This conversation is closed.

How can we as the TED Community/post contributors better utilise previous closed conversations & their ideas worth spreading?

On a recent (Do jails rehabilitate?) I posted, it came to light that many other conversations had much the same theme. Furthermore it then became apparent to me that there would be a lot of duplication/overlap and that what we effectively have is, a conversational recycling centre/center....without the benefits one usually associates for society from recycling.

If the vision of TED is for "Ideas worth spreading", then how can this translate into those stashed/stored/closed conversations being incorporated so that an idea is consistently refined via the new live posts.

If society is to grow, then the TED environment may well provide a very effective conduit for societal change, by way of idea development, then public/government integration/introduction to the refined idea.

In Democratic Countries, people can sign petitions supporting ideas (worth spreading) and goverment representatives can run their election campaigns on the back of committing to deliver them if they are not yet an elected public representative, or if already a representative because they agree with the idea too.

With the support of YOU as a part of the TED Community and your advice on how the above may be best achieved, my aspiration is that TED will then adopt the strategies and we will have even BETTER Ideas that will be really worth spreading into society at large in a very influential and positive way for the future of our planet.

Of course, if there are already exactly the same posts stashed/closed can you provide me the link? : D

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: Thanks Alexander, I think you have provided some genuine nuggets of considered information and observation of how things could be improved. So building upon what we have here so far,

      * TED sets up a facility whereby all contributors (video & conversation) can tick boxes for subject links.
      * The facility could also enable key word linkages, search term scope & topic summary.... (point note on bias as pointed out by Fritzie, however)
      * TEDwiki feature of peer summary reviews and subsequent refining and finessing of the related subject material. (Which would negate the above mentioned biases).
      * New Badge for TEDwiki contributor (similar style/concept to TED Translator one)

      By having the TEDwiki feature, all the popular topic headings for example could be also linked to a work in progress format with a TEDwiki for each. These may have offshoots into other areas depending upon the diversity of the topic. The point here though is that, there could be with the above initiated, a up to date analysis of topics that are continuously being refined and improved upon, rather than left to obscurity and to waste.

      I have heard that one of the reasons some ancient cultures were able to develop such fabulous architecture was that the teacher always told his student everything he knew and in turn the student would add his bit and pass this on down the line. While in other parts of the world the teacher would hold back and keep some information to himself and the student in turn would do the same to his student and so on and so on.

      So in the spirit of developing ideas to the best that they could be and consequently... become IDEAS WORTH SPREADING, then I think the above are steps in that direction.

      Am very interested in your thoughts and further contributions everyone here and those that have popped in! : D
  • Jul 25 2013: I have proposed making a TEDwiki, in which wiki's for topics perhaps started with a definition and link to the wikipedia information, then extracts from talks, comments and conversations was cited to build new ideas, opinions and hypotheses. TED has the data and the software to make such a dream a reality.

    Learning by constantly revisiting old topics is possible, but slow and chaotic. As Fritzie points out, creating a summary might lead to too much potential for bias by the conversation host. In a TEDwiki approach there would be peer review of the subject matter, citations to comments for contributions made by members, and a summarized collection of the points would be available for quick review, thus enabling use of what is know to extrapolate to what might be new and different.
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2013: I believe TED Conversations is well suited to people who enjoy batting ideas around with people. Often a person poses a question he would like to discuss and was not around the previous times. The most frequent topics that recur over and over, in my observation, are topics about how to improve education, whether money is needed or not, purpose of life, God, the validity of science, and how to find your passion.

    I don't know how often a new questioner really wants to go back and look at earlier conversations, because there would be better sources of archived information or research on many of these topics. People engage here most often because they want to talk about their ideas now, talk being a particular active way of learning. People like to be in the game in this regard more than watching others who have played the game.

    Sometimes the idea has come up of those who start a thread consistently putting up a summary so that a search of previous conversations might be more compact. I have noticed, though, that the summaries people do attach to their threads, when those exist, much more often than not do not reflect well the actual range of views but rather a version heavily swayed by confirmation bias. People tend to think the side they took won the debate compellingly, for example. So I personally would not find the short account a reliable source of the most important or compelling ideas raised in the interaction.

    Have you tried searching for conversations using the search box?
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2013: basically, this is a good topic, because any idea makes the situation better. anyone taking a few minutes can come up with an improvement. one could assert, with high accuracy, that TED forums have all the features nobody wants, and none of the functions people actually want. it is perfection, in its own way.
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2013: btw i just realized. you don't have a right to complain about that. you are the only one that can still participate in those closed conversations. this assumes your choice of name is accurate.
    • thumb
      Aug 2 2013: Sorry Krisztian, I am a bit confused by your last. Am I right in thinking you mean that a person can participate in a closed (any) conversation in so far as they can read all the posts that are contained within it and also determined upon their accuracy of searching relevant topics?

      If this is this the case, then I'd agree, I have no right to complain, simply because, that is how things work here at the moment.

      My objective is more aligned to improving rather than complaining, in so far as, I think the above scenario can be improved upon by taking out the manhours required for an individual to research subject material here as described above, to one, whereby, via keyword linkages or similar there would be links to these closed conversations whenever duplicititious remarks are made or closely related to topics.

      In this fashion refinement of ideas can occur, to ultimately craft a higher grade response, which if appropriate could hopefully/potentially, be rolled out into mainstream society. Hope this clarifies! : D
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: you can just go back in time, dude
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: I did... I put a reply up to yours and then travelled to the future and went back in time to your response, which I dissappointingly discovered was void of anything worthwhile or contributory to concurring that I had correctly gauged/interpreted, what you meant by your first post and subsequent abscence by way of your last with respect to furthering understanding and ways to improve the staus quo.

          Needless to say, I will go forward in time and then come back in time to see if your reply has a little more substance next time around....or maybe it may all just be lost in the translation! : D
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2013: Well said Alexander! I do hope that the inputs here are not futile and lost somewhere in the repositories of archived closed conversations!

    If there was a suggestion box here on TED, I'd like to suggest that they aren't but then how is any of this effected, via what channels/board of Directors etc.....I know that TED monitors/reads transcripts here, that is why some posts are deleted, just not sure whether they need to be initiated tho by someone flagging it first to let TED know of the situation.

    In this case then I don't know if (normal) conversations are even looked at by TED! Maybe some other community member out there knows some of these answers! : D
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2013: If I understand your question, I think it depends on what you mean by "looked at by TED." TED has many participants, both staff and volunteer, who make things work. I know all posts on the talks are read and I would guess that someone, but not the same person, at least skims each post in Conversations.

      I think some conversations probably generate more interest among TED staff than others and are watched more closely than others.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: Thanks Fritzie for providing some guidance, I am now at least somewhat assured that conversations (unflagged/normal ones) are at least seen by some TED representative particularly when the subject material relates directly to the TED medium! Glad to hear it doesn't just upload to the closed conversation ether into obscurity....which I had til now considered as a possibility! : D
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2013: Thankyou everyone for your contributions. I do appreciate also the quality of the answers too. I think you all have touched on what is to me, essentially all the key points.

    I very much like your idea Robert of the TEDwiki concept. To me that makes alot of sense.

    We do have people here, for example, Krisztian, who are TED translators and so along these lines could perhaps be another accreditation for a TEDwiki contributor!

    I also appreciate what Fritzie had to say with respect to the live here and now banter people get from participating in the now conversations.

    Deepak's thought for being able to reactivate a conversation was interesting too for if someone was interested in the topic, it could be assumed that they had something to add to it, rather than setting up the reduplication process inherrent in establishing a new post conversation on the subject.

    In reply to your query, Fritzie, as to whether I search the popular topics section, no I must say I haven't. Generally I will search the live conversation choices or hover over recent commenters to see what interests me and then I will just check it out and comment too if I feel I have something to add. Also I have started some conversations too.

    My considerations in initiating this post had more to do with utilising what to me, was an opportunity to value add via the TED medium.

    What is currently here is great, tho I would like to see an extra quiver in the bow and establish a way to be able to refine those popular posts with the view that they could then be filtered and made reality in society.

    To this end I think Robert's concept has plenty of merit and would like to hear more about it and thoughts others have about it too! : D