I proposed that browsing the map of knowledge-making efforts over at Wikipedia's knowledge-making headquarters would enhance both participation and consumption of knowledge-making results.

In a later comment Julian indicated interest but also worried that the blogosphere tends to work against deep efforts. He underscored the necessity for appropriate "rules of discourse". My reply follows:

Thanks for responding, Julian. [My thanks to Radio Userland, too.The email generation feature that radio has recently developed is responsible for my awareness of your comment. Without it I wouldn't have been able to respond in a timely fashion.] I will answer assuming that your entry started as a reply to the question, Would you be a more avid and effective participant or observer if you could browse the map of knowledge making efforts over at Wikipedia's knowledge-making headquarters? -- with the bells and whistles of the sort [but not limited to those] that I described.

You note our collective tendency to write frequently [not deeply] and, by implication(??), to follow those that do the same. I'm not sure of the dynamics you propose-- but am fairly sure that it does not fully represent my own dynamics.

I admit to having my head turned by an increased rating on either Technorati or Blogstreet. And, yes, I am pleased to find someone new has linked to my weblog. These motivations, and, you suggest, present blogosphere mechanisms, could tend to push me to write diffusely and frequently as opposed to deeply.

But, as a reader-thinker-writer, I do have other, deeper, motivations. I am looking for accessible writing in my interest areas; I'm willing to read online and off line but am particularly interested in finding and, even more, participating in a joint and interactive construction of deep truths--the spirit of Majester Ludi [Hesse's Bead Game] lives on in me. The web and blogosphere haven't yet overcome my deeper tendencies.

Picture the web universe as a large, open park with many activities going on; in their diversity they provide room for many motivations and purposes.

For example, I find I am drawn by the chess players because of the accessibility of their processing and thus the chance to learn from their actions. I like that. The fact that some players are flashy, fast and draw the biggest crowds with their byplay may attract me for awhile [sigma] but am interested in 'good' chess more than 'fast' chess so I will keep walking until I find the better games.

Even then, chess isn't exactly what I'm ultimately up to; so I would move along. Besides, while I like seeing activity done well, I'd prefer to participate in rather than watch action.

I could be drawn to participate in the ontology project over here or the bioethics and corporate decision-makingover there.

Now I'm [rhetorically and psychologically] ready to respond to your concern for "rules of discourse" that would work,i.e., that would,for example, "counterbalance the tendency for each area [of blogosphere discourse] to be dominated by a small number of articulate players".

I think the general question might look like:
What"rules of discourse"[standing for wired in structure and processes, decision-making rules, etc.] will take care of such issues as :

• a) attracting, educating, recognizing/rewarding, assigning and, for that matter, retiring players,
• b) folding player knowledge products into a meta-knowledge corpus,
• c) signaling depth and frequency of change to knowledge consumers, players and underwriters
• d) critically evaluating product as it is developed

Complex question; also, it looks like a set of system design problems that might ultimately allow "practical" development of a working system.

Perhaps the pattern ideas fromIntroducing New Ideas Into Organizations can be used for our attention prolonging purposes in the blogosphere . [via Julian and via Lilia ]