Current lineup of Weblogs by us. There are two, or maybe three.
our Flickr site : Pelisipia Project (3)
1 and 3 would have most updates regularly.
(Probably we need to add one more, our Flickr is bulging up with ideas which need more adequate platform.) [*and some of that can be said - that we can make more move within the Flickr's setting allows (such as making use of their public groups, which we haven't tried much yet. How to make it possible to accommodate many different entities sharing one interest/goal/direction?: Problem of entities which have to think and act like private business entities, share, dominance, influence, publicity, and support scale, and so on. Can we get out of it? is another issue. Like NGOs planting their flags and taking videos of doing it in Kosovo. How to avoid this?) - Combine that with how some rich NGO workers behaved in Indonesia, Ache.
And we have to kick start many more kind of efforts.
Problem of blogs and subject domains and all the 'vectors' we are trying to run, emit and make results/changes in the real world coming out (utmost speed, efficacy and worthwhile-ness)
But let's say what Jim Whales of Wikipedia said in recently (Dec 2006 or Jan 2007 I believe) in 'In Business' program? on BBC radio 4 or World Service [Peter Day, and it was about Open Source enterprises and what's next to Web 2.0] - is the most 'concise' way of summing it up, and let's know lose it outside of our sight. Because 'changes and improvements' on the due is piling up too high, and needs many to work on them.
" Now it's a time for people sharing their interest to come together and form team and work on the subject they are interested in, work about what they share the passion - as a team. And we will see those teams working over the web - pushing things towards next stage. "
Web's founders - or these technologies founders such as Douglas Engelbart, Alan Kay all said this. What Jimbo Whales said is nothing new, it was included in those original founders vision. Problem is founders never took care of how many 'fronts' would open up and how many different kinds of actual implementations of collaboration platforms have to be designed, tested, sent out/rolled out from labs and then tested by actual people use process. They didn't design things 'concretely' - at all facets and aspects. They didn't roll out hundreds of small tools and platforms and clearly written concrete pieces of ideas. [So something very reactionary, I'd say - almost authoritarian and backwardy - as Wikipedia - can reign. Or gain the top class rating as web collab platform design. Problem of Wikipedia is that now we need various factions, POVs to be able to communicate and interact, that has to come to happen. We don't need 'accepted' (vaguely) mainstream definition or description of this or that subject. True, we will make use of it. But that's now where we can stay. And online encyclopedia might come to have some positive effect on today's factionalisms and sectarianism, and tribalism situations, but it might just turn into somewhat reliable mono-voice perspective collection, which in a way, dangerous thing to have around as 'top rated' thing around us.