The idea I have is to have here a short summary of the content of this wiki and link to the main pages and also that we can highlight some important and/or interesting things.
Kai, Sami, Christoph (and any other) can you please help organizing it?
--Patrick Ausderau, 16-Jun-2006
I don't think that it would be a good idea to create separate tech. and ped. areas, as the main aim of this wiki should be to create a common language and a shared vocabuary. For example we should stick to a single definition of "use case", instead of defining it twice, once for the ped. and then for the tech. partners. I also created an internal section for those material to be disseminated later on and for internal purposes.
--Christoph Richter, 16-Jun-2006
My idea was not to separate (again) the ped. and tech. for the global understanding. But my idea was to exploit the positives side effects of wiki. For example, it can advantageously replace the emails (i.e. instead of sending thousand of mails to thousand of people (with the thousand of replay that come with), create a new wiki page and let people react by editing it (as we do on this page :))).
So for that kind of use, it can be useful to have WP/TF area.
--Patrick Ausderau, 26-Jun-2006
I agree very much that we should not have separate areas for tech. and ped. issues. But maybe we should still have decided who are responsible of keeping track or asking Frequently Asked Questions from pedagogical and tech. point of view (or asking or urging other people to answer if they don't know answers themselves)? Or is the idea that FAQs are answered just by someone who is interested? And the same thing maybe concerns trialogical glossary?
And one question concerning the internal section. I understood it so that we cannot have a separate internal section otherwise than by defining each page private which is supposed to be in the internal section? Or have I understood this correctly? For example, if I link a page to a page that is private, it will not be private unless I define it so? Is it not so? So is the idea that the internal section is a sort of a main page for these private pages (which must be defined separately in each case to be private)?
--Sami Paavola, 22-Jun-2006
I agree that it would be very useful to have concrete persons who will take care of the frequently asked questions as well as glossaries. Maybe it would suffice if this person from time-to-time reviews whats going on in his area and who can ask other partner to answer the questions or write new entries if needed. At the same time I think that every author of an entry should take care of it in the sense of moderating questions or issues arising around his entry if any. Would it make sense to have a pedagogical and technical for the FAQ section and one person from WP3 to take care of the Trialogical Glossary? I myself or someone else from FH-OÖ could take care of the co-evolutionary glossary.
Regarding the internal section: Yes it is correct, that we have to indicate on every page whether it is private or not, so that there is no internal section in any "physical sense". Nevertheless I created the internal section side as an "entry point" for the private pages in order to avoid frustration by an exertnal user who otherwise might click on many links that go private pages, that he cannot access. With this structure, there is only one link to a private page for external user.
--Christoph Richter, 23-Jun-2006
For the internal section, I like this idea of “entry point”. But we have to remain that all the pages (private or not) are referenced under the recent changes and the page index. So for anonymous visitor it can be frustrating…
Is it correct that one idea of KP-Lab is to be as much open as possible?
For the FAQs, I think that we can let anybody answer. We should just have moderator in case of the answer is out of the scope and as you propose that this person reviews time to time those FAQs, glossary (ask the right partner to answer the questions (if nobody do) and/or validate/complete them).
--Patrick Ausderau, 26-Jun-2006
I agree that it would be a good idea to have some kind of a moderator for the FAQ section, both representing pedagogical and technological partners. Everyone can answer but someone should probably time to time watch if there are any questions, and who could answer them, etc. I think that I have more or less promised to take more responsibility of the Trialogical Glossary from the WP3 point of view although, I guess, this has not been decided properly.
One comment about openness of the KP-Lab project because this has been discussed also before in relation to KP-Lab wiki. I agree that this is the aim of KP-Lab but I think that it is also in accordance with trialogical theory (!) that this aim at openness does not mean that there is no private working space (where ideas can be developed). So I think that it is important in many cases to have one's own personal working space and also room for developing ideas and models within the project before they are made public. Wikipedia style entries should be open for everyone but it is a bit different thing to use wiki area for developing something that is not (yet) meant for public. But I mean, this is just how I see this need for internal section.
--Sami Paavola, 29-Jun-2006