IdeaWazaWiki - User contributions [en]

Archive:Aquamarine

2008-02-06T04:41:50Z

69.119.224.190: alot

aquamarine by alice hoffman is mainly about two girls that go to a pool club. they meat a mermade in the pool. the merimade has a big crush on the snack bar attended.she is so spoild. she gets everything.

Archive:Fanboy

2007-03-04T02:18:47Z

69.119.17.128:

{{Otheruses3|Fanboys}}

{{Mergeto|Fan (person)|date=March 2007}}

'''Fanboy''' or '''fanboi''' is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version ''[[fangirl]]'' may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an [[obsession]]. ''Fanboys'' remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view. The Moronic kind of fanboys are also typically hateful to the opposing brand or competition of their obsession regardless of its merits or achievements. Not to to be confused with the good kind of fanboys.

==History of fanboys and the term==
The term originated in [[comic book]] circles, to describe someone who immersed himself in the fictional worlds of comics and the culture of comics fandom. The term is often used in a derogatory manner by other less obsessed fans. In the songs of the fannish [[parody]] [[musician]] [[Luke Ski]], many characters proudly consider themselves ''fanboys''. The term is most commonly associated with adolescent and teen males but can be applicable to any age or sex. Common subjects of reverence by fanboys are [[TV show]]s, [[film|movie]]s, [[music]], [[anime]], [[car]]s, [[video game console]]s, [[video games]], [[operating system]]s, [[MMORPG]]s, [[Computer Hardware|hardware]] and [[software]] companies.

The stereotypical image of the fanboy is as an unkempt, socially awkward, young man who may be perceived as a loud mouthed [[pseudo-intellectual]]. Popular depictions of this stereotype include the [[Comic Book Guy]] on ''[[The Simpsons]]'' and columnist [[Larry Groznic]] from the satirical newspaper ''[[The Onion]]''.

The earliest published uses of the word "fanboy" have been dated to 1982. One reference is to the cover of the "Official Underground and Newave Comix Price Guide". On this cover page are sketched overweight, overzealous comic book collectors wearing T-shirts that state "Fanboys of America," and are describing the extreme measures they would go to, including moving to San Francisco, to preserve their comics. Also published in 1982, a comic strip appeared in Jim Engel and Chuck Fiala's "Fandom Confidential" comic. In the strip, Jim and Chuck met comic artist/writer [[John Byrne]] and collapsed into "mindless paroxysms of adoration." The John Byrne character responded that they were "a couple of fanboys in bondage" which was a play on words referring to a [[List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes#8. Archaeology Today|Monty Python skit]] in which an Elizabethan era character reads what she claims to be "'Gayboys in Bondage' by William Shakespeare".[http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=7&T1=Miscellaneous+Questions#154] Another early use is in a smart-alec editorial reply by "[[Ambush Bug]]" to a letter in his comic in [[1985]].

==Subjects of obsession==
Some current examples of brands and products which have fanboy supporters:
*[[Apple Inc.|Apple Computers]].
*The [[graphics processing unit]]s produced by [[ATI Technologies|ATI]] and [[NVIDIA]].
*The [[computer]] [[microprocessor]] companies [[Advanced Micro Devices|AMD]] and [[Intel Corporation|Intel]].
*The various [[automobile]] manufacturers, such as [[General Motors]] and [[Ford]].
*The competing video game consoles [[Xbox 360]], [[Wii]] and [[Playstation 3]]
*The competing handheld video game consoles the [[Nintendo DS]] and the [[PlayStation Portable]].
*The competing [[DVD]] successor formats [[Blu-ray Disc|Blu-ray]] and [[HD DVD]].
*The competing computer hardware and software produced by [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Microsoft]], and [[Linux|GNU/Linux]]. See [[Operating system advocacy]].
*The long running [[science-fiction]] franchises [[Star Trek]], [[Star Wars]], [[Doctor Who]] and [[Babylon 5]].
*[[The Matrix]] trilogy of movies.
*The comic book brands [[DC Comics]] and [[Marvel Comics]].
*The MP3 player [[iPod]].
*The [[web browser]]s [[Mozilla Firefox|Firefox]] and [[Opera (internet suite)|Opera]].
*Manga (Japanese comics)
*[[Final Fantasy VII]]
*FPS [[First Person Shooter]] games [[Quake]] vs [[Unreal Tournament]] vs [[Counter Strike]]
*[[Console Gaming]] Versus [[PC Gaming]]
*[[Creative Labs soundcards]] Versus [[other soundcards]]

==Media==
===Comic Book===
*[[Sergio Aragonés]]' ''Fanboy''

===Television===
*''[[The Simpsons]]'''s [[Comic Book Guy]] refers to himself as a fanboy.
*''[[Freakazoid!|Freakazoid]]'''s [[freakazoid!#Other characters|Fan Boy]]

===Radio/Podcasts===
*[[Fanboy Radio]] - [http://fanboyradio.com]
*Drooling FanBoy - [http://droolingfanboy.com]
*ifanboy - [http://www.ifanboy.com]
*[[The Fanboy Smackdown Podcast]] - [http://www.fanboysmackdown.com]
*[[The Opie and Anthony Show]] - [http://www.opieandanthony.com]

===Webcomics===
*Fanboy Almanac (webcomic) - [http://fanboyalmanac.com Fanboy Almanac]
*[http://www.ngeb.net/fanboys Fanboys web comic]
*[http://www.fogclub.net Fanboy Otaku Gamers Club web comic]
*[http://www.fanboysonline.com Fanboys!! Beyond Geekdom!!! (webcomic)]
*[http://www.fanboys-online.com Fanboys-Online]

==See also==
* [[Addiction]]
* [[Computer zealotry]]
* [[Editor war]]
* [[Anorak (slang)|Anorak]]
* [[Astroturfing]]
* [[Otaku]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboy Urban dictionary: fanboy]
* [http://www.netjak.com/review.php/1013 Dissecting the Fanboy Mind] - A discussion of the fanboy behavior in regards to video games.
* [http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=6463 The trial of the Fanboy] - A criticism of the fanboy concept and overusage of the term.

[[Category:Fandom]]
[[Category:Anime and manga terminology]]

[[de:Fanboy]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T21:23:54Z

69.119.80.13: /* The benefits of collaboratively building concepts */

[[Image:collaboration.jpg|right|]]

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==
To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice''' and/or '''Righteousness'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''
**See also: [[War Seminar]]

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature''' (related to: [[w:Original sin|original sin]] and [[w:Holiness|holiness]])
**[[w:mind|mind]], [[w:Brain|brain]], [[w:Soul|soul]]

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction, refinement, or blending of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Ausubel, D.P. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

==External links==
*[[w:Concept|Concept]] - Wikipedia article
[[w:Semantic wiki|Semantic wiki]] - Wikipedia article

{{plp}}
[[Category:Interdisciplinary Studies]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T18:25:53Z

69.119.80.13: /* Potential concepts worth exploring */

[[Image:collaboration.jpg|right|]]

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==
To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice''' and/or '''Righteousness'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''
**See also: [[War Seminar]]

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature''' (related to: [[w:Original sin|original sin]] and [[w:Holiness|holiness]])

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction or refinement of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

==External links==
*[[w:Concept|Concept]] - Wikipedia article
[[w:Semantic wiki|Semantic wiki]] - Wikipedia article

{{plp}}
[[Category:Interdisciplinary Studies]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T18:25:32Z

69.119.80.13: /* Potential concepts worth exploring */

[[Image:collaboration.jpg|right|]]

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==
To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice''' and'''Righteousness'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''
**See also: [[War Seminar]]

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature''' (related to: [[w:Original sin|original sin]] and [[w:Holiness|holiness]])

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction or refinement of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

==External links==
*[[w:Concept|Concept]] - Wikipedia article
[[w:Semantic wiki|Semantic wiki]] - Wikipedia article

{{plp}}
[[Category:Interdisciplinary Studies]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T18:24:28Z

69.119.80.13: /* Potential concepts worth exploring */

[[Image:collaboration.jpg|right|]]

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==
To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''
**See also: [[War Seminar]]

*'''Righteousness'''

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature''' (related to: [[w:Original sin|original sin]] and [[w:Holiness|holiness]])

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction or refinement of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

==External links==
*[[w:Concept|Concept]] - Wikipedia article
[[w:Semantic wiki|Semantic wiki]] - Wikipedia article

{{plp}}
[[Category:Interdisciplinary Studies]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T18:23:57Z

69.119.80.13: /* Potential concepts worth exploring */

[[Image:collaboration.jpg|right|]]

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==
To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''
**See also: [[War Seminar]]

*'''Righteousness'''

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature''' (related to: [[w:Original sin|original sin]] and [[w:Holiness]])

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction or refinement of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

==External links==
*[[w:Concept|Concept]] - Wikipedia article
[[w:Semantic wiki|Semantic wiki]] - Wikipedia article

{{plp}}
[[Category:Interdisciplinary Studies]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T18:22:11Z

69.119.80.13: /* Potential concepts worth exploring */

[[Image:collaboration.jpg|right|]]

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==
To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''
**See also: [[War Seminar]]

*'''Righteousness'''

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature''' (related to: [[w:Original sin|original sin]])

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction or refinement of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

==External links==
*[[w:Concept|Concept]] - Wikipedia article
[[w:Semantic wiki|Semantic wiki]] - Wikipedia article

{{plp}}
[[Category:Interdisciplinary Studies]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T18:21:39Z

69.119.80.13: /* Potential concepts worth exploring */

[[Image:collaboration.jpg|right|]]

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==
To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''
**See also: [[War Seminar]]

*'''Righteousness'''

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature (related to: [[w:Original sin|original sin]])'''

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction or refinement of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

==External links==
*[[w:Concept|Concept]] - Wikipedia article
[[w:Semantic wiki|Semantic wiki]] - Wikipedia article

{{plp}}
[[Category:Interdisciplinary Studies]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T18:21:19Z

69.119.80.13: /* Potential concepts worth exploring */

[[Image:collaboration.jpg|right|]]

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==
To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''
**See also: [[War Seminar]]

*'''Righteousness'''

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature (related to[[w:Original sin|original sin]])'''

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction or refinement of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

==External links==
*[[w:Concept|Concept]] - Wikipedia article
[[w:Semantic wiki|Semantic wiki]] - Wikipedia article

{{plp}}
[[Category:Interdisciplinary Studies]]

Collaboratively building concepts

2007-01-03T00:54:39Z

69.119.185.198: /* Potential concepts worth exploring */

== Conceptualizing happens everyday ==

To conceptualize is to engage in the art of constructing a mental image or model of something that defies the visible. For example, the singular term "dog" is not a concept because it is not deemed a product of the mind, but rather, the assigned description of an object. A dog doesn't become concept until one begins to assess it's value as a valid form of cuisine, or generally speaking, when one attaches attributes to objects.

Concepts, in this sense, are usually ideas, often fuzzy, that are shared across societies. The idea of "happiness" is a concept that most people from Peru to Pakistan will recognize on similar ("intersubjective") standards. It is only when discussing the particulars of what may constitute happiness, does one begin to observe a divergence in the way different societies conceive the mental models that shape concepts of "happiness" for them. For example, in some societies, there may be a close relationship between the dual concepts of "vocational success" and "happiness", whereas in others, there may be no obvious correlation.

Even under circumstances of extreme agreement over the nature of a concept between two thinkers, there is still room to explore the specific shape and form these concepts take within the cognizer's mental imagery. Chances are, the way they measure what is and what is not a part of the concept, diverges at a certain point. This is to say, in other words, that the human mind understands concepts by relating it to information previously acquired through lived experience. Understanding through association has the effect of "coloring" cognition. In other words, we are seeing the same "thing," but we are all seeing it a bit differently since we cannot escape our life narrative which imbues the field of vision/imagination with our social and personal mental constructs.

== First Exercise: Backing away from knowledge or "Blind Concept Building" ==

This exercise would still harness the powers of Wiki collaboration, but departs drastically from the Wikipedia model in one sense: the exercise, rather than drawing from the genealogy of produced knowledge (that has already cast its definitions onto concepts), it is attempting to start all over again, from scratch. Since the introduction of the Gutenberg Press, there may have been, let's say, 678 books written to serve the purpose of explaining what happiness is. The traditional encyclopedic task then, is to synthesize all the authoritative literature on happiness into a knowledge compendium format. Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness happiness] article does exactly just that.

As noble as that may be, this particular exercise isn't about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Rather, the exercise, by design, guides students to think through the legacy of human-made mental constructs (thanks to literature and research) of the phenomena and ideas that constitute our lived experiences. There are so many socially accepted ideas already existing as "stable" knowledge or concept that can, and should be, re-conceived by way of the conceptualization process: such concepts exist under terms like terrorism, freedom, war, modernity, God-- to name a few.

Conceptualizing within the context of this project entails drawing from one's inner voice when searching for the right language to explain a concept. Imagine having to write a book on a newly discovered emotion, but you are confined to a jail cell that affords you no access to any books or reference materials. Students placed into this exercise would now be in the position of producing knowledge from the first link onward.

Students would be specifically asked to produce definitions for concepts through collaborative composition under similar guidelines used to craft exploratory essays (thesis, supporting arguments, conclusion, etc..). Students would italicize what they believe to be the thesis, or the irreducible, core essence of the concept's definition.

During the crafting of the "concepts" article, it is the facilitator's role to make sure participants are insulating their definitions from tautological explanations and external sources (reference works, literature, research) which relieves participants of the burden of explication (hence "blind" concept building).

==Second exercise: Citation-supported concept building==

This second exercise can either be an alternative or supplement to blind concept building.
This time, participants are allowed to propose definitions for concepts that are supported with research of primary reference materials. As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. It would be fair to equate this with collaborative research; however, unlike the traditional collaborations found within academic and corporate research communities, the Wikiversity is opening itself to new participant pools that combine a diverse multitude of minds.

== How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity ==

*Hotwords

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

==Potential concepts worth exploring==

*'''Justice'''

*'''Heaven''' (inspired by Barbara Walter's recent ABC documentary covering what Heaven means to several communities, religious and non)

*'''War'''

*'''Righteousness'''

*'''Apartheid''' (Jimmy Carter has sparked a furor over his use of the term "apartheid" to characterize Palestinian living today under the Israeli state

*'''Human Nature (sin)'''

== The benefits of collaboratively building concepts ==

*Co-participants expose, share their thought processes. By doing this, they discover how their own mental models (that aid in understanding purportedly "obvious" characteristics of a given concept) fare in a comparative learning environment. They may find commonalities or differences, thus prompting the reconstruction or refinement of their concepts.

*Without any sources to draw (and depend) from, participants are strengthening their own critical thinking and composition skills.

===Sources===

*Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing, 2003). Chapter 5: Conceptualization Processes.

*Steven H. Chaffee, Explication (Communication Concepts) (Sage Publications, Inc, 1991).

*Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The savage mind (The Nature of human society series). University of Chicago Press, 1966.

*Ivana Markovà, Dialogicality and Social Representations: the dynamics of mind (Cambridge University, 2003).

===Suggested future readings===
*Deutscher, Guy, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention, Metropolitan Books, 2005

*Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006", available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

*Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.

{{plp}}

Guide for first year law students

2005-12-28T04:41:26Z

69.119.224.228:

To return to the top level of the [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Law_school_study_guide Law School Study Guide].

1L is how lawyers and law students informally refer to the first year of the law school education. Law school education (full time) in the United States is typically 3 years. The first year courses are typically: [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Contracts Contracts], [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Torts Torts], [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Property Property(Real)], civil procedure, criminal law, real property, and legal writing.

Each course is discussed in more detail in this module.

==Case Law Method==
==Books on Suceeding in Law School==
==Study Aids==
===[http://www.cali.com CALI]===
==Books on 1L experience==
===The Paper Chase===
===One L : The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School===

Guide for first year law students

2005-12-28T04:37:38Z

69.119.224.228:

To return to the top level of the [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Law_school_study_guide Law School Study Guide].

1L is how lawyers and law students informally refer to the first year of the law school education. Law school education (full time) in the United States is typically 3 years. The first year courses are typically contracts, torts, real property, civil procedure, criminal law, real property, and legal writing. Each course is discussed in more detail in this module.

==Case Law Method==
==Books on Suceeding in Law School==
==Study Aids==
===[http://www.cali.com CALI]===
==Books on 1L experience==
===The Paper Chase===
===One L : The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School===

Guide for first year law students

2005-12-28T04:30:55Z

69.119.224.228:

[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Law_school_study_guide Law School Study Guide]

1L is how lawyers and law students informally refer to the first year of the law school education. Law school education (full time) in the United States is typically 3 years. The first year courses are typically contracts, torts, real property, civil procedure, criminal law, real property, and legal writing. Each course is discussed in more detail in this module.

==Case Law Method==
==Books on Suceeding in Law School==
==Study Aids==
===[http://www.cali.com CALI]===
==Books on 1L experience==
===The Paper Chase===
===One L : The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School===

Guide for first year law students

2005-12-28T04:20:03Z

69.119.224.228:

1L is how lawyers and law students informally refer to the first year of the law school education. Law school education (full time) in the United States is typically 3 years. The first year courses are typically contracts, torts, real property, civil procedure, criminal law, real property, and legal writing. Each course is discussed in more detail in this module.

==Case Law Method==
==Books on Suceeding in Law School==
==Study Aids==
===[http://www.cali.com CALI]===
==Books on 1L experience==
===The Paper Chase===
===One L : The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School===

Guide for first year law students

2005-12-28T03:59:50Z

69.119.224.228: