Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in /www/htdocs/w006500c/wp-content/themes/audyasha/functions.php on line 44 and defined in /www/htdocs/w006500c/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 1292
WE/ME in epedagogy design » Blog Archive » My definition of an ‘ideal Bliki’


My definition of an ‘ideal Bliki’

As planned by our group I will share my ideas of a Bliki and would like to receive your comments on that. I am also very interested in waht the other groups are working on. Could you please put it to the Blog or Wiki?

In my opinion it is necessary to describe the situation where to use the bliki first.
I assume that our Bliki will be used in any kind of educational context e.g. school, university, corporate education, lond distance learning or something like that where people are to learn something in more than one step. It does’nt matter if it is used for pure e-learning or blended-learning arrangements.


  1. Share and organize knowledge and information should be the main task of the Bliki. It should support communication processes and give everyone an own virtual identity to avoid unknown users and make it personal.
  2. The content should be editable by every user, but before putting content to the “knowledgebase”/wiki part things should be diskussed in the blog part. After doing that ther should be a easy was to move the final version to the wiki.
  3. Technically it should support RSS, Trackback, Comments and easy mark-up.
    A few things between Wiki and Blog part are to be synchroniced. There should be only one login and a common bliki search. I would also love a easy or auto-linkin system between Blog and Wiki parts.
  4. The way the content is representet has to be in a relation to the relevance of it.
    Existing systems (e-mail, chats, …) are not to be included into the Bliki, because they already exist and would make it needless big and complex.

3 Responses to “My definition of an ‘ideal Bliki’”

  1. Owen Says:

    I disagree with Point 2 because “before putting content to the “knowledgebase”/wiki part things should be diskussed in the blog part. After doing that ther should be a easy was to move the final version to the wiki” seems to me to be a conclusion that we may or may not reach at the end of the project.

    If this is part of the definition (which is our starting point) then we have already decided part of the answer 🙂

  2. yana Says:

    Hi everyone,

    sorry I’m joining you so late…I’m currently in Boston but will return to Hamburg on April 30th. I have read all the entries and still am not sure if
    I understand the whole bliki concept (and whether this blog has already been turned into a bliki because of the wiki link mentioned by Leslo?)?
    Altogether I’m glad to see there is finally “something” happening in ePedagogy Design!
    Anyway, I have been asked to join your group and would love to assist you (even though I have no knowledge on the topic whatsoever)…BUT I recently started to work on my Master-Thesis and so would like to keep the focus on that since I’m very easily distractable (and this would be the perfect opportunity to dwell into this new technology :-))
    How could I be helpful to you while sort of “staying in the background”?


  3. weytan Says:

    I’m interested in a more ‘playful’ approach to information-structuring-systems (as one can count in blikis, wikis and blogs), since my MA-thesis will revolve around the concept of a constructive ‘misuse’ of given structures to question and expand rules and boundaries.
    As far as I understand the previous definitions, the bliki will be a kind of learning community among peers (or are there experts planned to edit posts?). There were some serious troubles with this approach in Mimerdesk/”Bill Viola and the Iconic Turn”, as you may recall. We had some posting peers (I remember Tim, Lincoln and me), but very few (if any) structuring or motivating interventions of experts. We were somehow left ‘hanging’ in the air. It was OK for a ‘soft’ approach on arts and humanities (and me), but not very sustainable from my POV and, scientifically viewed, too opinionated.

    1.) How will the motivational problem of participation be encountered?
    2.) On the other hand, is common agreement on the correctness of an edited entry enough to rank it as viable ‘Truth’? Are there ‘Experts’ and if so, how’s their authority defined?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.