Feb 212011
 Posted by on UTC 2011.02.21Mon at 00:50 LGWEB3 writing LGWPXV, Uncategorized, writing LGYLMM  Add comments

LGVVRB: a writing style

  1. LGW5IK: The name “LGWEB3”

    1. LGW9S3: is a current a universal ID (“LG”) ending with “WEB3” for Web 3.0 since the writing style is heavily written with Web 3.0 (Semantic Web) in mind (though doesn’t require it), as well as Web authoring (and does require XHTML).
  2. LGVVTS: text in this format/style will/should:

    1. LGVVXM: maximally avoid repeating/duplicating content

      1. LGVWBS: including (not repeating) content which can be effectively

        1. LGVWEW: referred to via a URL
          1. LGVWPK: including by creating & using anchors (informally “labels”) to little bits of content
            1. LGWBGT: as most notably by putting a universal ID on the document itself (to uniquely identify it) and ideally on each section and even each statement, as say done in this document.
        2. LGVWFC: factored out (into just 1 else minimal copies) by using (and/or)
          1. LGVWMY: an outline structure
          2. LGVWND: a table
      2. LGVWCC: unless the repetition is some reasonable combination of:

        1. LGVWZA: obvious to most anyone:
          1. LGVWT9: that it’s repeated
            1. LGVWU5: example: “(not repeating)” above placed in parathesis to let the reader know this is already implied (by the outline) but just included here as a handy reminder
            2. LGVWVA: a refrain in a song
            3. LGVWVW: an repeated graphic/layout pattern
          2. LGVX04: ideally what it’s a copy of
        2. LGVWXL: uncluttersome
        3. LGVX0T: maximally doesn’t require maitenance work (as to update copies when a change takes place to keep things in sync) by at least humans and ideally by anone.
        4. LGW5RK: required for performance & scalability (at least with IT data, copying it to different locations is sometimes required for scaling performance; this may not apply here but in case it does).
      3. LGWQTY: Consequences

        1. LGYFTN: Content super-outlined if not tabularized. Especially to avoid repeating, the content is very broken up into its logical parts.
          1. LGYG13: Text is broken up into outlines (visible or implied) and even tables.
          2. LGYG13: Individual sentences are often broken
            1. LGYG5X: apart so each is its own topic (and has its own reference ID).
            2. LGYG66: into an outline: the sentence itself is outlined and may feature multiple endings for each subheading of the outline (as this sentence demonstrates), sometimes down multiple levels.
        2. LGYG85: As a consequence of that Content super-outlined if not tabularized, content is especially suitable for
          1. LGYFV0: any number of editors (as in a wiki).  It’s already broken into logical components so it’s easy to add, remove, & reorder without disturbing the rest
            1. LGYGE5: so long-term (more eternal) content which can be corrected & extended & completed without having to start over, and so be text (and other media) in many ways written analogous to well-written modularized software program (also “can be corrected & extended & completed without having to start over”).
          2. LGYGAR: (I hope) machine understanding (includig language parsing) & semantic web processing of the content.
        3. LGWQUF: A problem.
          1. LGWQYL: Description. In an outline structure, this policy removes so much repetition that some, seemingly many, users will complain/feel they frequently can’t read the text as it will no longer be in the normal paragraph formats they’re familiar and with the outline not repeating where they are in it one may not be able “to see the forest because of the trees.”
          2. LGWR0J: solution(s)
            1. LGWR0X: use collapsing outlines, for text display & if-possible editing, too.  More work on this to come.
            2. LGWR2D: Automatically convert outlines into pargraph and/or more familiar format, including repeating the inherited expressions so one doesn’t loose context.  More work on this to come.
    2. LGWB6M: Entirely factual

      1. LGWGPA: Every statement is a fact.
    3. LGWOMA: Verifiable where possible.

      1. LGWO63: Where possible, every statement should be verifiable using the information it provides, as Citations
      2. LGWOP0: A significant work also on this topic (but not entirely applying here): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
      3. LGYL7Y: this (verifiable) implies Entirely factual so one would write say “verifiable including Entirely factual” if it were not that the rule here is “verifiable where possible”.
    4. LGVVIH: Citation requirement

      1. LGWOGN: Must meet this citation requirement:

        1. LGVXHC: for everything it takes-from
          1. LGVXI3: everything it quotes or paraphases or otherwise takes-from (as gets facts, opionions, & especially ideas)
          2. LGVXJ7: Including reusing stuff from oneself or from one’s own organization (as quoting oneself or documents of one’s organization)
        2. LGVXMM: it must:
          1. LGVVZ9: cite/give the URL to the source(s)
            1. LGVXA5: in proportion to how much this wouldn’t be common knowledge at the time of writing
            2. LGVXDL: including “being maximally but safely non-vague”
              1. LGWAIR: meaning gives exact numbers and identification (including names) of objects to the degree that all the following are met:
                1. LGVYFH: Tells as much (of say who said/did what when, exactly) as is possible while still:
                2. LGVY3Z: assumes no party is fully honest & fully up-to-good  (especially key with allegations)
                3. LGVY38: respects everyone’s privacy as much as possible (key for dramatic issues, but not just) including
                  1. LGWA85: need-to-know basis generally
                    1. LGWAA8: including avoiding revealing exact identities unless really necessary or perhaps if requested.
                  2. LGVYAO: (under construction) possibly limited only by the publicity that a person that a person would know s/he would appropriately get by the role s/he took here
                    1. LGVYRB: say if the person accepted a job to handle this matter, then s/he would be deserving of less privacy if they handled it wrong.
              2. LGWAKM: This can be acheived in part by
                1. LGWAN3: giving one (or more) pseudondym(s) to a person & a password (or omit the password), and, when that isn’t enough) to an account ID/username/SS#, and saying say “The names have been changed to protect everyone.”.
          2. LGVW0W: if paraphrasing something, it puts that in quotes preceeded with “about” or “~” or “effectively”
          3. LGVW3E: if quoting something, it puts that in quotes.
          4. LGVW5W: quotes can be “quoted text” or “quoted text” or <blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>.
      2. LGWOJ4: Meeting this requirement (properly citing a source)
        1. LGWOJG: wraps any statement the source made/suggested into a fact (so being Entirely factual), because then the citing author is NOT stating the source’s statement is true or false but rather correctly claiming that the source made/suggested it.
        2. LGWPFO: is the the first & most basic-step in insuring the source gets proper credit, be it bad or good.
        3. LGWP21: insures you, the person making the citation,
          1. LGWP4K: is relieved from plagerizing.
          2. LGWP8W: is relieved from the responsiblity of whether the statements cited are true or not.
          3. LGWPBC: is NOT relieved from the responsiblity from having chosen to present this information, and in particular to responsibility that this info & what it suggests be relevant here plus balanced & neutral.  For instance, one could still be well guilty of spreading dirty laundry.
    5. LGWBRX: Everything clear.

      1. LGWBSU: every term & concept is self-explanitory, as either it’s common knowledge or it’s linked to its definition.
    6. LGW5UR: Allows & encourages opinion if expressed in certain constructive ways

      1. LGW5ZN: realizing that

        1. LGW6P9: unless the writers are machines, opinions & feelings are there no matter how hard we try to hide & surpress them, so not providing for their expression (as pretending they can always just be hidden/supressed) will restort in loss of objectivity, frustration, other bad displacement.
        2. LGW732: Having an opinion is itself a fact (provided we state it fully, as “As of date d, person x prefers y”), and important fact (on which voting & democracy and modern government & organizations, & lifetimes are built) so definitely is worth & does need to be documented.
      2. LGWKZJ: Allowed ways for expressing opinion constructively

        1. LGWH62: All opinion must be wrapped into fact so everything is entirely factual.

          1. LGW5VX: At a bare minimum, opinion is clearly marked as such, as
            1. LGWGW0: by placing the opion in parenthsis or similar: Instead of “The spiteful cow..” write “The (spiteful) cow..”.
          2. LGWKOC: Wherever possible, preface opnion with the situation turn it into fact, as with effectively “On <date/>, <person/group/> has <opinion/>”
            1. LGWHSX: by demarking a section which contains opinion and prefacing, as “The following section are the opinions of LadysMan217 on 2011.02.19”.
            2. LGWBA9: by prefacing with a sentence with say “<a universal ID/>: I <person/> feel …”, as instead of “Cows are bad”, write “LGWBE7: I CityBoy feel cows are bad.” (note the universal ID includes a date & timestamp)
        2. LGWKY3: Opinion should be separated from univeral facts: specifically within a given subject, have effectively two subsections: universal-facts and opinions-wrapped-into-facts, generally in that order.

          1. .
        3. LGW5X2: Ideally universal-facts should be factored out of opinion & merged in with the other univeral-facts, leaving pure opinion that then is streamlined & concice and and also can be often be better judged now that all the universal-facts (and vs. pure opinion) can be clearly seen.

          1. LGW6WQ: Key example: “a list of the possible choices” and, for each, “A list of pros thru cons”.
            1. LGW72H: the list of possible choices is objective (hey, we may not like that choice, but it is a choice) and, for the most part one can agree for each choice these are the pros & cons, or at least agree on all the possible considerations in that choice.
          2. LGW7F3: A process for it (turning opinions into almost pure objectivity, plus getting much better judements).
            1. LGW7PW: So how can we get this objective data? Seemingly ironically, one can start by expressing almost pure opinion as  “Now on date ___, I think we should do X because (1), (2), (3)” and
            2. LGW7QD: from that we can get an “X” (a possible solution) and “(1), (2), (3)” which are each some of the things/viewpoints to least possibly consider, for “X” and for other options.
            3. LGW7RM: Repeat this for ideally a few people,  And from this data/writing/talk and some common sense, we can very quickly built up our voting choices and the pros & cons for each, which is all fairly objectively.
            4. LGW7SB: Now we go back and look at each opinion text and all the solution details & reason details can be factored out and simply referred to in objective text.  “Now on date ___, I choose #3 because considerations C, D, & J are important to me.”
            5. LGW7XL: Moreover, the opinion makers can go back and read all objective data we’ve built (all the full choices, plus pros & cons for each) which will likely now include other considerations they haven’t thought of, and from all this they may have a new opinion. That’s okay (in fact it’s generally good), just record say “Now on date ___, I choose #4 because M & K overshadow C & D for me.”
            6. LGW872: Finally we may ask person(s) to give a desired goal for each attribute (now that we’ve established most all the considerations) and how important having that attribute is to them, and, then for each choice, measure how how well that choice meets the person’s priorities given here, then automatically score the choices by the user’s priorities.  And maybe have the person adjust their goals & weights until the scores seem to feel right for them.  Now we’ve fairly scientifically picked, captured all the opinion data fully (as priorities), and coverted all “choice X good or bad” (opinion) to “What exact attributes does choice X have” (objective).
              1. LGW8LY: From what I read of OkCupid, it’s a real demonstration of some of these principles, including having the community come up with the questions.
          3. LGW8NG: an example of this process which I did is site implementation/version ID.
  3. LGYFQS: Consequences

    1. .
  4. LGW1QD: comparison with similar writing styles

    1. LGW1R3: table
      LGW1WK: feature this
      writing style
      Wikipedia academic/scholarly
      legal writing as
      laws & TOS
      expository writing
      LGW2G6: definition here as hehere a technical vs. expository comparison Google Search[Expository writing], a technical vs. expository comparison
      LGW1Y2: structure level high medium-high medium medium to high medium-high to high (as frequently assigns a section # to each law & sublaw of it) medium
      LGW2PX: opinion Allows & encourages opinion if expressed in certain constructive ways none allowed none allowed none allowed (but it IS implicitly embedded!) some say no, some (seemingly fewer) say yes; if any opinion, it’s secondary to logic (or at least in appearance)
      LGW2QD: citation requirements high yes, “a source must be provided” high low to medium low (as laws feel not considered “copyright”), but citations are frequent for brevity medium
      LGW2RC: requires readable by unfamilar reader yes (via links to definitions) seemingly yes
      LGW2ZI: objective/neutral point-of-view high yes (reference?) high medium (as appears to be) high medium or appears to be
      LGW2ST: designed for machine/computer understanding & handling, now else soon absolutely a little (as extractable citations & abstract) sometimes no
      LGWNUC: giving original research sure no absolutely sure sure sure


  5. LGWQ1Z: Template

    1. LGWQ2M: For now, just copy this post then immediately change its text to fit the new use.
      1. LGWQ42: After copying, start by doing the following immediately:
        1. LGWQBQ: remove the post’s existing universal IDs; in say Expression Web, in the HTML source, replace all sup-tags & their contents with “”
        2. LGWQCI: At the start of the post create a universal ID to identify the post independent of whatever place its hosted.
        3. LGWQE3: At the end of the post create a universal ID, then in the section name link there, replace the displayed name with the name of the post and update the the link to point to the start of the post (note you’ll need to update both the post URL & anchor).
        4. LGWQJL: Is the post to be a new category? If not, delete the “category” section. If so, for that section, create a universal ID for it and replace the category name with the post name plus a space followed by this universal ID, and then complete the rest of the category section.
        5. LGWQRL: add the post to the category “LGWEB3 writing LGWPXV”.
        6. LGWQP1: delete the contents of the template (other than the parts you just completed) and replace with your new contents.
  6. LGYLMM: category[writing LGYLMM] -using this ID.

    1. LGWQ0O: parent category[Uncategorized]
    2. LGWPXV: category[LGWEB3 writing LGWPXV] -using this ID

    3. LGWQ13: I created category(s) on http://2.LoveRules.Info/category
  7. LGWQ1B: section LGWEB3 writing end