• Joe Corneli commented on the doc Help Build the Peeragogy Accelerator (Work in Progress) in the group Group logo of Peeragogy AcceleratorPeeragogy 5 years, 2 months ago

    Hi Wolfgang!  The peeragogy handbook is under revision this week — peeragogy.org is always the latest and most up to date.   New major release on Jan 1.

    Thinking about the organizational form question: My friend Ray Puzio (who may have already signed up here?) wrote to me yesterday about something relevant, I'll quote:

    My personal vision of how a "Digital Library of Humaitarian Issues" would work is more like a metacommons than as a single project. That is to say that, whilst there would be a central website somewhere, it would function more like a hub in a webring than as a stand-alone library.  Rather, the bulk of the action would involve setting up some shared system of tagging and interfaces which member websites would agree to use on their collections so that one could access them in a unified fashion as if they were a single website.  On top of that, there would be a collection of open-source programs, both utilities for downloading and running on one's own machine as well as web services which one can access via a web page or API for acceesing this data, searching it, analysing it, and running simulations.

    I think that the CAN is part way there and could function as the "hub" that Ray is talking about.  But there's a lot more to do to support and build the individual "spokes", and to get them all talking with each other in data-oriented and reflective-action-oriented ways.  At the moment, our infrastructures for doing citizen science, journalism, and activism are not very advanced, still mostly "Web 2.0" and not "Web 3.0". 

    Anyway, the neat thing about this quote from an "organizational form" perspective is that it's almost self-similar.  Just as the CAN can be a large hub, there can be smaller hubs (like Peeragogy) for bringing together people with specific interests in one domain.  In the end, all of these connect back together, not just in a hierarchy: "A city is not a tree."  But keeping that in mind, hubs and spokes are still quite useful.

    I think potential funders would have to be aware of the considerable complexity and need for multiple different kinds and levels of engagement.  We are not simply building "a product".  It's much more like building a city.  Also, as we can see from looking around, we're not starting from scratch, there's been tremendous "organic" growth throughout human history that we can connect with!

    I do wonder about the possibilities with Horizon 2020, particularly given that this really ought to be an international project, not "European".  The real question for me is, what funder(s) would possibly "get" the kind of complexity that's going on here?