LikeInMind, a knowledge network for systematic and systemic research
Dmitry Sokolov
Public
Seen by 495
LikeInMind (LiM) is a set of chunks of knowledge arranged "horizontally" in a Network, and "vertically" in a Taxonomy.
Each Topic (chunk of knowledge) can be either found within seconds via Topic Search, or discovered by browsing up/down the Taxonomy, or laterally via hyperlinked Topics. Findability and Discoverability of each particular Topic is a critical requirement for Collective Intelligence, a process of collection and reuse of information for (Real-Time) Decision Making.
Every Topic on LiM is developed by a (group of) participant. Participants and Experts in every particular Topic are either listed in the top of a page, or accessed via Page History. Experts in every particular Topic are found as quick as the particular information of current interest of a (not only science but any other field of knowledge) researcher.
That's how
We Connect People By Connecting Their Knowledge
Currently, LiM has
30,000+ pages and tags
More on LiM can be found here and following the links on the page:
http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/106551867/What%20is%20LikeInMind
as well as discussed here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/LikeInMind/
I will be happy to answer your question and hear your suggestions.
Danyl Strype Mon 2 May 2016 9:21AM
One other thing I'm curious about, does the pages on LikeInMind constitute a database or a document? Are the contents under CC or another open license?
Dmitry Sokolov Mon 2 May 2016 10:23AM
LiM is under CC, and is governed by a database. I am not sure about the details but PBWorks, the wiki platform, has an API. Personally, I would prefer to either develop a better interface for LiM, or ideally, an specialised open P2P Collective Intelligence platform.
The requirements for the platform are being collected here:
http://tinyulr.com/LikeInMind/AIMS
It must be a hybrid P2P for a number of reasons including security, robustness and speed. Only in that case I would expect dropping access time from current 3 to about 1.5 times of theoretical limit. The communication protocol is not so much important to me. I would prefer to have it done by a specialist.
Regarding the first question, the most interesting. :smiley:
Lack of visualisation is apparently one the highest barriers to participation in LiM. For too many people "seeing is believing" is a must. My experience is just opposite. Too much of visualisation may slow down my word quite a lot. However, we have to follow the expectations of users.
I tried to contact TheBrain and Kumu, with no success. Kumu will give up networks with the number of nodes approaching 200,000. TheBrain claims being the largest knowledge network with the number of nodes exceeding that:
https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/3D80058C-14D8-5361-0B61-A061F89BAF87
Nevertheless, I have to try every opportunity. That you for the idea to contact MetaMaps team!! :smiley:
Dmitry Sokolov Mon 2 May 2016 10:30AM
The request is just sent.
Waiting game... :)
Danyl Strype Thu 25 May 2017 7:24AM
Did you get an invite to MetaMaps? If not, I recently got an account on the private beta, so I can send you an invite if you like. It's seems like a significant improvement on the proprietary platform you were using when I last looked at Like in Mind:
* free code/ open source
* developed by a social enterprise group (not a corporation)
* Ruby on Rails: common language/ platform combo for collaboration software, reasonable easy to modify and add features (a friend and I are working on learning how to do this)
* built in chat (like on an Etherpad)
From the few minutes of testing I've done so far, I'm very impressed with it.
Dmitry Sokolov Thu 25 May 2017 8:31AM
Hi Strypey,
MetaMaps is good indeed but it's not suitable for collective memory:
http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/107653629/LikeInMind%20vs%20MetaMaps
I tried a number of platform. It looks like I have to develop something open source and different. Would you be interested to participate, or may be suggest someone?
The requirements for Minimum Viable Product are almost ready. It's time for placing it on a crowdsourcing platform, or for a quote. I would appreciate your suggestion on the options available.
Cheers,
Dmitry
Danyl Strype Sun 28 May 2017 11:37AM
Have you tested it again recently? Your table says "Malfunctioning under Ubuntu 12.04". 12.04 is now at end-of-life (unless you're paying Canonical for support), so either you tested it a while ago, or you need to update to a newer version of Ubuntu. Anyway, assuming you are using a properly updated OS, some of the needs you identified in that table may have been provided for in more recent MetaMap updates.
It seems like all you need is a free code wiki package. I'm sure I would have suggested this already, but have you looked at a CoActivate.org project as a possible replacement for the proprietary PBWorks wiki you are currently using for LikeInMind?
Danyl Strype Sun 28 May 2017 11:46AM
A CoActivate project gives you a wiki ("Unified Conceptual Space"), and if you need them, a blog, and as many extra wikis, mailing lists, and tasks lists, as you need. The underlying software is free code, users accounts are free (non-profit use only), and one user can set up as many projects as they need.
Dmitry Sokolov Mon 29 May 2017 12:26AM
Danyl, CoActivate is a nice service. However, it can't be used as a community / collective memory:
http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/118299723/CoActivate%20vs%20LikeInMind
UCS can't be organised without a Topic Search. If same topic has multiple instances with different content within a single (human) memory, such a disorder is called schizophrenia, to my understanding. For example, if someone can perceive himself a normal person in one period of time, and a Napoleon in another...
UCS is a required condition for a collective memory. CoActivate can't serve as a collective memory in it's present state.
No (collective) memory = no (collective) intelligence
No intelligence means scattering of efforts mostly on bla-bla exchange, a phenomenon very well seen on every single forum. Lots of talking, no much of outcome. That's my experience any way.
Danyl Strype Mon 29 May 2017 4:41AM
So if CoActivate added a feature that allowed you to confine search to one project, instead of the whole site, would it then address you needs? Or, would setting up your own instance of the software used by CoActivate work? To be honest though, it sounds like you just need your own LikeInMind instance of the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia uses.
Have you thought about contributing to the Peer-to-Peer Foundation wiki (uses MediaWiki)? "P2P Collective Intelligence platform, open source, with open information for open society" sounds like an exact description of what the P2PF use their wiki for.
Danyl Strype · Mon 2 May 2016 9:17AM
Just to get us on the same page, I am bringing in my comment from the other thread, which I will delete from there, leaving a note that the off-topic comments have been moved and a link to this thread. As I said on the other thread:
I like the concept of what you are trying to do with LikeinMind but I'm sceptical that the proprietary PBWorks software you are using is the best place to host it. Have you checked out MetaMaps? It's a free code software platform that does a similar thing to PBWorks. The MetaMaps crew are pretty open to collaboration, so if you approach them, they might be willing to help write a migration tool for moving your existing database from PBWorks to their platform.
If you want a more decentralized approach, perhaps a plug-in could be built for [GNU Social]? If you want to go totally P2P ("distributed") perhaps an application could be built on top of an existing P2P tool like GIT, FreeNet, RetroShare, GNUNet, or even BitTorrent.