinkText] contributions.
Now to the other questions:
Fridemar, I still also fail to grasp the basic concepts you are proposing, both with
1. annotation/link activity
2. and with the discussion we started at OpenBusiness, and proposals you've left elsewhere about buying domains.
One problem that I have with 1. is that it is too much for me to follow, too many links that don't resolve into anything that is readily useful. I just don't get it, and I've read all of your explanations here in Meatball. Also, if these links are meant to try and connect me with people from another community, I have yet to see them engage the Meatball community. So, the links alone are not doing the job of creating connections. Plus, the format of the links is interesting, but too much work for me to decipher.
The problem I have with 2. is that I can't see a clear explanation of why I should buy the domains you are suggesting that I buy? What do you expect people to do, exactly?
You counted me as a supporter of your ideas, so I thought I should speak up and honestly tell you that , to this day, I have only a very foggy notion of what you are struggling with here.
Also, I agree with Sunir that you seem to avoid directly addressing and answering questions with simple explanations, which is very frustrating. Because, I want to understand what you are talking about, but you've got to level on the line. Lay things out so that anyone coming across can understand. CommunityWiki:PlainTalk to me, baby!
Also, I am frankly unconvinced that group-buying domains will make us all financially independent. Can you show me some hard data about the resale of domains, that will convince me to agree with you that "Yes, this is a great idea!"? -- SamRose
Hey Sam, it's really a brandnew idea and this causes resistance. Since the idea is in its earliest stage, you are right, there is the fog of a new day. But with every day, peers can work for letting this idea come out clearer and clearer. As soon as it is totally clear, it is boring, at least for creative and constructive peers, who are always on the quest for innovations. And what is more: the best opportunities for Open Business pioneers are gone. Of course it doesn't cause much work to make comments in plain text, especially if one is a native speaker of English. This appears to be unfortunately the current state of most wikis. As soon as some real work is involved, the peers are forced out of the wikis, for they have to care for their families, that there is "food on the table". I think ChrisPurcell would love to apply his expertise to wikis, but without financial payout, this appears to be impossible. So I suggest to you, Sam, Chris, Hans, Sunir, Helmut, Lion and all the other peers here, to buy the rest of the domains of GoogleTagWiki. And should there be more helping hands, who have proven, that they contribute value to the community, then please let us share the Google Tag Wiki domain-pool and other domain pools for collaborating on the concept. And by the way, why should I be the only author to initiate new ideas and concepts, from which all participants can prosper. Sam, I know that you can and do more, than only stating your doubts. Instead of burdening upon me the proof, let's share it. "The proof of the pudding is to eat it". :-) -- fridemar
2007-06-15 Fridemar... - I could contribute some "negative" proof, but... - Hans
I strongly prefer to not make negative statements, especially when it does me no harm to simply keep my opinions to myself, rather than possibly being a WetBlanket? on someone else's enthusiasm. I am making this statement simply to clarify that my silence on this subject should not be interpreted as agreement. I am currenly being "propositioned" by several folks who wish me to buy domain names. One of the reasons that I am tolerating these interruptions (rather than merely having them filtered out) is that I am gaining some hard metrics regarding these "offers" and the "value proposition" being offered, and the "negotiating style of those making the offers. Based on this recent information, it is becoming increasingly obvious that I believe I have better uses (more profitable ones) for the money I manage than to buy domain names.
If there is sufficient interest in reviewing some of this data, I can make some of it available SLOWLY during the next couple of months.
For the record, I am only offering to do this because I agree that hard data may be helpful. I do not wish to take the "opposed" side in a debate of whether or not these ideas are good.
-- HansWobbe ... P.S. Fridemar - This is your HomePage. I think some of this material should likely be removed to another page, if only because I try not to get into a 'debate' when visiting a host, and I believe others may feel the same when they are in a 'guest' situation.
Thank you Hans, for your hints. Yes, there is interest for additional opportunities, you offer to the community. I never said, that developing new ideas and relying on the possible revenue, coming from selling such developed domains, must be the only source of revenue for peers. Responding to your relocation tip, I do this in two steps, if there is agreement.
Step 1: Putting it in a Wiki Mail Archive (as I have seen in other wikis). Step 2: Asking all the peers here (myself included), if we want some of our material having removed or condensed.
Hans, your suggestion of the way to engage Fridemar's project is a good one, and I'll follow your lead. Fridemar, thanks for answering my questions. I understand now that this is an idea that you are exploring, and that you don't have data that you've already collected about the domains you've suggested people buy.
After Reading GoogleTagWiki, I think I now understand the rest of your proposal. I am not personally interested in participating in the project, but I wish you the best of luck. -- SamRose
Fridemar, now that I understand the linking project, I'm going to make a judgment call as Editor. Since the GoogleTagWiki isn't working (yet), it's hurting your ability to communicate your ideas, since it makes pages unreadable by humans. So, if you drop these links on high quality pages on MeatballWiki, you are damaging MeatballWiki's legibility as a whole, which already is bad enough. Therefore, please don't, especially on pages you didn't create to advocate your own ideas. I'll start editing out those changes. -- SunirShah
Sam, Sunir: thank you for your feedback. This is by far not the only idea of a project within Open Business, that we hopefully can share. I am open for your suggestions, too. Sunir, if you think so, just do it, but I know we'll have to share a lot of mixed feelings. Together we raise each other's barn. -- fridemar
Fridemar, I removed the google search links that you added to a contribution of Sam Rose. I do not think that an average intelligent person needs a separate link prepared to help him google. If it were, a technical solution - for adding a small icon and link to all wiki links and wanted pages - would be much simpler. -- HelmutLeitner
Helmut, if you and Sam think so, it's ok. I think, it is a small service to each one (who has not the Liquid Text plugin installed) to save themselves keystrokes. Thank you anyhow for notifying. On the other hand, peers who prefer the query links, can usually find them in my blog, accessable by clicking on my signature. -- fridemar
Hi Fridemar, I left you a message about the UniversalWikiEditButton process here: http://www.aboutus.org/UWEB:Status/FridemarPache -- TedErnst
Thank you Ted for giving me the honor to support the campaign. I started to convince MarkDilley and left my mediation record on my blog, that can be accessed via my trailing signature. -- [fridemar]
I think the linking and google searches are cool, but in my opinion they are only cool to information junkies like myself, who are a small minority of web users. Most web users don't have the time to sift through a google search. Another issue is that this is a one-man manual project, because it's not a function that is incorporated into the code of the wiki script. So, if you want these google links, you've got to go through and manually add them. Right now, you are the only one doing it, so when you ultiamtely decide to stop, then we'll end up with an inconsistency across Meatball, that people will likely just manually go back and edit out anyway (maybe).
Now, it could be cool to see your idea transformed into a module for different WikiEngine applications, that would create the functionality of plugging in searches of the wiki word to (any) other online resource. This could be a function of the Title link, so that it could search both within the wiki as it has always done, and also produce links to searches from outside sources, for instance -- SamRose
Hi Wallace, I feel, that you are much smarter as many people might think, so I corrected a typo (without trying to ursupate your text) and left a signature introducer "--" with a question-mark as a convenient place-holder for you to fill in. May we all amplify each other's light. ;-) -- fridemar.
Nice to see you are still using DiiGo and TrailFire. I hope things are going well for you. -- Hans
Hi Hans ... I am happy that you noticed my activities in DiiGo and TrailFire and we now can continue our open dialogue in Meatball. Taking the actualisation of the page ImportantInformationFirst as a hint of some friendly peer here, I factor out our public dialogue to a special page WikiBankOpenNegotiation. This is more convenient for external reference, avoiding to wade through my Wiki Homepage specifics. -- Fridemar
Hello Markus, the same thanks go to you; I guess you hold the record of de-trashing :-) -- Fridemar
I see you generate lots of links to google queries. Maybe the Google entry in InterMapTxt maybe helpful to you? Google:FridemarPache -- MarkusLude
It is very kind of you, Markus, to give this hint. Yes I am aware of this, but often I don't make use of the "Google:" construction, due to the following reasons:
I started to move some of your discussion with the lately anon to ApacheWarrior? (his nick name). Then the parts are not so wide spread over different pages. -- MarkusLude
You need to download the DiiGo toolbar as a plugin for (preferably) Firefox or the Internet Explorer... and (at least in earlier time it was obligatory) a recommendation/invitation of two friends. You can count on me. As Hans is heavily engaged in Diigo and you are in open discussion with him here, I suppose, that he can help you in tandem. -- FridemarPache
I have been using the toolbar. It is the first toolbar I have ever added and it is a surprise I am not disappointed so far. I also have two friends in Diigo which are you and Hans. I looked at the official help and they say two but perhaps this information is out of date. At least I know it is not a problem my end on this matter. -- AaronPoeze
You replaced this long page with the above comment? You feel a moment of power. With your energies you can develop much more friendly and constructive power. -- fp
I'm seeing people who ain't really here! Yeah this time is fun. Pass the joint...:) -- anon
Hey anon. You are cheering up, and didn't harm the page. Congratulations. Everybody of us has the devine at their core. -- fp
But vodka esp Chivas Regal is a good way to take out the senses for a while! -- JohnPhilip
Hi John, I hope you master the transformation from Saulus into Paulus :-) So please click on JohnPhilip and be invited to present you there, instead of putting the burden of Spam removal on our shoulders. I am sure you have a more friendly and constructive message. -- fridemar
Please confirm this is the address the cheque for $100us should be sent to. ... Feldgartenweg 14 ... -- Hans
Thank you Hans for asking (after the vandalizing attacks of the last days, that could have changed the address here). I rechecked it, and it is still correct. One of the nice things of OpenBusiness is the redundancy that accumulates in Google, making identification more reliable: . -- Fridemar
Fridemar... The spam attack did indeed cause a delay at my end. You check will be mailed 2006-08-03. Please let me know when you receive it. -- Hans.
Hans ... You made implicitly a good point with your above date (typo), (probably consciously or unconsciously) misspelling the "2006-08-03" instead of (I guess) "2008-06-03". It is a kind of CAPTCHA, human intelligence can correct. I am rather confident, that no attacker has done this. On the other hand, this shows a possible weak point in the template of our OpenBusiness transaction. To remedy this, helping (hopefully) a lot of other peers, that come after us, I suggest (as earlier) to make our statements on self-owned blogs or domains (with WhoIs? Authentification). It would make me much more happy than the mere amount of money transfered to my account. -- Fridemar
Fridemar... Yep, it should be 2008-06-03! (Onset dyslexia is more likely than subconscious motivations). You're point about this being a type of CAPTCHA test is valid. It also reinforces one of the conclusions I drew from the postings in CommunityWikiBank, namely that the "community" implicitly exercises some peer pressure to ensure that the Trust, upon which a transaction is based, is not breached. I mention this because I believe it is this TrustMetric that is most important, not the fact that there is some more formal record in a couple of blogs. After all, if there is enough at risk, even a major bank's records can be falsified. And people are still more capable of fair "judgement" based on contextual knowledge, than computers are on the basis of recorded data. -- Hans.
Fridemar, thanks for your kind welcome on my page. As I note (a little insanely) the welcome is redundant since I have been here from forever. Despite that, your mannerly welcome is appreciated. As a side-note, I will mention that I have worked with HansWobbe for more than twenty years and he is a friend and the most reliable source of whatever that 'Wobbeism' he produces. Cheers! -- BobTrower
Thank you Bob for the friendly words. It's a pleasure to collaborate with friendly and real people. Nice to hear from you that you have worked with HansWobbe a generation long. Let's keep us together in good form, such that we all may enjoy the next one (TheSingularity) :-) -- FridemarPache
Your page is fine, all right? Simple question for fp...since when is violence in films a detriment??? As I said on the Meatball mission page, its realism. So thats why I love gritty films such as Shaft (1971), The French Connection, and other films with realistic violent content yet historical significance and well done plot - JohnPhilip
John, thank you for entering the friendly and constructive dialogue. You and the community is invited to discuss the topic FilmViolenceImpact, as I suggested in MeatballMission. -- fridemar
My email address is available to you via DiiGo since I have tagged you as a "Friend". I could not find yours, so you may need to send an email to me that I can forward to Paul... @ datafix (who is aware of your efforts to transfer the ID to me and can provide you with whatever information you need to send it to the appropriate registrar that datafix will use to manage this for me).
Thanks for you patience, but I generally don't get involved in this type of thing simply because I travel too much to be a reliable participant in short-term matters.
-- HansWobbe (who is "on the road, again")
Thank you Hans, meanwhile we exchanged our email-addresses. For the benefit of all involved, I would like to transfer in public (via Name.com). I invite Paul and all interested friendly and constructive RealName wikizens here to become member (and friends) in the DiiGo group ExtremeOpenBusiness. Bonne route. -- FridemarPache PS.: Your sent cheque of 100 US$ is still not yet transformed into cash by my bank and will cost me ca 10 €, i.e. more than 15US$ fees. :-(
I am truly appalled, offended and outraged that banks have become so avaricious as to charge 10 € to process a $100.us item. I will check the exchange rates later this week. Perhaps it will be better to use PayPal or the Money Order system of the postal authorities. Clearly, if we can establish adequate an TrustMetric, there is considerable profit that could be divided amongst the participants of a more equitable Foreign Exchange and Clearing system. I may yet have to accelerate WikiBank.
Paul has been expecting to hear from you and is a bit concerned that he may have missed a message you sent (since he is an administrator of a large mail system and has to deal with a lot of spam). Can you confirm that you've sent him a message recently?
Dear Hans, dear Paul,
from http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FridemarPache, I was notified, that we can now build up our friendly and constructive relation to complete the WikiBank transaction.
In the spirit of OpenBusiness I write this email to you as an OpenEmail? and would love, if you, Paul, could answer the same way in Meatball or Aboutus or any other Forum (preferrably a wiki), because this way, your and my energies can be more efficiently used to promote WikiBank.
Meanwhile I have had a conversation with the bank (pointing to the emotional impact that was caused by the 10€ fee for the 100 US$ cheque), so that they waived the fees completely in the sense of (an even more than) a fair deal.
Originally my cashed out amount was 52.06 €, now it is 64.59 €.
All the best to all of us Fridemar
We do seem to be making some progress, but as mentioned in the email, we need to decline your invitation to post our some of the information needed to transfer the domain name, openly. I will make reasonable efforts to keep as much of the information in the open as possible, but I will not expose the business activities of the various companies I work with to any unnecessary risks. Also, for your information, we need to be much more cautious in crafting the methods used to operate our businesses than an individual would. For that reason, we will pay for whatever is needed to transfer the domain name to our existing registrars, rather than have to go through the process of creating yet another relationship that we may subsequently forget to maintain.
Thank you for your patience in these matters.
Hans ... thank you that you "will make reasonable efforts to keep as much of the information in the open as possible", what you actually demonstrated with this Open Mail. Now I am waiting for your email on my last email to launch a silent transfer. Hmm -- FridemarPache
Fridemar... Do you have any preferences regarding additional documentation? -- HansWobbe
Hans, to me the most important thing was, to demonstrate that wikis are capable of integrating business for the wikizens. Future steps could be, speed- and "spice" up the process, involving more wikizens. For lack of another term "spice up" means to me, creating reflected knowledge and motivation for group-processes, that CreateAndShareWealth for as many as possible collaborating participants. -- FridemarPache
I certainly agree that it took a relatively long time to get all of this done. I think one reason was "learning curve" and another was WikiNow related in that no one had this as a real priority that justified dedicating time to it. Perhaps this is a key difference between "Work" (as in having a job for which one is paid) and other participation in various community activities.
It's interesting to me that many wiki communities seem to be in decline. Particularly since I continue to be (slowly) ramping up some business uses (specifically, using OddMuse WikiHive?(s) for small team collaborations and as a repository for an Advisory Board with widely distributed membership); so I find myself wondering if the value that I see in wikis is unlikely to be sufficiently evident to other business associates to warrant the investment of resources.
One "Conclusion" that I've reached is that Wiki technology is (in itself) not sufficient to generate business activity; nor is it sufficient to attract other collaborators. It seems that the InterNet itself may be of value in meeting these objectives, but that a wiki is merely one of a great many types of technologies that are useful on the 'net.
Personally, I remain committed to wikis for the simple reason that they make me more productive. In effect, for me they generate "More pay for less work!". For now though, I have not yet found a better way to of CreateAndSharingWealth other than to engage in the usual Business activities, without any specific regard to wiki technologies other than to use them as a personal productivity tool.
yes, wikis make individuals more productive. Even more: wikis can make small team collaborations more productive, as you hint with OddMuse Wikihive. But I believe the best thing is still to come.
Could you give perhaps a more specific link to OddMuse, so that we can drill into it.