Topics define what can be talked about within them. They act as a hub around which different viewpoints can converge.
Topics define what can be talked about within them. They act as a hub around which different viewpoints can converge.
It is important that a full range of different people can agree on the same definitions for topics. If we can do this, which is a lot easier than agreeing on viewpoints, then the different sides can talk about the same thing in the same place as one another.
Then we can collect media together (see part 2) and they act as a foundation off of which viewpoint bubbles can form (see part 3).
We may also run a normal back and forth discussion from these topics to use an already established method of communicating, which generally descends into confusion and personal attack. However here we will be able to take points that get made and send them into collective viewpoint bubbles.
Linking media to these shared hubs will make it easier to jump from views you already agree with to ones you do not. So people who understand things differently need not remain in their own media bubble, which is where it is more likely to find views you already agree with.
Also, defining what we are talking about prior to having the discussion is good because it avoids wasting energy disagreeing about what we mean by things.
The title of topics may have many different ways of saying tha same thing. We might change between different titles (for instance “caring for soil” or “soil management”) however the definition however is more important and remains constant. We use the definition to decide if it is right to talk about certain content there or if it should be moved elsewhere. (Discussion or content that is off topic ought to not receive support nor get voted up as relevant.)
We can even translate the definitions of topics so knowledge from all languages could be linked to the same topic. It would also help thinkers who use very different vocabularies even within the same language (for instance scientists or lay people) to talk about the same thing.
There are some existing ways of collecting relevant content together like this on the internet already. For example, a subreddit says what you can talk about within it .
The main difference here is that the definitions of each topic fit inside one another similar to a Venn diagram. Which leads us on to why we make maps...
Broader and narower topics fit together to make visual maps.
It seems that the most important matters to question are ACTIONS (i.e Methods, Verbs) because someone somewhere can CHOOSE to do actions differently.
This could be done in a very simmilar way to how wikipedia creates cattegories.
Or perhaps it could be done using the idea below:
Anyone can create a map, or propose an alternative map, along with the definitions for each of the topics. However most users will simply use existing maps.
You can search using keywords to jump to topics or follow on from topics that lead onwards.
Next, people can link media into these. So, we collectively categorise the internet.
(This symbol is used for topics)
Off of these well defined topics users express their way of thinking about the matter.
This forms a new viewpoint bubble of which they are an editor.
A bubble can be seen around a topic from the map.
People or organisations can vote to give their support.
When they do the bubbles get bigger (not proportionaly but inverse exponentially)
Votes indicate how long ago users renewed their support. Which shows partly how interested in it they are but also you can see which revision that they did actually put their support in. They do this by greying out and displaying information about when they last updated their support. (Newer votes may also create a greater increace in bubble size)
Users can view the credentials of supporters
Support could be given anonymously by having your credentials, confirmed through a 3rd party, for example a university.
The teams pick supporters they wish to stand out from the crowd. It basically shows the variation in levels expertise of supporters.
Bubble politics
The final control over a bubble falls on a chief editor. They have the power to appoint and remove editors from the editor team. They may decide to not use this power and may even allow everyone to edit the content, however the buck must stop with someone.
Suporters unhappy with the way a bubble is being managed can communicate with other supporters of a bubble to decide to do something about it; which may be requesting that a new chief editor be appointed (which may be done by internal vote or other method), or creating a split in the bubble. The communicating for this can be done with a talk page relating to the bubble and/or by group messaging users.
Splitting a bubble creates a fork in the version history. When supporters come to renew their support they must choose which fork to take.
So editorial control can quite easily be taken away by better respected people.
We bring different views into conversation again around shared questions. So we see views around these too.
In the viewpoints we make a rhetorical questions and answer them, which we use in a similar way to citations and references
Editors have an incentive to listen because they want to retain votes.
If you dont agree you go to, or make, a view that you do agree with.
If your view is strong it ought to be able to stand up to questioning.
Small voices can become louder, clearer, and more popular.
Currant major ways of finding or grouping information and how BUBBLEverse differs:
Reddit
Subreddits are a way of categorising content on the internet
Key differences from these:
* The Venn web (i.e Topic map) has broader and narrower topics that fit within one another to make a network.
Multiple defined tags: e.g Stack-overflow (and Stack-exchange)
stack-exchange Lets you attach 5 tags to a question. These tags have definitions.
Key differences:
*Venn web topics are also defined, however rather than having multiple tags they combine into much less, but more lengthy worded, topics
*We highlight the difference between verb, noun and event topics.
Searching (Google, Yahoo, etc)
looks uses keywords to find content. It is not thinking about the definition of what the words mean.
Key differences
*A Venn web should be able to join content that that uses extremely different vocabulary because perhaps it was written from a very different point of view. It can even join content that has been written in a different language.
*We can exclude content that is off topic. So, then we can see how much content exists on the subject and potentially go through it methodically.
*It does not optimise the search results for you. Search engine optimisation has been accused of helping cause a media echo chamber effect (where you find views you already agree with more than those you disagree with) .
Twitter
Users can create hashtags. It is up to people to notice trendy hashtags and join in contributing to them.
Key differences
*Venn web topics should settle down and be quite stable (This is because we ought to be able to agree on matters that exist (defining them) even if we can't agree on what to think about them).
Check out this essay in the social implications of emerging "new" media
I prefer the idea of being transparent about where you are coming from. Can we ever be completely neutral? I believe everything you say manipulates another towards thinking like you.
Here is an article also calling for transparent subjectivity in media
Bristol
Email: bubbleforum@gmail.com
Phone: +44 (0) 7925 139 092
Facebook group /prototype
Creating collective viewpoints blog
Opensource Slack
Youtube channel