Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:36614) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TpKBG-0001P4-OH; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:48:14 -0800 Received: by mail-vc0-f189.google.com with SMTP id p16sf7257160vcq.6 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:47:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=hCvpP9gmr4Oc1QtZPxElqZEX+/cwhlZo1Gbt+hmYMGg=; b=pb8HaFoDQ8aaObi4xRUyQPdKSsw7PrInPCTSqKYVQNIeuVJcDZD5W9mR2wMV+mf3qD v+g8GeMKkR3G0zVux/zB8elNznYmG1KBoRN6/+agwcSrNJlvhEEauNqNw66Cfgs2A2v6 yeR48uo7ChiNlslHGO08AsvIMxuR8H+VYwb8CS+Cup6aOL4py93qPELQpq+Ax1tRMvk1 ZLb/bvPmSntmLxhwQ6INKDPTsZoyeQyLOa38+GAsXEsG+25mEVZCJAPFNlUuj6Gf8U6h x6gQJqXReNgwTWmDmrTWuos6P4aJnsFypKIA5Lr7rADYB2P20ddx2NqYOwTq6+sNQgsR e0kg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=hCvpP9gmr4Oc1QtZPxElqZEX+/cwhlZo1Gbt+hmYMGg=; b=ew0FYMQtQjf+x1s1rXqvrbWAn5ALGU+o8gsfAD0OJ6OG1Ho76SoPa641SdzZWQsWnR ZHY9XJajz04WSI1FpNlNN+FmUS401xU0kXL1AdX36Y9mB/C81K03IctpLbigYh12kdfp Ph7P1CcukV+Afu9Mb77LAu6B2VGFrRxVcf40QI6AGI9+HvAHLCGxYa7OetMRbLNOn/Rk J06XzttsKXzc48R9E1844cqlcL8HsbC78KhuPjZCQ6Qg2iaqJtQQLhbLBjjlgPB6jAsq 2YsiRQTZjkhd+02AoGWqAyBAM6yxrLMVQpVy+v3ZLhus38FGR0wN+H43SXm29oD7w4D+ 08qQ== X-Received: by 10.49.48.41 with SMTP id i9mr5783722qen.36.1356878875996; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:47:55 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.27.137 with SMTP id t9ls5411777qeg.60.gmail; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:47:54 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.95.68 with SMTP id di4mr5861075qeb.0.1356878874672; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:47:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:47:54 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <80850efe-706f-4afe-8788-77fd6daa6b59@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <50E04A0F.8080408@lojban.org> References: <20121227222129.GN7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227222753.GG18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227231105.GO7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227232206.GI18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227232732.GP7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227233537.GJ18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227235946.GQ7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121228000348.GL18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121228185329.GO18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121228215107.GR7855@samsa.fritz.box> <50DEF2D2.6080309@lojban.org> <50E04A0F.8080408@lojban.org> Subject: Re: [lojban] CLL 1.1/ CLL 2.0. What is your opinion in the current situation? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_170_32292760.1356878874032" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_170_32292760.1356878874032 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:05:03 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote: > > Jonathan Jones wrote: > > > It is enabling Robin to get his job done, with as little possible > > demands on his limited time. > > > > The main job right now is editorial, and we haven't come up with a > > way to farm out editorial tasks. (Perhaps if the original byfy > > structure had been organized around CLL chapters rather than > > selma'o, we might have learned how, but the original focus was on > > making decisions, not on documenting things to any consistent > > standard, and the documentation never got done.) As such, we are > > stuck with having one editor attempting to get things done in his > > limited spare time. > > > > > > Perhaps crowd-sourcing? I had some success with that when I wanted to > > get human audio for all the gismu. I had started out with the intention > > of doing that work myself, but after about 180 gismu, I got sick of it, > > so I parsed it into chunks and sent an announcement on the group saying, > > basically, "I don't want to do this anymore! You guys do this now!". As > > of today, all but ~100 gismu have been done, and 50 of them are my > fault. > > > > Possibly something similar could be done in this scenario? It takes a > > bit of setting up the "chunks", but I can tell you, the chunk setup is > > much, much, MUCH less work than doing the work on your own. > > I could be misunderstanding the concept of crowdsourcing, but I think > that is what the old (failed) system was. The crowd were the byfy > members (basically anyone who wanted to work), and the chunks are as > defined on the byfy page. There was a volunteer "shepherd" assigned to > each section who would attempt to consolidate the crowd's efforts. > > The only problem is that the "crowd" never did anything. Generally, if > anyone did anything, it was the shepherd acting on his/her own. The > crowd mostly argued with each other, and so much effort was spent in the > discussions that no one had any time left to actually do any work (and > people like me with limited Lojban time can't even manage to keep up > with the discussions - I still have some 23 messages to go through in > the "Polysemy of nai" thread that I actually tried to participate in, > and it ended a week ago - but the really major discussions could > generate more than 100 messages a day). > > These discussions for the most part were more or less the same kind of > thing that happens on Lojban List itself. Lots of quick back-and-forth, > and you need to read all the messages to understand the context what any > given posting is talking about. > > The other problem is that the writeups weren't in themselves usable as > sections for CLL. They were selma'o and cmavo definitions, perhaps > suitable for an annotated dictionary that does not exist. (To be > accurate, the predecessor for CLL was something called the "selma'o > catalogue, and the byfy writeups weren't all that bad as submissions to > such a catalog. But the catalog gave way to CLL, remaining only as a > quasi-appendix "index" chapter at the end of the book. The byfy chunks > were producing annotated selma'o catalog entries, but no one was turning > those into CLL text). > ^ ^ That's very interesting. I'm sure CLL and the dictionary must approach each other. vlasisku has short links to CLL chapters mentioning them (probably from the index you are talking about). However, I can't imagine a book being a dictionary at the same time. And a dictionary being a reference grammar. I've never seen such dictionaries for any languages. Have you? But this is something that must be discussed further. > > ---- > > John Cowan came up with a concept called "The Elephant" which would > allow crowdsourcing of ideas and their documentation, with the added > proviso that it would be organized in such a way that people could > easily find preceding discussions on the same topic, so that we wouldn't > end up with the same discussion being repeated every couple of years > with only nuanced variations. But no one ever implemented the thing. > > ---- > > The closest we ever came to a workable system for dealing with concept > documentation was just before CLL 1.0 when John Cowan and I instituted a > change proposal system for the YACC grammar (which also effectively > entailed the most major changes to the CLL text). To talk about a > change topic, someone had to write the thing up FIRST (typically a > screenful of text), and then discussion was more or less confined to the > pros and cons of what was written up - an alternate proposal would need > an alternate writeup. > > But it didn't work either because only Cowan and I ever did actual > writeups. On a couple of topics, a few people wrote things akin to our > writeups but with no standard form, and we used them anyway for purpose > of discussion, eventually massaging them into standard form. > > The current system needs the same thing to do any sort of crowdsourcing, > with the "proposal" including the actual CLL text, as well as some sort > of rationale for any changes. But no one will do this kind of work; > they just kibbitz about everyone else's work until no one is doing any > work to kibbitz on, just engaging in back-and-forth. > > It'd kinda be like Wikipedia if almost no one ever edited anything, just > engaged in back-channel arguments about the most controversial edits > that others have made. > > (Another version of crowdsourcing was used in the Alice in Wonderland > section. People could check out a section, add to or change it, and put > it back. There was a good group effort for a while, but the translation > got finished because xorxes did the bulk of it by himself. This is more > or less what we've been reduced to in the CLL update, with Robin doing > all the work. But at least in theory, Alice was a crowdsource.) > > lojbab > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/UWPOGQ3xWFgJ. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. ------=_Part_170_32292760.1356878874032 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:05:03 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:Jonathan Jones wrote:

> It is enabling Robin to get his job done, with as li= ttle possible
> demands on his limited time.
>
> The main job right now is editorial, and we haven't = come up with a
> way to farm out editorial tasks. (Perhaps if t= he original byfy
> structure had been organized around CLL chapters rat= her than
> selma'o, we might have learned how, but the original= focus was on
> making decisions, not on documenting things to any c= onsistent
> standard, and the documentation never got done.) &nb= sp;As such, we are
> stuck with having one editor attempting to get thing= s done in his
> limited spare time.
>
>
> Perhaps crowd-sourcing? I had some success with that when I wanted= to
> get human audio for all the gismu. I had started out with the inte= ntion
> of doing that work myself, but after about 180 gismu, I got sick o= f it,
> so I parsed it into chunks and sent an announcement on the group s= aying,
> basically, "I don't want to do this anymore! You guys do this now!= ". As
> of today, all but ~100 gismu have been done, and 50 of them are my= fault.
>
> Possibly something similar could be done in this scenario? It take= s a
> bit of setting up the "chunks", but I can tell you, the chunk setu= p is
> much, much, MUCH less work than doing the work on your own.

I could be misunderstanding the concept of crowdsourcing, but I think= =20
that is what the old (failed) system was. The crowd were the byfy= =20
members (basically anyone who wanted to work), and the chunks are as=20
defined on the byfy page. There was a volunteer "shepherd" assign= ed to=20
each section who would attempt to consolidate the crowd's efforts.

The only problem is that the "crowd" never did anything. Generall= y, if=20
anyone did anything, it was the shepherd acting on his/her own. T= he=20
crowd mostly argued with each other, and so much effort was spent in th= e=20
discussions that no one had any time left to actually do any work (and= =20
people like me with limited Lojban time can't even manage to keep up=20
with the discussions - I still have some 23 messages to go through in= =20
the "Polysemy of nai" thread that I actually tried to participate in,= =20
and it ended a week ago - but the really major discussions could=20
generate more than 100 messages a day).

These discussions for the most part were more or less the same kind of= =20
thing that happens on Lojban List itself. Lots of quick back-and-= forth,=20
and you need to read all the messages to understand the context what an= y=20
given posting is talking about.

The other problem is that the writeups weren't in themselves usable as= =20
sections for CLL. They were selma'o and cmavo definitions, perhap= s=20
suitable for an annotated dictionary that does not exist. (To be= =20
accurate, the predecessor for CLL was something called the "selma'o=20
catalogue, and the byfy writeups weren't all that bad as submissions to= =20
such a catalog. But the catalog gave way to CLL, remaining only a= s a=20
quasi-appendix "index" chapter at the end of the book. The byfy c= hunks=20
were producing annotated selma'o catalog entries, but no one was turnin= g=20
those into CLL text).

^ ^

That's very intere= sting. I'm sure CLL and the dictionary must approach each other.

= vlasisku has short links to CLL chapters mentioning them (probably from the= index you are talking about).

However, I can't im= agine a book being a dictionary at the same time.

And a dictionar= y being a reference grammar.

I've never seen such dictionaries fo= r any languages. Have you?

But this is something that must be dis= cussed further.

----

John Cowan came up with a concept called "The Elephant" which would=20
allow crowdsourcing of ideas and their documentation, with the added=20
proviso that it would be organized in such a way that people could=20
easily find preceding discussions on the same topic, so that we wouldn'= t=20
end up with the same discussion being repeated every couple of years=20
with only nuanced variations. But no one ever implemented the thi= ng.

----

The closest we ever came to a workable system for dealing with concept= =20
documentation was just before CLL 1.0 when John Cowan and I instituted = a=20
change proposal system for the YACC grammar (which also effectively=20
entailed the most major changes to the CLL text). To talk about a= =20
change topic, someone had to write the thing up FIRST (typically a=20
screenful of text), and then discussion was more or less confined to th= e=20
pros and cons of what was written up - an alternate proposal would need= =20
an alternate writeup.

But it didn't work either because only Cowan and I ever did actual=20
writeups. On a couple of topics, a few people wrote things akin t= o our=20
writeups but with no standard form, and we used them anyway for purpose= =20
of discussion, eventually massaging them into standard form.

The current system needs the same thing to do any sort of crowdsourcing= ,=20
with the "proposal" including the actual CLL text, as well as some sort= =20
of rationale for any changes. But no one will do this kind of wor= k;=20
they just kibbitz about everyone else's work until no one is doing any= =20
work to kibbitz on, just engaging in back-and-forth.

It'd kinda be like Wikipedia if almost no one ever edited anything, jus= t=20
engaged in back-channel arguments about the most controversial edits=20
that others have made.

(Another version of crowdsourcing was used in the Alice in Wonderland= =20
section. People could check out a section, add to or change it, a= nd put=20
it back. There was a good group effort for a while, but the trans= lation=20
got finished because xorxes did the bulk of it by himself. This i= s more=20
or less what we've been reduced to in the CLL update, with Robin doing= =20
all the work. But at least in theory, Alice was a crowdsource.)

lojbab

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/UW= POGQ3xWFgJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_170_32292760.1356878874032--