User talk:LRG/Archive 1

Hi LRG.

Re: I understand your opinion on duplicating wikipedia's function, and I hope that you find appropedia to be a value-added and different wiki.

Certainly it's value-added and different - my concern is only that there can be a tendency for editors to put their energy into creating encyclopedic articles, if they aren't specifically excluded. As for "Textbook stlye topic entries", that's normally a Wikibooks function, though I'm undecided whether it's bad idea to do this on a different site.

But by far the biggest issue, in my opinion, is the size of the community of editors. I'm hoping that one of these wikis will become popular and the others will cease, so that collaboration is more effective. I support a broader topic for a wiki, so that there is a larger community of editors and collaboration is more effective. This is why I created the Development and Sustainability Wikia. (It was only after creating this that I noticed someone put a link to Appropedia.org on the Appropriate technology article - I just rearranged the links for clarity).

Now, I would strongly urge the Appropedia community to consider being part of a broader wiki. This does not necessarily mean joining the one I created. It may be preferred to simply wish to rename the wiki in order to accomodate a broader range of issues and draw in a much wider community of editors and readers.

An alternative, if this suggestion is not followed, and Appropedia takes off, is that I could continue with the Development and Sustainability Wikia and make the Appropriate technology page simply redirect people to Appropedia. However, I consider this a greatly inferior option.

btw, being on Wikia.com means the wiki will get a bit more publicity among people looking for wikis; it's easier to link to and from other Wikia domains (e.g. renewableenergy.wikia.com); and it will also mean that if someone tries to replicate it, they will instead be referred to the existing wiki (though they might do that for a separate site anyway, if they know about it). --Singkong2005 06:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Look forward to your feedback. --Singkong2005 06:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

the various wikis - some answers
Hello Singkong2005,

Thank you for your clear, thoughtful and quick reply. I apologize for my slower response.

In order to reply to your comments I realized that we needed to better define the scope of appropedia in writing. Thank you for that impetus. Please see - About appropedia, and its corresponding discussion page, for information that I feel will help develop our discussion. For instance, the Encyclopedic/Textbook Style entries is the smallest proposed area of appropedia, whereas the how-to/project writeup/case-study, the user/organization and the working areas are proposed to be much larger.

Edited Excerpt my concern is only that there can be a tendency for editors to put their energy into creating encyclopedic articles, if they aren't specifically excluded.

This is a very interesting concern, which I had not thought of. What if appropedia used transclusion for encyclopedic entries from wikipedia? This is just a thought, and one that I am sure is replete with a myriad of problems and discussions. I will look into this possibility, and formulate a more educated suggestion soon.

I appreciate your feedback and suggestions, especially concerning publicity and community. Please let me know if the scope of appropedia is clearer after reading the short about page linked above. If the about page does not clear up the proposed scope of appropedia, I will work on making it more clear (always a good thing). If the about page does clear up the proposed scope, then we can continue with this conversation.

I am very open to the discussion of, and have many ideas about, joining and/or changing names, but I would like to start with this other part of the discussion first.

I look forward to your response, --LRG 08:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting ideas. Transclusion could be an excellent option.


 * I'm very glad we're able to discuss this, as there is greater potential if we cooperate.


 * I have been writing a draft proposing some of these ideas more clearly. It's at User:Singkong2005/Wikis - still a draft, and I haven't had a chance to work on it recently, or account for what you've written here, but you're welcome to view it and tell me what you think.


 * btw, it's usually a good idea to respond on the other person's talk page, or at least put a note their directing them to your page. That way they will be notified that there are new messages. In this case, it's probably best just to drop a note and leave the actual discussion on one page (here). Thanks --Singkong2005 04:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the note on responding (which brings up a whole other topic of adding social networking concepts to wikis), I will drop you a note now.

I, too, see much greater potential from us collaborating and hope that we can effect that.

I have added the following text to pages that are intended to include just encyclopic content: 'Appropedia is still considering how to address encyclopedic content. Currently appropedia is leaning towards some type of transclusion. See About_appropedia for more information.' I am still very interested in discussing various types of transclusion. Ideally an appropedia user could go to the Photovoltaic page, where they would see the encyclopedic content from wikipedia (with a link back to wikipedia for content editing or further wikipedia navigating). They would also see more value-added information, such as pertinent equations, general diagrams, tables, worksheets and links to projects and howtos. Do you have any ideas on how to make this happen, or other ideas on how it should work/look?

As for the name, I am open to a name-change to a more inclusive name, although I feel that the name appropedia.org is fairly inclusive. I see appropedia.org as a fairly abstract name based on the coined phrase, appropriate technology (AT), and the word, apropos. As I am sure you are aware, many people ascribe to a definition of AT that covers a large spectrum of products, processes, ideas, pursuits, designs, etc. (see Appropedia:Appropiate Technology for some more definitions). Do you have any strong suggestions for the new name?

Here are some more examples of the different ways in which appropedia can serve:


 * appropedia:Parras AT - Local gallery of AT implementations.
 * appropedia:Parras 2006 - AT and sustainable development program spaces for curriculum, collaborative work, and rudimentary social networking (i.e. category space for users).
 * appropedia:microhydro - Extra notes on encyclopedic content from wikipedia. (note that this will be a better example when a project is added to the category).
 * appropedia:supplies - Local supply pages.

I look forward to talking with you more, --LRG 04:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

the various wikis - scope vs structure
The about page is actually more of a description of structure than scope. Hopefully the description of structure will be enough to get us talking, and then, with your feedback considered, the scope can be more explicitly stated.

Thank you --LRG 09:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Appropedia
Hi LRG,

I've made an account on Appropedia - see: http://www.appropedia.org/index.php?title=User:Singkong2005

I looked for your account, but apparently you're not LRG over there?

I haven't finished my "proposal" but I recently had the thought that maybe "Appropedia" isn't such a bad name for a broader development and sustainability wiki - at least for the short to medium term.

Also the other appropriate tech wikis are inactive, so the merge issue is a bit irrelevant anyway. Though we should check the VillageEarth wiki for good material and import what's useful (after double-checking the copyright - I don't think it's a problem).

Cheers --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 11:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Singkong,


 * I am very excited about your decision to contribute to Appropedia.


 * I should say, one factor was seeing that you were very open to different ways of doing things; also seeing that editing was happening on Appropedia, with good resources being created. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My user account there is http://www.appropedia.org/index.php?title=User:Lonny, although most of my communication is spread throughout the discussion pages, such as About appropedia.


 * I am glad that you, temporarily, agree with the name, it is definitely not something that I cleave to and I still argue between Appropedia with two p's and Apropedia with one p.


 * Just had a thought - I was trying to come up with a name that covered development and sustainability... but failing that, if it is a development-related name, then one could consider that sustainability is covered by that as well - as sustainability and sustainable development are such similar concepts. E.g. Devpedia - which also sounds a bit like a resource on Hindu gods, not that that's a big problem... "pedia" might not be the best ending, actually, as it's not aiming to be strictly encyclopedic. Devwiki? Just some thoughts, anyway. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to importing useful information from the VillageEarth wiki, we should invite the VillageEarth contributors to Appropedia.org.


 * Yes. I'm registered, so I can do that. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, --LRG 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi LRG, can you please take a look on it(Media and Development Communication).This article is related to Mass media and Mass communication. It's been nominated for AFD. I need your suggestions regarding on this article. I hope you'll help with it. Can you please participate in its discussion. I'm quite busy. Hope to hear you soon. Thanks in advance--NAHID 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)