Subject: [NYCGA Internet] Wiki and wordpress and many other tools online! Its a global thing...
From: Todd Grayson
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:18:03 -0600

Just a comment on the online tools... naturally there will be different tools providing different things to the groups and the community.

IMHO the is a great communication and co-ordination tool, it will serve its design and purpose for blogging, discussion, forums, article publication, and co-ordination of workgroups and a Occupy GA... The NYCGA.CC being a tool-set for NYC and other teams that want to use it or other locally constructed sites of varying technologies as we see have emerged across the entire occupy online workspace. A catalog of those is being amassed at in the form of a OPML catalog (  this is a beautiful thing.

Beyond that is the ongoing documentation of the online movement and extensions of the workgroups to online activity.  IMHO this is where wiki's can scale for things that are involving the aggregate activity of the online face of the movement, the cross site co-ordination of technical design, issues, and global facing solutions that will be coming on line through the hard work of the volunteer community in co-ordination of the groups on the ground and the working groups there and online.

Wiki is a great tool for persisted, linked, continuous publication of documents that are all inter-related through simple word based linking between them.   Commercial and open use of wikis (all flavors) is established, and they represent a quick way for teams to work on the publication of material that will persist, and represent a tool for documenting and archiving the body of knowledge that emerges around the workgroups and their activity.  There are things being decided that will need to persist in a way that they are not streamed to the end of the ongoing work/discussion.  the wordpress infrastructure IMHO provides planning and concensus building, and the wikis provide the framework of documenting what was decided and what is going to be done.

The "meta-projects" that are working on tools, infrastructure, public facing sites, messaging, media, and whatever work groups need that will start to have a global rather than on-the ground at a single location scope can utilize wiki functionality for the less-dynamic, more mundane but prone for a lot of traffic "publication" space for groups working information and document publication.  Forums and discussion, hammering out consensus at the central and local wordpress sites and publication into global perview within the wikis makes sense.
IMHO the wiki's are the finished product when linked to from the main navigation as an OK near-line workspace as well.

I embrace both tools and recognize their scope of services possible, capacities for use, and position with the information systems for a global scale organization... lets get to it and keep going.  The wordpress workspace will link to the wikis, the wikis will link to the wordpress sites... and we will keep growing.


On 10/21/2011 5:57 PM, felipe ribeiro wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed response, amidst all the stuff you (all) are doing.

I've heard from several people, both within working groups and simply supporters of OWS, that they'd find a wiki useful for tracking useful information - similar projects, proposals, tools, resources, examples - in short, great ideas, relevant to a WG or OWS in general. Right now, these resources are landing in the bowels of Google Groups, never to be seen again. A wiki could solve this problem, and avoid redundancy. How often does a newcomer join a list, full of enthusiasm, only to make a (good, relevant) suggestion and get politely told that their (good, relevant) suggestion has already been suggested in the past, and that someone somewhere is working on it?

It's these kinds of interactions that FLATLINE new energy, and you reach the peak of growth in a community way sooner than you would otherwise.

So to me, the question is - how can we figure out how to set up an IWG subgroup for a wiki, that will allow ALL Working Groups to post everything that they are doing - rescuing stuff that comes out of their forums, be they on, Google, or any of 30 other possible platforms that good, relevant content is abandoned?

I don't want to divert resources from, but I gotta say I'm perplexed that this isn't being treated as more of a priority. It seems like wants to make the users fit the technology, and not the other way around. As big as an improvement as V2 is, and as much blood, sweat and tears as it took to get it live and stable (endless kudos, please don't interpret this as minimizing the effort) I still think we're losing a huge opportunity to allow working groups the ability to "self-map" and put up relevant content as a complement to the forums and all the other platforms currently in use.

As is, is not a main destination for OWS supporters to discuss whats going on. I know this can and will change with this new site, but a wiki can only help with this. If I was a coder, I would stop talking and start installing software at a subdomain like you suggested, (or even better -, to capitalize on the "Occupy" brand.) But I'm not, so I'm not sure what else to do other than continue to lobby for the idea, while trying to avoid sounding like I'm oblivious to how much work has gone into the site thus far.

Thoughts, anyone? Would it help if I scratched out a use-case scenario? Take a look at this:

Too Long; Didn't Read - a wiki subgroup is a wise move, tasked with creating a wiki & templates for getting good content up from all working groups. Would it be seen as productive to issue a call for hands on deck for this project? Is it possible to set up at a subdomain without creating server liabilities for the current admins? I'd be happy to help with marshalling content and creating templates along the lines of what is suggested at the link above, or if folks have a better idea of how to set it up, I'm all ears. I think plenty can be done without having to pipe data, having a curated section like "showcase ideas" which get promoted after a degree of discussion in forums, etc, with it's own RSS feed, for instance, would be GREAT.



On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Devin Balkind <> wrote:
I agree with Ron that we should assume wiki content will remain unstructured and it's priumary use will be read reading and contributing to wiki pages.

That being said - if a mediawiki allstar appeared we could add semantic media wiki plug ins and make something like this:

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Dr.Ron Suarez <> wrote:

Wiki content, by its unstructured nature is not something anybody could easily import into a more structured system. So, don't plan on anybody being able to use much of what ends up in a Wiki in any manner, other than humans going and looking at the Wiki. That said, humans are great information processors!

I do not see the main site importing anything from a Wiki. But, whatever Wiki gets created, we can easily have point to it. Just don't ask for any movement of structured information between the two, given our constraints. I know that with software nothing is impossible. For 30 years, anytime a client has asked if my team could do something my pat answer has been: "We can do anything with two constraints: (1) time and (2) money."


On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:33 PM, felipe ribeiro <> wrote:
I'm trying to follow what is it that is driving specifying the replacement of as a wiki?

1) Bottlenecking of content, posting privileges: requires admins to post content. while that makes sense, there is a TREMENDOUS amount of information being generated on parallel list serves, email, twitter, and literally dozens of platforms. NYCGA may be able to capture this content stream effectively inside of the next 2-3 weeks, but I don't think it will be able to do so before then. We need a place to capture worthy items, relevant to group activity, by ANY and all group members. While opening the wiki to the public will create moderation problems, I think, on the whole, the balance will be positive.

2) It's not permanent, or exclusive. whatever content is generated at the wiki can be portable to/ mirror what gets eventually established at NYCGA. So once the dev team has slayed the current 18-headed beast it is contending with (stability, scale, minor bugfixes, navigation issues, etc etc etc etc), they can then figure out how to adapt the content that it already being generated elsewhere to the main NYCGA platform. To ignore this data stream or make no effort to house it is a GIANT missed opportunity

3) Mass duplication of effort, no "map of the mine" exists in terms of active projects/ideas. is doing a good job at grabbing traffic from internet search, ie newcomers. But, in my opinion, it's not yet there with regard to inter-group communication for people who are already familiar with OWS and want to help. They sign up for a group. That's a good first step, but what tools do groups have on currently??  Even though there are categories for groups to post content (status, description, etc) I think these are inadequate for capturing suggestions, research, writings, links. Fact is, people are not taking advantage of the site. Instead of seeing this as forking the site, I see this as the site extending new functionality, observing usage, and from all of this content, will be able to build appropriate channels, incorporating the content already generated on a wiki.

4) Time is of the essence: It's possible that what a wiki would provide now, can be provided by NYCGA in the short term. But my reading of how much work lies ahead for the dev team to keep up with the population growth tells me that they will not be building new functionality any time soon. Another 2-3 weeks without a place to capture content will adversely impact our ability to retain active users.

5) It's the right tool, period. The entire idea of spokes/ spoke councils/ inter group liaisons/ Work GRoup Outreach/whatever else it's being called now demonstrates the difficulties we're having with lateral communication. There is NO pattern or platform better suited to solve *exactly* this problem, than a wiki. Why NOT let groups self map? provide content templates for sections (examples of which I provided earlier in this thread) and worry about how to harness this content into NYCGA at a later point, when the immediate problems have been solved/are under control.

my $.02.


On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Charles Lenchner <> wrote:


This is a great start.

I’d like to hear more about the wiki vs. the new website, as the optimal repository for this kind of info.

Please…. Can someone say something about the relationship between the two?




From: [] On Behalf Of felipe ribeiro
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [NYCGA Internet] Re: A Wiki for ALL working groups? Forthcoming?


I posted this on the "discussion" page at the wiki, but I'd like to air it out here, because it's important we start addressing the structure of the wiki ASAP. Feel free to tweak at:

I'm thinking this wiki would be most useful by structuring it so that EACH working group had a page(s) to list their current projects, etc. The reason I think it would be helpful is if we tag each project (ie transparency, skillshare, messaging, etc) then people can find projects of interest to them more easily. If each WG page is then further organized into things like: (this is not meant to be definitive, just an example)

Working Group Assets

--description of group purpose, links to subgroup wiki pages & missions

--links to public forums/list serves

--separate websites, used to archive past group input

--specific hashtags used online


WG Member Voices

--links to twitter, tumblr, etc presences of indivudual group members


Group Minutes

--links to past minutes

Current WG & SubGroups PROJECTS

-- Projects/Initiatives explained in detail --links/descriptions to current projects (ideas already approved and being worked on) 

--Current Obstacles/Open Questions (Need help with!)

--Project Tags, and explicit links to other subgroups of other WG, working on similar items.


Future Ideas/Suggestions for next meetings --proposals, arguments/discussions for a given topic

Tools & Resource Showcase
--platforms, technologies, communities, or any other media that can help advance the purposes of the group. If

If each Working Group has a similar set of sections, laid out in a template, then we can create a set of links on the left, for EACH one of those sections, across ALL GROUPS, which will take the visitor to a landing page of content from all working groups, organized by things like:

Current Projects
Need Help With
Tools & Resources
Group Minutes
WG Member Voices

I think this would help with giving people a birds eye view of what people are doing, and can better help them jump in to the thick of what is happening.


On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Christian Smith-Socaris <> wrote:


Thanks for this; I just added a link to our current wiki (one small step). 

I'm the person trying to figure out the CRM needs of outreach, and the one trying to pull together a communications cluster meeting.  I talked to John the other night about CiviCRM and he said you were going to come but got mixed up with the location; Jullian also told me she had a conversation with you in this regard but was out of her depth technically. 

So I'm hoping to connect with you to discuss the situation re standing up a CRM or if outreach should just get a sas solution, because we're hurting without basic tools like a mass mail client.  Please let me know if your free to meet soon.


On 10/20/2011 04:30 PM, Devin Balkind wrote:

Wiki is live here:

The url will turn into in the next day or so.

We're putting together a wiki team.  We've got 4 people in it now and would love more.  Let me know if you'd like to join the team.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Jake <> wrote:

I think we're all aware of the major group dynamics/workflow/
collaboration/outreach problems right now. Trying to organize a big
meeting about this tonight. Drew is leading the charge to make this
happen. Stay tuned for more.

On Oct 20, 11:24 am, "Charles Lenchner" <>

> There is a wiki. Devin showed it to me. I can't remember clearly if this was
> meant to expand to include all GA/OWS activities or not, but it definitely
> included the development efforts led by the FLO WG.
> It doesn't make sense to me that this would be somehow separate from an IWG
> wiki.
> That said, and I'm writing with love, there are issues around making it
> clear, in writing, at a clear address, what is happening, who is doing it,
> and what the contact points are for newcomers to join in.
> The priority has been rushing forward with development, which makes perfect
> sense. There is room for configuring other priorities, like accessibility
> for newcomers, transparency/documentation for other WG's at other occupy
> sites, and identifying individuals as 'accountable' for particular pieces in
> a public, easy to find location.
> Charles
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Jake
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:21 AM
> To: internet working group
> Subject: [NYCGA Internet] Re: A Wiki for ALL working groups? Forthcoming?
> afaik, IWG is not working on a wiki right now
> On Oct 20, 6:20 am, felipe ribeiro <> wrote:
> > Hey All
> > I'm wondering what the plans are for building a wiki for all of the
> > working groups to list resources, assets, projects, etc. I know there
> > are tons of disparate wikis, and that's kind of the point. What are
> > the plans for building this functionality into the main site? Would it
> > be a massively duplicate effort to get one underway, even if it means
> > copying/migrating content later into whatever "official" wiki ends up
> > being built? If anyone else is working on this, I'd like to work with
> > you. Otherwise, let's get this going! (I'm aware FLO has something in
> > the pipe, wondering if there are other instances/intentions besides that).
> > thanks!
> > felipe

Devin Balkind


Dr Ron Suarez

President, Loud Feed, +1 415-935-1321

Music CMS Open Source version:
A2IM Music Label Social Networking site we built:

Devin Balkind