2025-07-27

Here follows a series of ideas around what we're calling “knowledge commoning” — initially, the process of setting up a knowledge commons; and after that, maintaining and improving it. I'm presenting these ideas culled from many places and experiences; and while I haven't seen this all come together yet, I believe it could. I present these in sequence; but, as in most complex systems, they aren't a strict sequence. So, feel free to reorder, rearrange, rework or remix in the way that you see a knowledge commons could be effectively built and curated. (And share back with me!) But I have seen several knowledge commons projects either not working, or disintegrating. These are the best pointers I currently have for tipping the odds in favour of making a real difference in the world.

The point I'm working towards is for bodies of knowledge – on the one hand you could call them “information”, on the other hand “wisdom” – which serve as the informatic dimension of communities of practice (which gives motivation and economic viability) and also serve the commons of learning, education and training.

If you're a fan of Christopher Alexander, you might also see these as relating to “patterns”.

To work together, commoners need to have:

a. a shared purpose;
b. a desire to cooperate or collaborate;
c. willingness to share knowledge openly as a commons.

Remember that it's the group of people, the “commoners”, as well as a common resource and the practices they adopt together, that make a viable commons. So, before starting with knowledge commoning – before starting to put together a knowledge commons – it is essential to find the right people. Is this so obvious that it can be forgotten about? I suspect that we often just ask around, who can help, and accept any help that is offered without stopping to consider carefully what motivates those others. Creating a knowledge commons is not such a huge commitment as, say, bringing a child into the world; but maybe a similar level of discernment would be helpful. Finding people who are closely aligned may be a challenge, unless one is already in a community of practice. If you are, start there! If not, let's work towards building tools to help find those others. (See RegenCHOICE.)

a. Listen to people's stories; unpack embedded beliefs.
b. Tease out the views about reality that underlie the beliefs.
c. Cross-map & cross-fertilise the terms to establish common ground.

When I write about ontology, I mean both the technical ontologies that underlie informatic systems, and the personal and social ontologies that constitute the personal and social views of what is real. Ontological commoning is not only about recognising each other's worldviews – ideas of what reality is – but also about being open to enriching and modifying one's own views in the light of different perspectives. I've written much more about this elsewhere. Ontological commoning is fundamentally a social process, not a technical one, which serves as an essential foundation for any later technical building. It's possible to imagine AI helping in this process, but it's only an optional extra, not part of the basics.

In essence, the commoners need a common language with which to talk over their different perspectives. Thus this needs to be part of the “onboarding” process to choose a viable group of commoners.

a. What are they already familiar with?
b. What are they keen to learn, if they don't know it?
c. What are they willing to be supported with, if support is needed?

I've come across several technically-oriented folks who may not fully recognise (or remember) what it's like not to have the technical skill or awareness needed to use a powerful technical system. For example, while changing a word or two on Wikipedia is very straightforward, it's a much greater challenge to develop fluency with the less obvious aspects, such as templates and references. To work well, a knowledge commons needs all the commoners to be able to enter their own material; to correct or edit other people's; all to maintain and improve the quality of the commons. Or, if that really is not feasible, then all the commoners need direct access to another commoner who is able and willing to add, edit, etc.

Access to social technologies isn't limited by technical proficiency, but still, there is a collection of social abilities that are needed to facilitate this kind of cooperation. It's great to see more and more people picking up these skills and this experience.

a. Search the Web, but also ask personal contacts for leads.
b. Build relationships with existing sources, to enhance synergy.
c. Use this enquiry to sense into the "USP" of this knowledge commons.

Note that the knowledge sources may or may not be on the Web. They could just be in their traditional form: held in the extended minds of people. But your own personal knowledge alone is unlikely to be very helpful to many others. What gives your own life meaning may work for some others, but surely not everyone. And if you mistakenly think that your knowledge will solve everyone's problems, then you may be oblivious to the need to look for other knowledge resources.

It's not only looking for other sources: it's also finding out where your knowledge fits in with the wider knowledge ecosystem. We can reach out to others for mutual guidance about how we can work together in synergy. But this needs relationship; it needs knowledge of the others, and this is based on good communication, in turn relying on that common basic ontology. Then we can all work towards finding our own specialist areas, while at the same time continually negotiating and adjusting the membranes between our work and the work of others. Your specialist area is your niche in the knowledge ecology, your “USP”, and that's where to focus (left hemisphere), while always remaining in relationship, aware of the social and technological context around you (right hemisphere).

a. Use the technologies, the ontology, and the focus as discerned above.
b. Establish collective responsibility for entries, wherever possible.
c. Invite and display perspectives from your engaged commoners.

We need to balance up two contrasting motivations here. On the one hand, displaying a range of perspectives on any issue is likely to come across, not only as more open-minded, but also as attractive and helpful to a wider range of people. They are more likely to see that it is a place where people like them are welcome and respected. On the other hand, a commons needs overall coherence; vision; purpose; mission; etc. If perspectives which have nothing in common with the main vision are present, it runs the risk of casting doubt on the vision as a whole. We can't have trolls saying, for example, that Ostrom was an idiot! That should have been dealt with at the stage of ontological commoning. We aren't looking for uniformity, but for common purpose along with diverse perspectives; diverse stories; and perhaps diverse ways of expressing patterns, beliefs and priorities.

One might think that having clear foundational principles would help. However, putting principles, patterns and beliefs into exact words is a tricky business — consider the inadequacy of too many codes of conduct or practice that try to do that. They are often contentious. Guidelines may be a bit softer; but perhaps even better – as Quakers like to practice – is to have questions that are more like touchstones, inviting awareness and reflection, both individually and collectively. This feeds into the following point …

a. Link with discernment to other high quality sources.
b. Refer back to their curators with invitations to cross-link.
c. Collectively care for the overall quality and currency of knowledge.

What do the actual or potential collaborators see as high quality? What are the needs of their constituent members? Ongoing ontological commoning will help here, along with vigilance for epistemic polluters. We want to broaden the usefulness of the knowledge commons, while keeping within the area of knowledge that is recurrently negotiated between this and other knowledge commons. The quality of the social fabric is vital here: both between the commoners within your own commons; and between commoners in different commons. Deepening knowledge and respect for each other is likely to benefit from in-person meetings; from working together; or perhaps even from living together. Potential conflicts can then be addressed, and ideally they can be seen for their creative potential.

a. Include links to existing good quality learning resources.
b. Invite experienced educators at all levels to help with structuring.
c. Use metadata to help findability where possible.

Structuring a knowledge commons for learning can serve various purposes. First, it can serve as a reality check: are the ideas represented in the commons actually coherent and understandable? Second, it can serve as a learning resource for people who may want to become commoners in this commons: they can learn about the ontology of the commons; about who the commoners are; about the range of perspectives; about activities they may want to engage in. Third, a learning-oriented commons can serve as materials for commoners to offer courses, for those who would prefer more guidance rather than just self-directed learning. Fourth, if very well-structured, it can offer ways of assessing where people are in their learning journey around this commons, perhaps to link up with others at a similar place.

Metadata is information about the learning resources, not the resources themselves. LRMI is one good approach.

a. A knowledge commons – for practice or learning – is never finished.
b. Balance breadth, depth and accuracy; discern signal and noise.
c. Prioritise what is actually useful at the time, which changes.

• knowledge commons
• ontological commoning