TiddlyWiki for Research and Dissertation

[Neil]

Hello Tiddly Wiki folks,

Just discovered Tiddly Wiki and am considering using it as a central
location for research documentation for my dissertation. I've been
using Google Documents, but but it feels clunky -- the various
documents really don't connect very well.

I've done a search through the prior posts and have seen a couple of
references to folks using it for this purpose, but the demo sites are
down. Does anyone have any comments or tips?

thanks,

Neil

[Mark S.]

These example sites seem to work around the edges of what you want:

http://www.pacifica.edu/lib/theses.html
http://deferentialgeometry.org/
http://imp.peermore.com/imp/recipes/imp/tiddlers.wiki

I don't know how you searched this group, but the search engine is
basically broke. The method I use is to search on google with site-
specific search:

thesis site:http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki

I used 'thesis', but I'm sure other terms will come to mind.

HTH
Mark

[Neil Olonoff]

Thanks Mark!

I did the search on the site, and searched on dissertation, thesis and research, and found about 4 posts.

thanks
Neil

Neil Olonoff   olo...@gmail.com
Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative,
Federal KM Working Group hosted at  http://KM.gov
Office:  703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
Personal profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
Blogging at http://FedKM.org

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.

[JayF]

Hi Neil,

I just finished my dissertation and used TW for the last two years of
my research. TW + TiddlerBar + TiddlyTagging + YourSearch works
well. I also added several other features such as a set of subject
tags that I used to organize my reading notes in preparation for my
lit review. I can share feature details if there is interest, but one
tip would be to use Zotero in conjuction w/ TW to keep your references
and notes organized.

Good luck with your research!

Jay

[Neil Olonoff]

Jay,
I work in several different location on both Macs and PCs, and so have tried to have a web-based location for my research

I've used a number of different tools for notes and bibliography (Sente, Tinderbox, Delphi, Personal Brain, Zoot, etc., etc.) and still am using Sente for biblio. I used Zotero for a while, too.

I would definitely appreciate any tips you might have on using TW.

thanks,

Neil

Neil Olonoff   olo...@gmail.com
Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative,
Federal KM Working Group hosted at  http://KM.gov
Office:  703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
Personal profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
Blogging at http://FedKM.org

[shavinder]

In the differential geometry site here
http://deferentialgeometry.org/#[[Clifford%20matrix%20representation]]
how has the author done up all that equations? Its not TW wiki markup
I am sure. Is it some special plugin?
for example what is this?::

$$
\begin{array}{cc}
\si_1 = \sigma_{1}^{P} =
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right]
&
\si_2 = \sigma_{2}^{P}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i\\
i & 0\end{array}\right]
\end{array}
$$

[Dave]

That is LaTeX markup using the jsMathPlugin and jsMath library.

http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/jsMath/welcome.html
http://bob.mcelrath.org/tiddlyjsmath-2.0.3.html

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.

--
Dave
If you must choose between two evils,
pick the one you've never tried before.

[Eric Weir]

On Dec 28, 2009, at 3:21 PM, JayF wrote:

> I just finished my dissertation and used TW for the last two years of
> my research. TW + TiddlerBar + TiddlyTagging + YourSearch works
> well. I also added several other features such as a set of subject
> tags that I used to organize my reading notes in preparation for my
> lit review.

My dissertation was finished before the net, let alone TW, but for
more or less academic writing the components Jay mentions are the ones
that have worked for me. To them I would only add MatchTagsPlugin,
which allows you to do Booleian searches on tags, and thus to set up a
more sophisticated tagging system:
http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#MatchTagsPlugin
http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#MatchTagsPluginInfo

As you may have noticed already, the TiddlyWiki community is extremely
generous in its willingness to help, regardless of the level technical
sophistication of those requesting help, and also highly creative.
Most often requests from new users are addressed by solutions that are
already available. When they are not one will be produced pretty
quickly. Rarely is there a request that goes unanswered.

So, stick around. You will learn a lot.

Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net

[Eric Weir]

On Dec 28, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Neil Olonoff wrote:

> I work in several different location on both Macs and PCs, and so

> have tried to have a web-based location for my research.

One of the advantages of TW is that it is platform independent. Also,
using TiddlySpot you can have your TWs hosted online. And they can be
carried around on a USB stick.

[JayF]

> I've used a number of different tools for notes and bibliography (Sente,
> Tinderbox, Delphi, Personal Brain, Zoot, etc., etc.) and still am using
> Sente for biblio. I used Zotero for a while, too.
>
> I would definitely appreciate any tips you might have on using TW.

I also wanted to be able to work on different computers (home,
netbook, office). To do this in TW, I save my TW (and supporting
graphics files) in a dropbox (mydropbox.com) that automatically syncs
to a server and my other machines. This is way cool, because I can
just keep my TW open in a firefox window on every machine, and as long
as I remember to give it each computer a chance to sync to the server
when it wakes up, I just "refresh" in the browser to have access to my
latest TW.

I use zotero now because it does the same thing, as the new version
(1.5, summer) allows me to back up my ref collection in the cloud from
my netbook and resync on my office computer as soon as zotero is
accessed. Very convenient and free. Hope this is helpful.

Jay

[David]

On Dec 29, 1:24 pm, JayF <fogle...@mail.uri.edu> wrote:
> > I've used a number of different tools for notes and bibliography (Sente,
> > Tinderbox, Delphi, Personal Brain, Zoot, etc., etc.) and still am using
> > Sente for biblio. I used Zotero for a while, too.

I really like the lateral linking in Personal Brain, but a license is
pricey. There's a lot to like about Sente, but I find it hard to get
it to match up a citation and a pdf when they are not entered at the
same time. Papers (mekentosj.com) works better for me than Sente and
is half the price. Never quite warmed up to Zotero, but probably
because I mostly use Safari. But I still wind up primarily using the
free Journler, mostly because I can save pdfs to a Journler drop
folder and have them imported immediately (if the app is running) or
later the next time I open it. I can just surf along in a browser as
normal and save items whenever I come across them. "Research" for me
is broader than just academic databases. Google Scholar's new feature
to show links directly to your campus library database also makes this
approach much easier. Also a big fan of the free Skim for annotating
pdfs. (Yes, I'm on a Mac).

Just tried the FileDropPlugin from tiddlytools.com and think it may
move me to using TW for collecting and annotating. I need to come up
with a workflow that is as painless as Journler. I can do this
manually by saving files to a TW "drop folder" and then go back later
and manually drop those files into TW, but that requires me to
remember to do it. Maybe there's a TW plugin (or maybe there could be)
that monitors a particular folder and automatically imports any new
files using the FileDropPlugin (or similar).

I can also imagine pretty easily creating an APA 6th bib formatting
tool using slices and transclusion. But for large numbers of
references, I'm sure Sente, Papers, and others would be more robust.

> I also wanted to be able to work on different computers (home,
> netbook, office). To do this in TW,  I save my TW (and supporting
> graphics files) in a  dropbox (mydropbox.com) that automatically syncs
> to a server and my other machines.  

I'm also a fan of Dropbox, but I use it a bit differently. I don't
have a second computer, but I do have a second virtual machine on my
Macbook, and Dropbox makes it easier to move files between OS X and
XP. I also use the Dropbox folder for critical docs I want to be sure
are backed up in the cloud without me ever thinking about it (extra
insurance on top of my full server backup at home). And I also use it
for quickly sharing files across the web with others, as I have done
here.

I'm not at the dissertation stage yet. Still completing my residency
project and looking forward to comps in the fall, but I'll be eager to
hear any other suggestions for organizing scholarly research. TW
definitely has a lot of potential here.

David

[iain]

Neil,

my first thesis was typed by a typist, my second was done on Wordstar
on a Kaypro luggable machine running CP/M and used lots of file cards
(which I still find occasionally) my Doctorate was on good old MS Word
with the references in EndNote and with sheaf's of notes which form a
fall of my garage. So I have been through generations of computer
aided research.

I am still an active researcher and although the amount of paper
doesn't seem to have gotten any less I do use the combination of TW
and EndNote for my research. EndNote is really only used because I
already have several databases including one with 3700 references. If
I was seriously starting out again I would use Zotero.

I have several TW's which I use as a combination of research notes and
databases for the various projects I am working on.

I use a tweaked version (improving the colour scheme) of Morris
Gray's My Notes and am playing around with Dave Gifford's No Brainer
notes which has the tree view plugin. Both Morris and Dave are
promising "new improved" versions sometime in the New Year. If you
search on this forum you will run into them and links to the TW's.

I am less interested in the programming side of things and I have
found both these implementations of the TW idea useful because I can
just get started and do the research.

Of course I am working in the archaeology/history/heritage area and if
you are writing a disscertation on fractual geometry you my need a
different type of TW.

yours

Iain

[rni...@gmail.com]

Hi All
I wrote my dissertation in Wordperfect... both times since a virus
wiped it out the first time :(

I use TW now for organizing my classes - tiddlers tagged "Week01",
"Week 02"... display other tiddlers tagged "Week01 LectureNotes",
"Week01 HandOuts", "Week01 ReqReadings"... This way, I can see each
week's materials by looking at that week's tiddler, or use
ForEachTiddler statements to see all readings, handouts, or lecture
notes in one place... I put my notes in tiddlers so I can also search
for specific terms and find which lecture included them, or cross link
things like definitions of a term to any place I use it.

I think this would translate to dissertations easily.
1) Create tiddlers tagged for the dissertation sections ("Abstract"
"Chapter01", "Methodology" etc...) and have them display other
tiddlers tagged "Chapter01 MyTasks" "Chapter01 ToRead", and "Chapter01
UsedRefs" followed by your writing for that chapter (in a tiddler is
possible... but that may be taking it too far... or a link to the doc
file you are writing it in). Keep in mind that the tiddler titles
could be whatever you wanted them to be, and so could be more
descriptive... but naming them to match these tags would make it
easier to use templates and pass $1 and $2 variables...

2) "MyTasks" could be
either a bullet list of "next actions" in GTD terms for that chapter,
like get an article, talk to your chair about something, email a
researcher somewhere with a question...
or a ForEachTiddler 'ed list of anything tagged "Chapter01 MyTasks",
meaning a tiddler for each task, which would give you a place to put
notes about the conversation with your chair or a place to include a
copy of the email exchange with the other researcher...
or both - a short list of one step tasks followed by the
ForEachTiddler statement for only the things that needed notes...

Keep in mind you could add a "Done" tag to tasks after they were done,
as well as add a "Pending" tag to tasks needing later follow up
action. You would then use three ForEachTiddler statments
--one to show all tiddlers tagged MyTasks but NOT Pending and NOT Done
to see current actions
--one to show all tiddlers tagged MyTasks AND Pending and NOT Done to
show those needing follow up or reminding
--one to show all tiddlers tagged MyTasks AND Pending AND Done to show
your notes on tasks

3) "ToRead" could list articles and chapters to read,
either as a single tiddler that just had a bullet point list
or as a tiddler with a ForEachTidder statement that showed every
tiddler tagged "Chapter01 ToRead MyNotes". The tiddlers tagged this
way would have the properly formed reference (without any hard returns
in it) as the first line, a blank line or two, and then your notes
below... you could add a link to the pdf for the resource too. These
tiddlers should be named "Lastname - Whatever" where Lastname is the
author's last name and Whatever is your description of the resource.

4) Once you decided to use an article or chapter in your dissertation,
change the tags for the tiddler for that resource to "Chapter01
UsedRefs". The ForEachTiddler documentation has an example of how to
list all tiddlers tagged a certain way, and return the first line of
text from the tiddler. At the end of your "Chapter01" tiddler... or
in a References tiddler... include a ForEachTiddler statement that
returns the first line of everything tagged "Chapter01 UsedRefs"... or
just everything tagged UsedRefs... and since they are named with the
author's last name as the first word in the title, an alphabetical
sort (the default) would give you an alphabetical reference list. You
could tinker with the code and have it display the first line as a
clickable link to the tiddler for that resource, or display something
like [[.|tiddlertitle]] at the end of the reference, and so the
reference would not be clickable, but the final period at the end of
it would take you to that reference's tiddler to see your notes and a
link to it...

Attaching links to documents likely means keeping a local copy of the
TW on your flashdrive, but everything else could be done on tiddlyspot
for example, and you could access your work anywhere you had an
internet connection... and keep a local backup just in case... did I
mention a virus wiped out my dissertation?

Just some ideas...
Richard

[Neil]

Hi, Richard,

Great tips!

I'm still digesting your tips for structuring Tiddlers. They seem very
well thought out. Do you have any comments on your work process? How
do you manage references? How do you manage connections to PDFs or
other reference documents? How do you export from TiddlyWiki for final
printing /publication?

Thanks,

Neil

[David]

On Dec 31, 9:31 am, "rnio...@gmail.com" <rnio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All
> I wrote my dissertation in Wordperfect... both times since a virus
> wiped it out the first time :(

I nearly cried about a month ago when transferring participant
interviews from my digital recorder to my laptop and one of them
just ... vanished. I don't think I've lost a data file in 15 years. I
don't know why it didn't make it to the laptop, but my error was
erasing the digital recorder before I checked the files. I'm now
considering how best to create two recordings during interviews, just
in case.

My other disappointment this semester was hearing my faculty advisor
say to our class that a dissertation that included references that
only came from online sources (meaning online scholarly databases, and
as opposed to the dusty bound volumes on the fourth floor of the
library) would be considered "lazy." She's been very supportive of my
ideas so far and has been stretching herself to use more new media in
her online classes, so the "lazy" comment surprised me.

As for workflow, I've gotten TW a step closer to the ease of
Journler's drop box. I've created a folder on my desktop called
TiddlyWiki Drop Box, which is now where I save PDFs and other files
for research. I decided that a direct link to the file would be less
useful because it includes the full path name, so my first step for my
new files is to create aliases for all of them. I then move the
original files to my Journler drop box so they will be indexed there
as well, and the alias follows the file to its new location. That
leaves only aliases in my TW drop folder. I do all my work on my
laptop at home or on the campus, so TW and the files are always
together. Then using the FileDropPlugin, I drop the aliases on a TW
open in Firefox, and tiddlers are created for each automatically. I
have them automatically tagged with Research and New so that I can
easily pull them out of TW. I've changed the settings for
FileDropPlugin so that the link is displayed in the tiddler. I open my
tiddlers tagged New, click on the link, and the PDF opens in Preview.
So far I've been manually copying the citation, abstract, and
references to the tiddler, and then Skim through the PDF for any key
points, which I also copy to the tiddler, or summarize. Tags are
starting to be an interesting way to link authors across multiple
works and to all the works that cite them. I'm tempted to try using
the author's last name and year of publication as a wikiword and let
TW create the cross references for me, but I haven't tried that yet.

My next workflow challenge will be attempting to do some of the
writing (at least in draft form) in TW. Your suggestions should come
in very handy, Richard. I actually think TW may improve my writing
process because I will be chunking it into smaller tasks. Right now
Word tends to increase my anxiety because I'm paying too much
attention to the page count and formatting as I go along. TW will let
me forget about most of that and concentrate on content. Word's
stylesheets will take care of the formatting later. Now if I can just
make the TW interface fade away and take over my entire screen (see
http://www.ommwriter.com/) I would be very happy indeed. Pandora and
iTunes can provide the tranquil audio if I really want it.

My advisor has been pushing me to create a "multimedia dissertation."
There's only been one before on our campus, and it only was an online
repository to an archive of participant interviews on video, but the
diss itself was the traditional paper format. TW conjures up the
possibilities of a "single-file, self-editing, reusable non-linear
personal web dissertation" in all its hyperlinked and media-embedded
glory. But then, that would be "lazy," wouldn't it? :-)

Thanks all!

David

[Eric Weir]

On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:52 PM, iain wrote:

> ...Wordstar on a Kaypro luggable machine running CP/M....

Ah! my first system! $2000 for 64K of RAM and two 360K floppy drives.
State of the art.

I loved Wordstar. Your hand never had to leave the keyboard.

[shavinder]

Using online resources should not be seen lazy at all. I can
understand what the advisor actually means though. This happened with
me too. I prepared a proposal for research whose bibliography included
a lot of online sources. I assumed that it was enough for the primary
stage of the proposal. But the panel while rejecting my proposal used
this point in arguments, that I had not visited other university
libraries and had not consulted the actual hard bound researches
enough!

The Professors think is that internet makes it too easy for the new
generation and when they compare it to their times they dont like this
too much. They feel that effort being 'too easy' would make us less
worthy of the reward. (They may have a point but I am not sure)

Based upon my experience I feel that the professors are not fully
acquainted with what one might term 'web2.0 research'

A tiddlywiki is quite an appropriate candidate for a 'WEB2.0
Research'. In fact I pray that somebody who has already completed his
research and is willing to share his TW or some portion of it as an
example, take up this term 'WEB2.0 Research' and write an article on
this along with his sample tiddlywiki. This article would go a long
way in helping the professors form a favourable opinion about systems
such as Tiddlywiki.

I would also wish that in that article one should give a due attention
to the programming and designing aspects of creating a tiddlywiki
document so as to inform the reader that what he sees on screen and
all the buttons and their wonderful effects have taken some good
effort in the background.

Regarding 'multimedia dissertation' I would say the term multimedia is
so overused in education circles as none other. And i dare say that MS
Powerpoint paradigm is proving to be a major obstacle in changing
professors' attitude towards computers and their use in education.
What they usually want is audio and video chunks along with text on
slides.

But in the end I would say it is as important to please your advisor
as much as doing a good research. So think up of some innovative ways
to 'package' your research for impressing the audience. Use impressive
layout and colors for your tw when you submit it to your department. I
know what I say may be taken to be unethical advice but I believe its
better to do hard work and get a positive result than a negative one.

all the best
-shavinder

> make the TW interface fade away and take over my entire screen (seehttp://www.ommwriter.com/) I would be very happy indeed. Pandora and

[Neil Olonoff]

Compaq Deskpro, with the enhanced (40 MB) hard drive and 2  5-1/4 inch floppy drives. Oh, and WordPerfect rules! 

Neil Olonoff   olo...@gmail.com

--

[Morris Gray]

On Dec 29 2009, 2:36 pm, shavinder <shavinderpalsi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In the differential geometry site herehttp://deferentialgeometry.org/#[[Clifford%20matrix%20representation]]

> how has the author done up all that equations? Its not TW wiki markup
> I am sure. Is it some special plugin?
> for example what is this?::

It is Latex. You can do this easily in a TiddlyWiki. Look at my
http://twmath.tiddlyspot.com/

Morris Gray

On Dec 29 2009, 2:36 pm, shavinder <shavinderpalsi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In the differential geometry site herehttp://deferentialgeometry.org/#[[Clifford%20matrix%20representation]]

[Jineil Hayes]

Hey there,
I haven't been to the wiki stuff as of late.  But, I subscribed to all these posts and now I don't know where or what the name of the link is in order to stop the subscriptions...where do I go to sign in and change my settings..gosh.
Please, I would appreciate your help...anyone.
Thanks
J

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.

--
One day at a time...

[shavinder]

Go to http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki/ and sign in to your
account. On the top right is a link "MyAccount" , click that and you
reach a central place showing all your group memberships, from there
you can find a link "Manage my memberships" near the bottom-left of
the central div.

> > tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com<tiddlywiki%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[iain]

Eric,

you forgot the best bit - the portability of the Kaypro. I can recall
carrying one (plus a generator which was carried by an assistant) up a
hill with a middle Bronze age fortification overlooking the Euphrates
River so we could input survey measurements directly from our
theodolite (i.e. the surveyor shouted them to us).

The Kaypro was described a luggable it was something like 15kg and its
boxy shape made it a bit difficult to carry but its metal case meant
it was fairly indestructible (we has several goes at destroying it).

Iain

[iain]

I think Shavinder the issue is more about being able to check sources
rather than the web itself (although there is a considerable amount
of bias against Wikipedia in academic circles).

The ever shifting, changing, nature of web sources makes it difficult
to verify that what was seen on a web page is in fact correct. With
documents you can in fact go back to the originals and check.
Amazingly you often find that there have been mistakes made or in some
cases that the document in question does not exist (e.g. it is
surprising how many historians cannot read a map).

However in my case WEB 2.0 allows me to access on-line content which
is often old documents, photographs, maps, newspapers...etc. which
expands my research because often in the pre web times it would be
difficult to access all the sources. You can of course take
"snapshots" of web pages as a record of what they were when you read
them.

As an Australian my attitude towards my supervisors was one of healthy
scepticism until they proved their worth but I am aware that Americans
for example seem to treat their supervisors with awe.

Regards

Iain

[David]

> As an Australian my attitude towards my supervisors was one of healthy
> scepticism until they proved their worth but I am aware that Americans
> for example seem to treat their supervisors with awe.
>
> Regards
>
> Iain

Iain ... if you only knew what a pain in the --- I am for my advisor
and other profs! =) Because I am pursuing this doc at an older age
(I'll be 54 this week), I really don't waste any time with what Neil
Postman so brilliantly called "bulls---". They really don't know quite
what to do with me (nor do most of my fellow students). I give them
the respect they deserve, but I am very quick to challenge on issues
in the discipline. I'm not planning to go the prof route myself (it's
a tad late to start looking for tenure!), so I call them like I see
them (mostly). I'm not sure this has been the best strategy ...
LOL ... and it may come back to bite me, but I really have been around
the block far too many times to play their silly little games.

But I love my advisor -- she's probably the only reason I'm still
there. She has been trying to adopt a lot of new technology in her
teaching practice, and she has been tasked with taking most of her
program online, so she's no Luddite. But I know that she's really
talking to the younger crowd of students when she calls web research
"lazy," and it's probably appropriate for many of them who seem to
think collaborative editing in wikipedia qualifies as "peer
review." :-)

Shavinder, your suggestion of a research project on TW is an excellent
one. I'm going to have to give that some thought.

Thanks to all for letting me wander so far off topic. Since I've
already apparently caused at least one subscriber to scream for help
to unsibuscribe, I'll try to keep it focused.

David

P.S.: If anyone knows of any good resources that describe methods for
doing qualitative research online (such as various forms on online
interviewing methods), send me a private email about it.

[Alex Hough]

bias against wikipedia is valid. Constructed hypertexts are not citable - a good rule.

Alex

2010/1/4 iain <ia...@jcis.net.au>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.

--
http://www.multiurl.com/g/64

[Tobias Beer]

Bias against proprietary, commercial, patenting interests is just as
valid... keeping in mind that much in science is ever more focussing
on commercial development of technologies (which today reads as: "for
ones individual profit"), rather than doing unbiased research.

Unlike most "trusted", "peer-reviewed" sources, wikipedia allows for
PUBLIC revision and revision history, even linked to user profiles. I
consider this the number one reason for why it has become and is
becoming a source that is just as trustable as any "publication" that
comes along with an ISBN number, which - on average - is quite likely
driven by special interests to a much larger degree ...rather than
being the outcome of - on average - balanced and moderated editing
processes ...and discussions or arguments that go along with them.

Would I use wikipedia for scientific publications today? Surely not.
But that is more due to its still quite limited content on one hand
and (therefore) a lack of acceptance in the "scientific" establishment
on the other ...rather than the model on which Wikipedia is built.

In that respect... I, for one, demand for scientific research and
results to be public and open ...otherwise they're to be rejected, as
their main focus clearly is not on scientific progress, which - above
all - embraces the ability to deal with scepticism, rebuttal and
revision in a appropriate ways... which todays "peer review" process
does not seem to provide for in acceptable ways.

However, what I find to be fundamentally missing in Wikipedia (or its
interrelation to the rest of "the web") is a demand for accessibility
to the kind of independent "(arte)facts" or "samples of experience" on
which the whole body of knowledge is built... e.g. all sorts of data
samples. Wikipedia too much constructs around results considered
trustworthy, merely due to them being published... while not - or at
best insufficiently - providing access to the data and methods from
which those results were derived.

Tobias.

[Neil Olonoff]

All,

I tend to agree with Tobias, in the following sense.

Content in Wikipedia represents a valid discourse, whether or not it is always "accurate". As long as the scholar makes appropriate attribution, the reader can always "consider the source."

The reality is, no source is unimpeachable and free of point of view. To espouse any kind of knowledge also claims membership in a thought-community, with its attendant biases and viewpoints.

Now, if a given thought community -- by it's own internal norms -- decides that Wikipedia, or another source, is unacceptable, that is their prerogative, I suppose. But there are certainly fields of study within which Wikipedia, is an acceptable source. So, for example, might be the posts of participants in a listserv like this one, as examples of popular discourse on the use of wikis.

It's all in the point of view.

Regards,

Neil

Neil Olonoff   olo...@gmail.com
Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative,
Federal KM Working Group hosted at  http://KM.gov
Office:  703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
Personal profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
Blogging at http://FedKM.org

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 4, 2010, at 6:08 PM, iain wrote:

> The Kaypro was described a luggable it was something like 15kg and its
> boxy shape made it a bit difficult to carry but its metal case meant
> it was fairly indestructible (we has several goes at destroying it).

I think I "lugged" it to my in-laws once. In terms of capabilities and
portability it was nothing compared to what we've got now. I just like
the fact that it was a package. I didn't have to put anything
together. I got an inexpensive piece of software that enabled me to
map my most used Wordstar commands onto the keyboard. Man, I could fly
through documents.

Getting the computer and the printer together was a real headache.

Regards,

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 5, 2010, at 1:36 AM, David wrote:

> P.S.: If anyone knows of any good resources that describe methods for
> doing qualitative research online (such as various forms on online
> interviewing methods), send me a private email about it.

David,

You might want to seek help with this from EVALTALK, the listserv of
the American Evaluation Association, another very helpful group.
http://www.eval.org

[Philipp G]

Hello all,

I have been reading these conversations with great interest.

I have considered using TiddlyWiki for all sorts of things over the last 3 years since I saw someone using it in a presentation instead of ppt. However, I have never actually used it for a project.

Now, I am determined to use it for my dissertation. Not to gather my notes, etc. but actually presenting my thesis in a html file rather than printing and binding a script. The main reason is that I would like someone to read the argument as I structured it AND to be able to explore the topic of my PhD in the order they find makes most sense. 

I thought I could arrange tiddlers as I would have sections in a linear form in a word file but ALSO use hyperlinks, tags, different indexes etc, for people to find their way around the information themselves.

I started the process of getting my supervisors and the University to see the benefits of this idea and hope that they will agree for me to be able to do this. The current problem I face is that they struggle to get their head around how this would look in the end. 

Would anyone be able to suggest TWs that can illustrate what I am trying to do? Is anyone aware of this having been done before? 

Anything that you think could help me to illustrate the power of TW compared to linear presentations in word files would be beneficial as well.

Thanks a lot in advance. 

Best wishes,

Philipp

P.S. I have (and will have) loads more questions, where shall I ask these? (e.g. will TW cope with stuff that is usually a 150 page document?) Shall I continue in here or should I start a new thread. I am not familiar with the code of practice in this community.

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Philipp

Now, I am determined to use it for my dissertation. Not to gather my notes, etc. but actually presenting my thesis in a html file rather than printing and binding a script. The main reason is that I would like someone to read the argument as I structured it AND to be able to explore the topic of my PhD in the order they find makes most sense. 

I thought I could arrange tiddlers as I would have sections in a linear form in a word file but ALSO use hyperlinks, tags, different indexes etc, for people to find their way around the information themselves.

Makes sense. It should be possible to produce a TiddlyWiki for interactive access while also generating an ordinary, linear HTML document consisting of those same tiddlers threaded together into a logical ordering. That way you could have your cake and eat it -- you'd be sidestepping concerns about the non-linearity of TW.

 

I started the process of getting my supervisors and the University to see the benefits of this idea and hope that they will agree for me to be able to do this. The current problem I face is that they struggle to get their head around how this would look in the end. 

As I say, if they're struggling with TW as the medium for delivery, perhaps you can establish common ground by giving them a traditional hierarchical document.

 

Would anyone be able to suggest TWs that can illustrate what I am trying to do? Is anyone aware of this having been done before? 

It may also be worth asking this question in the Google group for TiddlySpace, which enjoys a fair amount of academic use.

 

Anything that you think could help me to illustrate the power of TW compared to linear presentations in word files would be beneficial as well.

I'll put this topic on the list for tomorrows' TiddlyWiki Hangout #34. It would be instructive to work through some ways of achieving what you want with TW5.

> P.S. I have (and will have) loads more questions, where shall I ask these? (e.g. will TW cope with stuff that is usually a 150 page document?) Shall I continue in here or should I start a new thread. I am not familiar with the code of practice in this community.

It's usually better to start a new topic with a subject line that will be helpful to other readers.

Best wishes

Jeremy

 Hello Tiddly Wiki folks,

Just discovered Tiddly Wiki and am considering using it as a central
location for research documentation for my dissertation. I've been
using Google Documents, but but it feels clunky -- the various
documents really don't connect very well.

I've done a search through the prior posts and have seen a couple of
references to folks using it for this purpose, but the demo sites are
down. Does anyone have any comments or tips?

thanks,

Neil

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com

[Philipp G]

Hi Jeremy,

thanks for that response. What you say makes sense to me. 

Through linear and non-linear options I am trying to find a compromise. The issue is that usually (old school) examiners would look at a print out and dislike reading such a long work on a computer screen.

I will start a new thread, do you know when TW5 is supposed to leave Beta?

Best wishes,
Philipp

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Philipp

I will start a new thread, do you know when TW5 is supposed to leave Beta?

Hopefully in the first half of 2014

Best wishes

Jeremy

[Philipp G]

Hi Jeremy,

 

thanks for that. That would still fit my timeplans.

 

Thanks again.

 

Best wishes,

Philipp