Does Project Avalon want to create its own Wikipedia?

[Avuso]

What do people think about creating a Wikipedia-style resource for Project Avalon?

There is already an incredible amount of quality information on the site, many very knowledgable members, and an established culture of tolerance, which are much more difficult to find than the software for a new wiki.

With wikis, each page stands alone so readers and editors don't have to read all the other pages to benefit or contribute. They can link between one another, and typically include external links as well to facilitate research.

Organizing information in this way would help newcomers get a better sense of what knowledge is stored in Project Avalon. It would help people find new topics and sources that they might have never heard of before.

Even if we don't create a new website, is there a way to co-create a list of whistleblowers and websites that people trust for each subtopic? I think the collaborative effort of a wiki has greater potential to grow into an important online resource though. The website wanttoknow.info is a great place for people just starting their alternative research, but it's not collaborative and its mostly limited to MSM sources.

It's easy to use a wikifarm hosted by a company, but I don't think that's a real option given the nature of our content. The two most popular types of software are:

MediaWiki – This is the most popular wiki software on the net, and runs wikiHow, Wikipedia, and many other wiki sites. Many of the most popular wiki farms use the MediaWiki software as well.
TikiWiki - This is the second most popular wiki software available, and runs a large number of wikis and wiki farms. TikiWiki has strong plugin support, allowing you to add features such as forums, image galleries, calendars, and more.

30+ Solutions to Start Your Own Wiki
http://mashable.com/2008/07/29/wiki-solutions/

Has this idea already been considered? Is it possible? Are people interested?

[Constance]

Great idea Avuso. :thumbsup:

[KiwiElf]

It sounds like a really cool idea - great quick reference for those who don't want to wade through volumes of info to get to the crux of the " matter in question" (not sure how to start it or what format it would take, as so much of this topic area is to a large degree, unprovable) - should we try some sample pages here???

ie take a subject like,... ummm did we land on the moon?; there are two "extremist" points of view which are very "black and white" yes or no (but little content on other possibilities in between)? Hmmmm... How does one be objective about this based on the evidence?

[ThePythonicCow]

With various other alternative Web social media and information sharing formats in the past that have born the "Project Avalon" name, but that have not been primarily owned and controlled by Bill Ryan and those he selects, I've noticed that, over time, conflicting and confusing situations arise, usually resulting in the demise, one way or another, of the alternative.

In other words, I am recommending "clear ownership". Either Bill "owns" it and exercises active control over it however he chooses, or else the project is clearly separate and owned by someone else. The "clearly separate" suggests to me not using the Project Avalon name.

I like the idea of a wiki-based encyclopedia of the "real stories", what they don't want us to know. Such as a separate website, in Wiki format, called something such as (for example) WikiTruth, under clear ownership. I'd recommend that editing requires a login account, so that trolls and disinformants can be kept in check (if the site doesn't attract such, it is a sure sign of failure.)

Such a site could make substantial use of the wealth of material on Project Avalon, and no doubt many of us here would refer to it and recommend it, if it began to realize it's potential.

Sites having ambiguous ownership cannot survive the pressure they will be placed under, if they do anything that gets them on the radar of the bastards in power.

(The above is my personal opinion, presented without consulting with anyone else, but is based on (1) following the trials, tribulations and triumphs of Project Avalon quite closely now for over four years, (2) having observed over many decades what tends to lead to success or failure of sustained projects involving multiple people, and (3) considerable experience running wiki-based sites, years ago, in another time.)

[Bill Ryan]

.
Many years ago (in the original forum), we launched a library project: we realized even when Avalon was young that there was a huge repository of valuable information here. We established an entire enthusiastic team of 'Avalon librarians', but the job quite quickly proved too daunting. (It really is a huge project!)

Now, the job would be 10-20 times as large. It's just as valuable (or maybe 10-20 times more so!), but maybe 10-20 times as challenging. I'm totally for this, but this post is just a caveat about what any team of librarians may find themselves up against. (In a few weeks' time, we'll proudly have our millionth post. That says something about the amount of reading there is to do!)

Re 'ownership', that's never been my concern... it was always clear to me in early Camelot days that Kerry and I never owned any of the information, because it wasn't ours to 'own'. That's why we never copyrighted anything, or sold anything. It wasn't ours to sell, and we were just the messengers.

I still hold that firm view. Much of the material here is in the public domain (or has become so, once posted in anything other than Members-only sections), and it seems to me that any Wiki of all that would just really be another searchable index of what's already there. That all seems very fine to me. (But do note: I very much appreciate Paul's post #4 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?85021-Does-Project-Avalon-want-to-create-its-own-Wikipedia&p=995850&viewfull=1#post995850) above, and fully understand there that there may be legal nuances which I'm totally not aware of at all.)

[christian]

ie take a subject like,... ummm did we land on the moon?; there are two "extremist" points of view which are very "black and white" yes or no (but little content on other possibilities in between)? Hmmmm... How does one be objective about this based on the evidence?

Highest degree of objectivity is attained by presenting all the available evidence. Let the reader make up his own mind. It's not a shame to admit that there's no obvious clarity in a particular case.

[Carmody]

The big problem with a wiki, in a system of reality that is an information field of consciousness... Where consciousness defines the shaping of the information field, and group think and individuality both have their say in it's flow and formation:

The temporal based parts of the avatar that exists in this flowing river of a dimension in constant formation, it desires fundamentals in perfection. Yet fundamentals in perfection is a form of death as death arises from things that do not change. Growth cannot occur in a system of defined challenges, only a dead thing thinking it is climbing, or in motion, in a smaller circle of logic..trapped in a dead thing...well..that would be the result. (dead things can be defined as commodities, in some potential views of reality)

Something akin to worn rocks as steps to proceed to the temple mount, to have one's scripted and ordained experience.

While a wiki is desirable, the nature of life, the idea of life outside of being a dead thing or commodity.... life requires change and evolution, it requires a personal experience. Just like the 50 million who traced the same steps, before you got there. Theme park rides, the ultimate in group think falsified experiences. Education, if one is not careful, can be the same. Teach a man not to fish ....but teach a man how to teach themselves to be anything.

Only the avatar, the body, the vehicle, the window.. desires assurances, to assuage fears. To head toward being a self realized experiencer, is to be one's own wiki that is relevant to self.

Thus, a wiki is desirable to help people get to where they are are individually going, but the path is necessarily meandering and individual. When this non-linear thinking with manifold experiences, same false, and some real.. is taken into account, one ends up with a jumbled mess of an argument.

Relativity is not just a abstract theory but concrete, as tied to quantum analysis but it is also formative and functional in all ways, in all areas. (ie everything is relative --- concrete and abstract alike) That reality is defined by group think and individualism. Not in the abstract but in the reality, in the fundamental.


For example, in all branches of physics, which are inhabited by theoreticians, who plot the course of the given branches, where all is defined by this meandering exploration, in those conditions of search and define, comes but one fact: That there are NO facts in existence anywhere. Zero. That this 'fact' is a paradox that is both perfectly defined and states the existence of the undefinable in permanence. That down at the bottom of everything, is..nothing..and everything that is formed pours forth from that in undefined form.

Only the engineering linear mind, that is phase locked to being as the fear/desire ego-monkey.... and projecting it forcefully on to the rest of the avatars around it...refuses to deal with this hard reality of non-definition. In today' world, note that this fear/desire ego-monkey aspect of the avatar is manipulated to control reality and it's formation.

There is no you, you are not standing anywhere. Those things are formations of reality. Awareness and self development brings about potentials for motion and modification of and in the system, both in the idea of individuality and in the idea of a cohesive component-group, or the whole.

Thus a wiki, or record, can move toward a permanence that does not exist and is exactly counter the the very path of coming into knowing. One has to be very careful here.

Never mind the level of extreme push from external forces that would try to derail the attempt.

[ThePythonicCow]

(But do note: I very much appreciate Paul's post #4 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?85021-Does-Project-Avalon-want-to-create-its-own-Wikipedia&p=995850&viewfull=1#post995850) above, and fully understand there that there may be legal nuances which I'm totally not aware of at all.)
I was speaking of "ownership" as a matter of control and respect, not as a legal matter.

When conflict arises, organizations are more likely to survive if it is clear to everyone involved who gets to make the final call. For example, in my view, Project Avalon survives episodes such as the Charles/Atticus affair because you, Bill, held and still hold the keys to the server and because you were and are respected as the rightful holder of those keys by all of us, whatever views we might have on anything else.

I was also speaking of the forum and website infrastructure and operations, not of the material provided there by its many members. The owner for example, gets to make the final call on who will or will not be invited to be a member, moderator and/or administrator of the forum, and on what behavior(s) will be encouraged, tolerated, or prohibited on the forum. Just as with Open Source projects, while the intellectual property is a community effort, there needs to be an unambiguous "final decision body or person", who can make the final call in tough times as to how and by what means the community will conduct its affairs, who is a member, and who may hold specific key positions.

[Bill Ryan]

.
@ Paul above — thank you! Got it. :thumbsup: This is an interesting discussion.

[ThePythonicCow]

Thus a wiki, or record, can move toward a permanence that does not exist and is exactly counter the the very path of coming into knowing. One has to be very careful here.
I was imagining this proposed WIki as like an annotated table of contents to what material is there, posted on Avalon or other forums holding such material, rather than as an effort to state "for the record" what is really "true" about the topics discussed in those contents.

One could prepare a combined concordance for the Bibles and Korans of the major monotheistic religions, without necessarily even having any such personal beliefs oneself, much less deciding which beliefs are "correct."

However this (as I was viewing it) risks becoming a rather boring "librarian" project, so risks either dying of boredom, or risks dying trying to "cast in stone" that which will not allow itself to be so captured.

[araucaria]

Quite apart from the technical issues raised by Paul, I personally would be against the idea of attempting to distil any kind of Avalonian orthodoxy into a given format. This is how holy books come into being, writings that only evolve into Bibles and Gospels. There is very little material out there that Bill would categorize as A1 quality; all the rest is what Herman Melville in Moby Dick calls “loose fish”, i.e. up for grabs, here meaning endless reinterpretation and reevaluation. If you are fishing for whales, then you may find yourself working for a crazy captain striving towards the destruction of the ultimate Leviathan, leading only to self-destruction. My point is that we are not fishing for whales at all; we are more like ballast trying to steady the ship through turbulent waters. In other words, the medium is the message: the Avalon experience of patiently adding my posts to your posts is itself the real thing, as opposed to any seemingly major items or key facts to be filtered from it. That is precisely what a Wiki experiment would filter out.

[grannyfranny100]

Often newbies are looking for audio/video speakers that have stood the test of time. I would like to see a column were we could like or dislike a particular selection. The ones with the most likes move to the top and the losers get deleted after a certain time. If a newbie adds one that is a real loser, people could add so may dislikes that the newbie could pick a different one that has lots of likes. I see more and more housewives posting idiot stuff with low quality sound. They are so dumb and perhaps fame hungry that they aren't even aware of how ridiculous they look.

Sometimes I would like to watch a sci fi movie or documentary and am disappointed because so few of free. So this might require subcategories.

Frankly if this works out well, you might be able to set it up as one of those top scifi forums (or whatever) as voted by Project Avalon members. That might draw new members.

[Avuso]

That there are NO facts in existence anywhere. Zero. That this 'fact' is a paradox that is both perfectly defined and states the existence of the undefinable in permanence.

Thus a wiki, or record, can move toward a permanence that does not exist and is exactly counter the the very path of coming into knowing. One has to be very careful here.

Never mind the level of extreme push from external forces that would try to derail the attempt.

This makes me smile so much! It reminds me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

But in terms of helping individuals question what they've believed and to introduce them to new ideas, they need high quality sources that others have found valuable. It's not the end-all be-all doctrine of PA, because really we're not about doctrines and hold many differing opinions about the world. I like the idea of adopting a working hypothesis that I can use to get where I need to go quickly and safely.


I was imagining this proposed WIki as like an annotated table of contents to what material is there, posted on Avalon or other forums holding such material, rather than as an effort to state "for the record" what is really "true" about the topics discussed in those contents.

One could prepare a combined concordance for the Bibles and Korans of the major monotheistic religions, without necessarily even having any such personal beliefs oneself, much less deciding which beliefs are "correct."

However this (as I was viewing it) risks becoming a rather boring "librarian" project, so risks either dying of boredom, or risks dying trying to "cast in stone" that which will not allow itself to be so captured.

I see the beginning point similarly. Break down a given topic into parts and post links to interviews, articles, books, videos with summaries of what they say and why it's relevant. While not making claims of truth, I do see analysis as valuable. So-and-so argues this, there are these points of evidence to substantiate that idea, but it totally conflicts with x. At least this lays out the various voices that would be wiped-clean from Wikipedia.


Quite apart from the technical issues raised by Paul, I personally would be against the idea of attempting to distil any kind of Avalonian orthodoxy into a given format. This is how holy books come into being, writings that only evolve into Bibles and Gospels. There is very little material out there that Bill would categorize as A1 quality; all the rest is what Herman Melville in Moby Dick calls “loose fish”, i.e. up for grabs, here meaning endless reinterpretation and reevaluation. If you are fishing for whales, then you may find yourself working for a crazy captain striving towards the destruction of the ultimate Leviathan, leading only to self-destruction. My point is that we are not fishing for whales at all; we are more like ballast trying to steady the ship through turbulent waters. In other words, the medium is the message: the Avalon experience of patiently adding my posts to your posts is itself the real thing, as opposed to any seemingly major items or key facts to be filtered from it. That is precisely what a Wiki experiment would filter out.

It would be a different experiment, but it would only add to PA, or perhaps be a distillation of it. Personally I'm interested in organizing the information for my own education. I haven't been aware of these topics for that long. Reading/research is the first step, but then taking notes, discussing it, writing papers, using it in some way helps to really distill it all and crystallize a solid understanding.

I agree that it should be owned/controlled/inspired/guided by Bill and those he selects. And I imagine only members of PA being allowed to contribute or edit. Does anybody involved in the earlier library project want to share their experience and offer suggestions? Maybe if the focus was on a few areas first, that would help?