Topic: Area of Focus topics
Posts (1 - 8 of 8)
Sort by: Ascending | Descending
Login to Post a Reply.
|
|
JP, I think some of us share similar concerns with you on the need to refine the AoF taxonomy.
There was an active discussion on this at http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/273c26a131b7283968a34ff2b6478b19 which was about adding a "top level" AoF above the current 46 Main AoF. But the discussion eventually touched on the topic of redundancy and duplications of the current areas of focus, and thus, on the need to perhaps delete, merge or create new areas of focus to make it "more concise and workable". Following up the discussion there, I tried to reclassify the areas of focus using Earth Charter's classification of issues at http://www.wiserearth.org/article/f1800201c074b24c9c18cb1e8275e9c6 which results seems to support the conclusion that a refinement of and addition to the current taxonomy is needed. In that discussion, I also learned that the current Areas of Focus was constructed in a bottom-up approach rather than employing existing categorization/taxonomy. It began with building the database of NGOs working toward social justice and sustainability, and then continued by identifying each organization's field of work and keywords. From there, similar field of work was lumped into areas of focus as they are now, 46 main areas of focus and 379 sub areas of focus, which some considered to be "comprehensive" and others "overwhelming". For me, it's a mixture of both, and paradoxically I think, while we need to make the taxonomy "more comprehensive", we also need to make it "less overwhelming". Another conclusion I come across was that some degree of redundancy and duplication will be inevitable because the issues really are interconnected. We just have to make sure that they are beneficial and not detrimental. So, I agree that "a transition to a more concise and workable selection is a worthwhile thing to pursue". I'm just not sure whether this should be prioritized or not within the resource constraints of WiserEarth developers (there is perhaps a more important issue of improving the site's overall usability). Nevertheless, I support the ongoing discussions by the community toward this end, as it would lay the groundwork for the real technical work that will need to be done in the future. As for suggestion on a new area of focus, there's a forum called "Suggestions for the Areas of Focus" in the Main Discussion Forums at http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/dcfd137839534b43807badc51923ab81 You can create a new thread there explaining why "Nutrition" should be added to the current AoF taxonomy. |
|
Hey JP, I actually want an aof thats clearly about Diet and Nutrition too... The closest related aof is probably "Malnutrition, Diet, Disease, and Education": http://www.wiserearth.org/aof/34 ... However, I'm aware there's a significant span of nutrition needs between those of certain areas...say between "first-world" and "third-world" countries. With more and more organizations added to the directory, it becomes harder to find those that really match one's focus.
As a way to address some of these gaps, I've been talking about integrating "tags" (basically, customizable categories or aofs) on WiserEarth as a way to build a parallel categorization system, that would exist side by side along with aofs. However this is a suggestion that is a bit lacking in demand. http://www.wiserearth.org/article/64c2490507383d80f783ec06195c00fd/group/suggestions However, I think it's possible for some current aofs to be renamed. For example, the Female's Circumcision aof was renamed Female Genital Cutting...as it was deemed a more appropriate term. I'm not sure what's the best way to approach the situation around "Nutrition". Another suggestion is to aggregate "Nutrition" related orgs/resources/information in a sub-group in this stewards group. I created an "anti-war" group (within which is a military disarmament and nuclear disarm. group) because I felt there was a need to combine these fields together to fill in a gap that I felt the taxonomy didn't meet...and to promote a term that the taxonomy didn't provide. This did not need the approval of any other staff. It's a grassroots effort. Perhaps you could create a group called "Nutrition" and define what you mean by that. Within the group "Nutrition" you could build sub-groups to help us have a better understanding of the nutrition field. I recommend a URL and name for the group that is simple so that if needed, it could be changed. If you go ahead with this plan, you could be a "Malnutrition, Diet, Disease, and Education" steward There was a discussion on the "Ethnic Equality" aof ...that led to many of us supporting a tagging system, if there was not going to be a change in the aof system. http://www.wiserearth.org/index.php/forum/view/5fadd564e0d9808718e3c66eed95c31a/postid/1986 This is the only aof that addresses race or ethnicity, but it combines all of these organizations together. Without a parallel categorization system, users would be less aware of the vastness, overlaps and complexities of different ethnic groups in the world. I'm now thinking of creating a "Race and Ethnicity" group that helps to breakdown what the "Ethnic Equality" group consists of. In this case I'd be a "Ethnic Equality" steward. For example, I could begin with an "Asian American" sub-group. When I approached an Asian American who was looking for a way to build an Asian American database on WiserEarth, I was told that there needed to be another categorization system, like tagging to help users navigate the site. A group could help meet this navigation challenges. |
|
|
For the sake of simplicity, and creating groups with names that really resonate with users, I think this group's name and structure needs to change.
I propose renaming it for now "Topic Stewards". Users could create a sub-group for any topic they wish. The function of these groups is the same: to help add and update content related to a topic. We probably wouldn't need wikipages for areas of focus anymore. |
|
|
Hey all,
Mike, JP: On adding a new area of focus, my personal preference is that it should have a somewhat close connection to WE's tagline/slogan: "Toward a Just and Sustainable World Created by Community". Otherwise, imho, WE will risk losing focus. For example, nutrition is a general and broad subject fit for a site like Wikipedia, but "Malnutrition, Diet, Disease and Education" is a more specific topic relating to all three "just", "sustainable" and "community" part of WE's slogan. But of course, the latter is built on the foundation of "Nutrition, Medical, Health and Pedagogical" sciences. Both are important, but WE's focus should be on the latter (or something else fitting with WE's context). This is however, just my unfounded assumptions. I'm sure JP has good reasons on how "nutrition" fits well with WE's purpose. *** On this group *** I tend to like the current name "Area of Focus Stewards" and the mission of "stewarding WE's Areas of Focus". This allow us to focus our work in improving WE's fundamental element, the AoF taxonomy, each AoF portals, and content relating to each AoF. The AoF portals have great potential to be a place of learning, sharing and convergence (for collaboration), but more work is needed to realize this. I think topics other than the ones in the taxonomy can have their own group without the necessity of being a sub-group of this group, or be related in any way with this group. This does not prevent those groups and their members to propose changes and improvements to the taxonomy. And when we have the "Add" related groups feature ready, we can still link those group with this group, along with the changes made to the taxonomy (which those groups will propose). A good example of such group is the "Greenwashing" group, raising awareness on an important topic not yet addressed in the taxonomy. So far however, no suggestion on adding "greenwashing" to the taxonomy has been proposed. Summing up, the keyword is "focus". There's a lot of work to be done just to properly steward the areas of focus, which is something that I think active users and editors should focus on. |
|
|
Hey Bowo,
I guess it depends in part on how one understands the notion of "Toward a Just and Sustainable World Created by Community". To my way of thinking, the more knowledge and understanding one has about how natural phenomena work, the easier it is to work toward something that is just and sustainable. Nutrition is fundamental to all life processes, and if you are going to focus on a just and sustainable world created by community, then the community should have a reasonable scientific understanding of what it is dealing with. I'm all for activism, but activism that is grounded in well-established information and knowledge is a lot more effective that that simply grounded in emotional responses. Finding that information and knowledge, and finding groups and organizations dealing with sustainable issues from a justice-based, scientific and technical platform is not always easy. My feeling is that the Areas of Focus might serve much better as an access index or portal into the groups and organizations created by and associated with WiserEarth. If you'd like an expanded essay about Nutrition and Indras' Net I would be happy to write one up, but basically [from Wikipedia]: "Indra's net is a metaphor that was developed by the Mahayana Buddhist school in the 3rd century scriptures of the Avatamsaka Sutra, and later by the Chinese Huayan school between the 6th and 8th century. Buddhist concepts of interpenetration holds that all phenomena are intimately connected; for the Huayan school, Indra's net symbolizes a universe where infinitely repeated mutual relations exist between all members of the universe. This idea is communicated in the image of the interconnectedness of the universe as seen in the net of the Vedic god Indra, whose net hangs over his palace on Mount Meru, the axis mundi of Vedic cosmology and Vedic mythology. Indra's net has a multifaceted jewel at each vertex, and each jewel is reflected in all of the other jewels." As such, Nutrition has as much to do with plants and other animals as it does with people, and helping more people become aware of the inter-connectiveness of things might actually help people come together to work for justice... As would making it easier for groups and organizations to network together as I hinted at in my Moratorium piece that no one seems to have picked up on! |
|
|
Hey JP,
"I'm all for activism, but activism that is grounded in well-established information and knowledge is a lot more effective than that simply grounded in emotional responses." I totally resonate with you on this. That's why I said: "But of course, the latter is built on the foundation of Nutrition, Medical, Health and Pedagogical sciences." And I have seen too many times activism founded more on emotion and anger, instead of wisdom and knowledge, which imho, is more often than not, detrimental to the cause we all want to advance. I also agree that everything in the universe is interconnected, and probably more so, or more obvious, here in planet earth. I guess there's multiple reasoning paths and belief systems that support this notion, and yours on Indra's Net add another one to my thought mini-library. This is indeed one of the spiritual tenets that has gotten lost in the jungle of religious conservatism and technological modernism. Thus, I couldn't agree more with what you said: "helping more people become aware of the inter-connectiveness of things might actually help people come together to work for justice..." Back on topic, I support a well-founded information and activism in WiserEarth and beyond. I was just trying to be cautious so that we don't get too focused on the "information" or "scientific" part of the equation. And perhaps, I was a bit too influenced by Michael Pollan's latest book "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto" (http://www.michaelpollan.com/indefense.php), in which, from an interview on the book, he mentioned the word "nutritionism", which should be different to the kind of "nutrition science" you're advocating for. By the way, I like what you said in the "moratorium" piece JP, especially on the "macro-changes" part. Just haven't had the time to properly respond to it, still busy prepping up a "possibly" more comprehensive AoF portal. But rest assured, you're concern is well-founded and resonates well with what many probably feel but can/will not express openly (I know at least two other non-NCI-staff active community members who share your concern). |
|
Equilibrium and assessment.
Assessment needs information. Equilibrium needs understanding. How it gets there is through experience. Sustainability or evolving? Evolving is a natural process. Natural is not knowledge. Knowledge is not universal. Universal is a natural process based on interaction. The actions of one are overruled by the process of equilibrium. Nowhere in this process of assessment is sustainability part of the process. The natural process is a state of equilibrium. The discovery process of science is always correcting itself because of its lack of assessment. Its part of the problem. Scientific principles put to use as technology disrupt equilibrium. Science needs to understand equilibrium. Science is really questioning how equilibrium works. Long lost knowledge of tribes past knew and used equilibrium in the stories they told. The tribe of science has no such stories, symbols or associations because it has little or no respect for knowledge that is different from its questioning process. Science believes in solutions. There are no solutions in the world of equals for there’s no need for solutions. Equilibrium needs to be part of the decision. “Equilibrium is the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced and it may refer to.” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium |
You do not have access to post to this record
1 to 8 of 8 Posts
Contributors to this Page
And as I went through the Areas of Focus that do exist, I noticed that there are gaps in many major categories, as well as duplications of what might be considered the same Area under different major categories.
I can only surmise that someone created these Areas when the WiserEarth network was set up as a good beginning point, but as the community begins to refine WiserEarth, it seemed to me that perhaps a review of what exists and doesn't, and a transition to a more concise and workable selection might be a worthwhile thing to pursue.
jp