#indymedia — Public Fediverse posts

We have a practical question for the #openweb community. Help wanted: How do we federate metadata flows?

How do we bridge the divide between folksonomy and categories - bottom-up and top-down, open and closed? Each has advantages and disadvantages. Can we find a creative way to connect them without forcing one to replace the other?

The #OMN and #makinghistory #Indymedia reboot are grassroots, bottom-up projects. So we start with folksonomy: people adding their own tags and meaning to the media they publish and share.

But we recognize that categories are also useful. So, here's a simple draft proposal for discussion.

We only have five basic functions in the #OMN. Can we make this work within that simplicity?

* Group folksonomy items into categories. Instances can organize relevant tags into category groups, adding those categories as extra folksonomy tags to the flow.

* Subscribe to category flows. Any instance can subscribe to these category groups as flows - using the basic building block of the #OMN.

* Build it on trust. Categories are offered by communities, not imposed as a universal hierarchy. Other instances decide what to subscribe to, use, adapt or ignore.

This keeps the bottom-up freedom of folksonomy while making it possible to build shared structures across a federated network.

The question is: Can we federate metadata without centralizing control over meaning?

Ideas, experience and practical suggestions welcome. How would you build this?

#Fediverse

We have a practical question for the #openweb community. Help wanted: How do we federate metadata flows?

How do we bridge the divide between folksonomy and categories - bottom-up and top-down, open and closed? Each has advantages and disadvantages. Can we find a creative way to connect them without forcing one to replace the other?

The #OMN and #makinghistory #Indymedia reboot are grassroots, bottom-up projects. So we start with folksonomy: people adding their own tags and meaning to the media they publish and share.

But we recognize that categories are also useful. So, here's a simple draft proposal for discussion.

We only have five basic functions in the #OMN. Can we make this work within that simplicity?

* Group folksonomy items into categories. Instances can organize relevant tags into category groups, adding those categories as extra folksonomy tags to the flow.

* Subscribe to category flows. Any instance can subscribe to these category groups as flows - using the basic building block of the #OMN.

* Build it on trust. Categories are offered by communities, not imposed as a universal hierarchy. Other instances decide what to subscribe to, use, adapt or ignore.

This keeps the bottom-up freedom of folksonomy while making it possible to build shared structures across a federated network.

The question is: Can we federate metadata without centralizing control over meaning?

Ideas, experience and practical suggestions welcome. How would you build this?

#Fediverse

We have a practical question for the #openweb community. Help wanted: How do we federate metadata flows?

How do we bridge the divide between folksonomy and categories - bottom-up and top-down, open and closed? Each has advantages and disadvantages. Can we find a creative way to connect them without forcing one to replace the other?

The #OMN and #makinghistory #Indymedia reboot are grassroots, bottom-up projects. So we start with folksonomy: people adding their own tags and meaning to the media they publish and share.

But we recognize that categories are also useful. So, here's a simple draft proposal for discussion.

We only have five basic functions in the #OMN. Can we make this work within that simplicity?

* Group folksonomy items into categories. Instances can organize relevant tags into category groups, adding those categories as extra folksonomy tags to the flow.

* Subscribe to category flows. Any instance can subscribe to these category groups as flows - using the basic building block of the #OMN.

* Build it on trust. Categories are offered by communities, not imposed as a universal hierarchy. Other instances decide what to subscribe to, use, adapt or ignore.

This keeps the bottom-up freedom of folksonomy while making it possible to build shared structures across a federated network.

The question is: Can we federate metadata without centralizing control over meaning?

Ideas, experience and practical suggestions welcome. How would you build this?

#Fediverse

We have a practical question for the #openweb community. Help wanted: How do we federate metadata flows?

How do we bridge the divide between folksonomy and categories - bottom-up and top-down, open and closed? Each has advantages and disadvantages. Can we find a creative way to connect them without forcing one to replace the other?

The #OMN and #makinghistory #Indymedia reboot are grassroots, bottom-up projects. So we start with folksonomy: people adding their own tags and meaning to the media they publish and share.

But we recognize that categories are also useful. So, here's a simple draft proposal for discussion.

We only have five basic functions in the #OMN. Can we make this work within that simplicity?

* Group folksonomy items into categories. Instances can organize relevant tags into category groups, adding those categories as extra folksonomy tags to the flow.

* Subscribe to category flows. Any instance can subscribe to these category groups as flows - using the basic building block of the #OMN.

* Build it on trust. Categories are offered by communities, not imposed as a universal hierarchy. Other instances decide what to subscribe to, use, adapt or ignore.

This keeps the bottom-up freedom of folksonomy while making it possible to build shared structures across a federated network.

The question is: Can we federate metadata without centralizing control over meaning?

Ideas, experience and practical suggestions welcome. How would you build this?

#Fediverse

The #geekproblem isn't just a negative label. It's about taking the obvious problem out of “geek” and looking at what happens when geek culture meets power and capital.

Look at #failbook and Google: geek projects that became systems of domination and control. But that's not inevitable.

So what does healthy #openweb geek culture look like? Look back at early #Couchsurfing and #Indymedia. There are examples of geek culture building trust, participation and community rather than control.

And look at both projects later in their decline - you can see the #geekproblem emerging.

The question isn't “are geeks the problem?” It's - what kind of culture does our technology reproduce, and who does it give power to?

#OMN #4opens #openweb #Fediverse

The #geekproblem isn't just a negative label. It's about taking the obvious problem out of “geek” and looking at what happens when geek culture meets power and capital.

Look at #failbook and Google: geek projects that became systems of domination and control. But that's not inevitable.

So what does healthy #openweb geek culture look like? Look back at early #Couchsurfing and #Indymedia. There are examples of geek culture building trust, participation and community rather than control.

And look at both projects later in their decline - you can see the #geekproblem emerging.

The question isn't “are geeks the problem?” It's - what kind of culture does our technology reproduce, and who does it give power to?

#OMN #4opens #openweb #Fediverse

The #geekproblem isn't just a negative label. It's about taking the obvious problem out of “geek” and looking at what happens when geek culture meets power and capital.

Look at #failbook and Google: geek projects that became systems of domination and control. But that's not inevitable.

So what does healthy #openweb geek culture look like? Look back at early #Couchsurfing and #Indymedia. There are examples of geek culture building trust, participation and community rather than control.

And look at both projects later in their decline - you can see the #geekproblem emerging.

The question isn't “are geeks the problem?” It's - what kind of culture does our technology reproduce, and who does it give power to?

#OMN #4opens #openweb #Fediverse

The #geekproblem isn't just a negative label. It's about taking the obvious problem out of “geek” and looking at what happens when geek culture meets power and capital.

Look at #failbook and Google: geek projects that became systems of domination and control. But that's not inevitable.

So what does healthy #openweb geek culture look like? Look back at early #Couchsurfing and #Indymedia. There are examples of geek culture building trust, participation and community rather than control.

And look at both projects later in their decline - you can see the #geekproblem emerging.

The question isn't “are geeks the problem?” It's - what kind of culture does our technology reproduce, and who does it give power to?

#OMN #4opens #openweb #Fediverse

The #geekproblem isn't just a negative label. It's about taking the obvious problem out of “geek” and looking at what happens when geek culture meets power and capital.

Look at #failbook and Google: geek projects that became systems of domination and control. But that's not inevitable.

So what does healthy #openweb geek culture look like? Look back at early #Couchsurfing and #Indymedia. There are examples of geek culture building trust, participation and community rather than control.

And look at both projects later in their decline - you can see the #geekproblem emerging.

The question isn't “are geeks the problem?” It's - what kind of culture does our technology reproduce, and who does it give power to?

#OMN #4opens #openweb #Fediverse