User:Eleanorg/Journal 2.2: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
(Created page with "==27 Dec 2012== My project has a social side and a technical side. I've put time into figuring out where to intervene socially. Now I need to firm up a software spec and learn...")
 
Line 37: Line 37:


LEARN what exercises/games are feminists proposing to practice consensual negotiation? Could this be a 'learning game'?
LEARN what exercises/games are feminists proposing to practice consensual negotiation? Could this be a 'learning game'?
Idea: could the editing/curation process be a more intimate thing, where people are paired with another person and create the document together?

Revision as of 14:10, 27 December 2012

27 Dec 2012

My project has a social side and a technical side. I've put time into figuring out where to intervene socially. Now I need to firm up a software spec and learn some skillz.

FEATURES

  • Anyone can contribute to the 'library' (or - limited to a group who've committed + have passwords?)
  • Users curate by committing physical resources as a marker of agreement/solidarity (Piracy Project as opposed to Assembling Press, where authors must print own work)
  • Popularity is visualized physically (see Amsterdam Weekly)
  • Popularity/disagreement is visualized in the software

>> the above two could clash: or somehow make the software configure web2print files such that the two are combined?

  • Proliferation of provisional editions
  • POSSIBLE: designers make the publication look nice

I think there is some confusion in my mind between transmitting others' words, and this idea of curation. Or maybe not. I'm conflating 'curation' with 'transmitting' maybe. You know, holding a banner for another: both transmission and curation; you decide what you agree with and then you publish it. And it's this process of curation that interests me. When curation isn't simply a personal choice but done out of solidarity. The danger with this project is that this idea gets lost, and it becomes all about debating certain controversial texts in their own right. I somehow have to create an imperative for solidarity (or locate a pre-existing one). I need to find a publication pronto in which to intervene.

And where does curation relate to the 'creation of hybrid documents' that I presented in my diagram? I guess these hybrid documents are simply the edited spreads which will be printed, minus the unpopular text.

The overriding aim is to highlight the dischord that underlies consent. Basically it's Open Sauce, with a more sophisticated way of: - indicating agreement/disagreement - visualising agreement/disagreement

Which is where version control is relevant. Questions to bear in mind while learning Git: - How are documents circulated socially using Git? - How are documents approved of or disapproved of/discarded?

I think my knowledge is still too patchy to create a whole VCS and web to print tool myself - shame, as I wanted a customised one. But I don't just want this to be another Open Sauce, ie, 'artist uses a wiki' -- 'artist uses Git'. I want to draw attention to the social relationships inherent in these tools? No. Actually I want to use these tools to visualise social relationships. (DANGER - being naive about how these tools 'perform' or produce certain behaviour in themselves.)


Goal: make a VCS/publishing system implementing a "beyond yes or no" idea of consent. Editing or version control features to be taken from manifestos on consent - ie, yes, no maybe game.

LEARN what exercises/games are feminists proposing to practice consensual negotiation? Could this be a 'learning game'?

Idea: could the editing/curation process be a more intimate thing, where people are paired with another person and create the document together?