|
G’day!
Contact me on the discussion–talk page here, please,
feel free,
if necessary.
Here’s some 'befores & afters' of some of my work here—my problem solving motivation:
Relevant to communication philosophy, community and strategic planning, in WP here and for all 'westerners', a quotation of part of contemporary natural philosophy scholarship—brilliance on the topic of false philosophy, etc. Re: * * * *—no moral authority these pallid pink 'philistines'. :
“ | ...
'Us' and 'Them' A further challenge to closure builds on the violence of totalising monologue. Whose past and whose present are implicated in the moral work of engaging the past in the present? Monologue is another primary form of closure. Critical theory of recent decades has shown western thought and action to be dominated by a matrix of hierarchical oppositions which provided powerful conceptual tools for the reproduction of violence. In this matrix the world is formed around dualities: man/woman, culture/nature, mind/body, active/passive, civilisation/savagery, and so on in the most familiar and oppressive fashion. In fact, however, these dualities are more properly described as a series of singularities because the pole labelled 'other' (woman, Nature, savage, etc.) is effectively an absence. This point is articulated extensively by feminist theoreticians. Luce Irigaray (1985), for example, shows that the defining feature of woman under dualistic thought is that she is not man. Ecofeminists extend the analysis to include 'Nature', and show that the same structure of domination controls women, Nature, and all other living beings and systems that are held to be 'other' (Warren 1990, Salleh 1992). Val Plumwood (1994: 74) speaks directly to the centrality of this structure: 'the story of the control of the chaotic and deficient realm of "Nature" by mastering and ordering "reason" has been the master story of western culture.' Within that 'chaotic and deficient realm' were all those others who were classed outside the 'Us' that is the hero of the story. Stripped of much cultural elaboration, this structure of self/other articulates power such that 'self' is constituted as the pole of activity and presence, while 'other' is the pole of passivity and absence. Presence is a manifestation both of being and of power, while absence may be a gap awaiting transfiguration by the active/present pole, or an enabling background; in either case, without power and presence of its own (Plumwood 1997). A crucial feature of the system is that others never get to talk back on their own terms. Communication is all one way as the pole of power refuses to receive the feedback that would cause it to change itself, or to open itself into dialogue. Power lies in the ability not to hear what is being said, not to experience the consequences of one’s actions, but rather to go one’s own self-centric and insulated way. Plumwood (2002:27) notes two key moves in sustaining hierarchical dualism and the illusion of autonomy – dependency and denial. The pole of power depends on the subordinated other, and simultaneously denies this dependence. The image of bi-polarity thus masks what is, in effect, a singular pole of self. The self sets itself within a hall of mirrors; it mistakes its reflection for the world, sees its own reflections endlessly, talks endlessly to itself, and, not surprisingly, finds continual verification of itself and its world view. This is monologue masquerading as conversation, masturbation posing as productive interaction; it is a narcissism so profound that it purports to provide a universal knowledge when in fact its violent erasures are universalizing its own singular and powerful isolation. It promotes a nihilism that stifles the knowledge of connection, disables dialogue, and maims the possibilities whereby ‘self’ might be captured by ‘other’. Levinas equates these totalising monological narratives with war. This is not to say that monologue itself lacks debate and conflict, but more deeply that it is self-totalising in only including what it can accommodate within its own narrative, and by insisting that others, if they appear at all, appear as they are considered by that monological narrative. Indeed some monological narratives are so broad as to be able to encompass everything, but only within the terms of the narrative. Elizabeth Povinelli’s (2002) brilliant new study of Australian multiculturalism gives a much more complex face to public monolocultural discourse than I am able to present here. She focuses on the 'cunning of recognition', examining the impossible necessity for Aboriginal people in certain contexts to be able to produce for the nation an identity that the nation defines as authentic (see also Merlan 1998). This is one of many ways in which monological narrative scoops up others on its own terms and within its own self-understanding (see chapter 3). The dismantling of the war-like theory of … ... |
” |
— Rose, D., 2004 Reports [Reflections]—best buy this book! giving the author their great due—; :) |
→ WikiMedia March 2011 Update – Strategic Planning
→ WikiMedia May 2011 Update – Strategic Planning
(–from WikiMedia Strategic Planning)
Some straight talking Wikipedia policy of consensus that i really appreciate, but which now has been sterilised, banalised:
Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run.
It was removed here (diffs) – i don’t know if there was any discussion about its removal.
A little bit of straight talking regarding the goodness of apologising may still be found unsterilised here in Civility – Apologizing - It’s OK to say sorry.
The Wikipedia editor - competence essay should be written as a more scholarly and formal Wikipedia competence policy, including higher scholarly standards of reliable sources’ research and use as the basis for article statement writing/editing. Not everyone has the experience, skills or ability to do reliable sources’ research and reliable sources’ based scholarly writing, to this scholarly standard—a part reference, the essay: Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia - Not everyone can write articles—or in subjects outside their expertise if they have subject expertise—one more part reference: Expert retention. This issue requires much more policy elaboration, in my humble opinion. This unscholarly quality is the biggest shortcoming of this Wikipedia encyclopaedia project, in my humble experience, in my awareness of public opinions of it, and the reason why it gets nicknamed: dodgy–paedia, 'Dickipedia' *, gossip rag masquerading (as encyclopaedia). Moreover, this describes why it gets thought of as reflecting popular prejudices (aka, particularly in politics: Demagoguery).
etc..
Then some not doing professional journalism, who, like me, like to think of themselves as bigger than mere geeks—hehe, e.g.: "… the sun will still set in the West, the worlds will not collide, and Wikipedia articles will still show #1 in Google search results … " —Wikipediocracy. e.g. * * *, *, etc..
Quotation: "In a land of the blind, a one–eyed man is king" —who said that renowned quotation? In reality, let’s keep perspective, both eyes open wide, genuine maturity and let’s not deny the flaws—no sane (whitewash) fairytale exists to escape to—then we might solve them.
How do you do? Do you think that Wikipedia (main), here, is for plain and simple English only??? ie. technical, advanced, eloquent or even brilliant English language not allowed even when the subject necessitates it??? Well, one word for you: Ligature [the typographic kind]! Also, two more of many article topics for you: Bohr–Einstein debates & Adiabatic theorem.
Simplistic English is what that is called when necessarily advanced–language–subjects get unnecessarily banalised—dumbed down, motivated by an inappropriately simplified and plain English version of the language—see policies eg. WP:NOT PAPERS—see professional media comment eg. NY Times.
Simple English Wikipedia is the place for that; as appropriate for people who have those degrees of English language, from just starting to learn English, to English as a non-native language.
(The world’s vast majority of people have multiple native languages, except for monolingual English speakers. Very few people in the world speak only one language that isn’t English. In other words, very few people do not speak more than one language. In other words, the world’s vast majority of people are either: 1. fully bilingual, trilingual, etc. or 2. have a fully fluent first language and fully functional, if not fully fluent, second, third, etc., languages.)
Simple English Wikipedia also is for people who suffer from dyslexia and other reading difficulties; and for people who simply want to read their chosen subject in a cut–down, simplistic Wikipedia story.
The seriously–fun big–puzzle question is: Who is going to write up the Simple English Wikipedia articles of: Ligature, Bohr–Einstein debates, Adiabatic theorem, etc.?
Then there are ineffable major subjects in reality. What does one do in Wikipedia to write up them???
My life, professional and personal, includes lots of learning awareness, very varied and wide learning—an autodidact, who did attend University 1988–90, and had already learned before that from giants: in cultured–nature; in ecology eg. D.C., J.B.K., L. Webb, T. Irvine, etc.; in natural history eg. many 'Field Nat’s' and late D. Neale, etc.; in botany, eg. D.C., late D. Neale and Jim Willis ("doyen"), G.C., etc.; in philosophy eg. W.F.; in horticulture; etc., etc.. Lots of and very varied technical and/or advanced awarenesses. So, i edit accordingly, in articles here appropriate to the fullest possible use and exercise of my skills and ongoing learning!—only, i have little time for Wikipedia.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) –from:
Aboriginal Bush Foods at www.RGBSyd.NSW.Gov.Au{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |conference=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help)Quoting the Publisher:
Australian Aborigines taught themselves thousands of years ago how to build a sustainable society in our fragile landscape. In a unique collaboration, a Swedish knowledge management professor finds out from an Aboriginal cultural custodian how they did it, and what we can learn from them.
Description
We are consuming more than our earth can provide. In Australia, cities and towns struggle to maintain a reliable water supply, climate change triggers droughts which devastate farmland, and fish stocks are running low. It is increasingly clear that we are heading towards collapse if we don't change direction.
Aboriginal people taught themselves thousands of years ago how to live sustainably in Australia's fragile landscape. A Scandinavian knowledge management professor meets an Aboriginal cultural custodian and dares to ask the simple but vital question: what can we learn from the traditional Aboriginal lifestyle to create a sustainable society in modern Australia?
Karl-Erik Sveiby and Tex Skuthorpe show how traditional Aboriginal stories and paintings were used to convey knowledge from one generation to the next, about the environment, law and relationships. They reveal the hidden art of four-level storytelling, and discuss how the stories, and the way they were used, formed the basis for a sustainable society. They also explain ecological farming methods, and how the Aboriginal style of leadership created resilient societies.
Treading Lightly takes us on a unique journey into traditional Aboriginal life and culture, and offers a powerful and original model for building sustainable organisations, communities and ecologies. It is a compelling message for today's world.
KARL-ERIK SVEIBY has for several years been Professor of Knowledge Management at Hanken Business School, Finland, and Honorary Professor at Griffith Graduate School of Management, Brisbane, and at Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney. He is the author of twelve books in business and management.
TEX SKUTHORPE is a Nhunggabarra man from Nhunggal country in northwestern New South Wales and a painter, educator and custodian of traditional law and stories. He was awarded Aboriginal Artist of the Year by NAIDOC in 1990/1991 and currently works with young Aboriginal offenders in Kariong Correctional Centre, New South Wales.
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |quote=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) –
UQ Press Description in order form –
Complex designs reveal country’s first architects (National news - Sydney Morning Herald) –
Gunyah, Goondie + Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture Of Australia - "The myth of a country devoid of indigenous architecture - 'architecture nullius' - has long persisted." (smh.com.au Book Review){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Google scan of the 1989 printed book{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |conference=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
Sample pages
NLA page{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)[Abstract:]
The concept of naturalness is implicit in all attempts to assess the extent to which Australian ecosystems have been modified by 200 years of European settlement, as well as by 40,000 years of Aboriginal occupation. Yet, failure to recognise that naturalness is a culturally constructed concept, rather than a universal one, has produced such inconsistency and ambiguity in the terminology used for these assessments that the terminology lacks the precision and ecological rigour required for incorporation in theoretical models of landscape change, and for application to the management of landscape change.
The primary aim of this chapter is to provide a conceptual framework for Australian studies of the modification of natural ecosystems by human intrusion or influences. The meaning of the concept of naturalness in Western technological societies is examined in an attempt to clarify the uncertainty and ambiguity currently associated with the use of the terms "natural landscape", "natural ecosystem" and "natural vegetation". A revised terminology and definitions are presented based on the biocentric concept that places humanity within nature, and treats human intrusion or influences as only one of the many natural agents of landscape change.
[Abstract:]
Ethnographically, Australian and New Guinean societes are contrasted, the former as hunter-gatherer, the latter as agricultural. This contrast has directed our research to the point where similar kinds of evidence are interpreted in different ways in the two areas.
[Abstract:]
Discusses the origins of agriculture in New Guinea. Evidences suggesting early agriculture in the country; Reasons behind the distinctive long-term history of New Guinea compared with other regions of the world where early agriculture developed independently; Factors that can be accounted for the primitive nature of New Guinean societies in comparison with other agricultural lands.
[Quotation:]
Although the need to study agriculture in different parts of the world on its 'own terms' has long-been recognized and re-affirmed, a tendency persists to evaluate agriculture across the globe using concepts, lines of evidence and methods derived from Eurasian research. However, researchers working in different regions across the globe are becoming increasingly aware of fundamental differences in the nature of, and methods employed to study, agriculture and plant exploitation practices in the past. Contributions to this volume rethink agriculture, whether in terms of existing regional chronologies, in terms of techniques employed, or in terms of the concepts that frame our interpretations. This volume highlights new archaeological and ethnoarchaeological research on early agriculture in understudied non-Eurasian regions, including Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the Americas and Africa, to present a more balanced view of the origins and development of agricultural practices around the globe. Sponsored by the World Archaeological Congress.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help)[Quotation:]
This volume, the first in the One World Archaeology series, is a compendium of key papers by leaders in the field of the emergence of agriculture in different parts of the world. Each is supplemented by a review of developments in the field since its publication.
Contributions cover the better known regions of early and independent agricultural development, such as Southwest Asia and the Americas, as well as lesser known locales, such as Africa and New Guinea. Other contributions examine the dispersal of agricultural practices into a region, such as India and Japan, and how introduced crops became incorporated into pre-existing forms of food production.
This reader is intended for students of the archaeology of agriculture, and will also prove a valuable and handy resource for scholars and researchers in the area.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help){{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help){{
cite conference}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help){{
cite journal}}
: External link in |journal=
(
help)[Jacket inside front cover summary:]
Across Australia, early Europeans commented again and again that the land looked like a park. With extensive grassy patches and pathways, open woodlands and abundant wildlife, it evoked a country estate in England. Bill Gammage has discovered this was because Aboriginal people managed the land in a far more systematic and scientific fashion than we have ever realised.
For over a decade, he has examined written and visual records of the Australian landscape. He has uncovered an extraordinarily complex system of land management using fire, the life cycles of native plants, and the natural flow of water to ensure plentiful wildlife and plant foods throughout the year.
We know Aboriginal people spent far less time and effort than Europeans in securing food and shelter, and now we know how they did it. With details of land-management strategies from around Australia, The Biggest Estate on Earth rewrites the history of this continent, with huge implications for us today. Once Aboriginal people were no longer able to tend their country, it became overgrown and vulnerable to the hugely damaging bushfires we now experience.
… And what we think of as virgin bush in a national park is nothing of the kind.
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
Interview about the book, 11 Oct 2011.
Talk, contextualised for Melbourne history, 27 October 2011.{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help)[Abstract:]
Hitherto, the earliest archaeological finds of domestic cereals in southwestern Asia have involved wheats and barleys dating from the beginning of the Holocene, 11–12000 calendar years ago. New evidence from the site of Abu Hureyra suggests that systematic cultivation of cereals in fact started well before the end of the Pleistocene by at least 13000 years ago, and that rye was among the first crops. The evidence also indicates that hunter-gatherers at Abu Hureyra first started cultivating crops in response to a steep decline in wild plants that had served as staple foods for at least the preceding four centuries. The decline in these wild staples is attributable to a sudden, dry, cold, climatic reversal equivalent to the 'Younger Dryas' period. At Abu Hureyra, therefore, it appears that the primary trigger for the occupants to start cultivating caloric staples was climate change. It is these beginnings of cultivation in the late Pleistocene that gave rise to the integrated grain-livestock Neolithic farming systems of the early Holocene.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help)
|
G’day!
Contact me on the discussion–talk page here, please,
feel free,
if necessary.
Here’s some 'befores & afters' of some of my work here—my problem solving motivation:
Relevant to communication philosophy, community and strategic planning, in WP here and for all 'westerners', a quotation of part of contemporary natural philosophy scholarship—brilliance on the topic of false philosophy, etc. Re: * * * *—no moral authority these pallid pink 'philistines'. :
“ | ...
'Us' and 'Them' A further challenge to closure builds on the violence of totalising monologue. Whose past and whose present are implicated in the moral work of engaging the past in the present? Monologue is another primary form of closure. Critical theory of recent decades has shown western thought and action to be dominated by a matrix of hierarchical oppositions which provided powerful conceptual tools for the reproduction of violence. In this matrix the world is formed around dualities: man/woman, culture/nature, mind/body, active/passive, civilisation/savagery, and so on in the most familiar and oppressive fashion. In fact, however, these dualities are more properly described as a series of singularities because the pole labelled 'other' (woman, Nature, savage, etc.) is effectively an absence. This point is articulated extensively by feminist theoreticians. Luce Irigaray (1985), for example, shows that the defining feature of woman under dualistic thought is that she is not man. Ecofeminists extend the analysis to include 'Nature', and show that the same structure of domination controls women, Nature, and all other living beings and systems that are held to be 'other' (Warren 1990, Salleh 1992). Val Plumwood (1994: 74) speaks directly to the centrality of this structure: 'the story of the control of the chaotic and deficient realm of "Nature" by mastering and ordering "reason" has been the master story of western culture.' Within that 'chaotic and deficient realm' were all those others who were classed outside the 'Us' that is the hero of the story. Stripped of much cultural elaboration, this structure of self/other articulates power such that 'self' is constituted as the pole of activity and presence, while 'other' is the pole of passivity and absence. Presence is a manifestation both of being and of power, while absence may be a gap awaiting transfiguration by the active/present pole, or an enabling background; in either case, without power and presence of its own (Plumwood 1997). A crucial feature of the system is that others never get to talk back on their own terms. Communication is all one way as the pole of power refuses to receive the feedback that would cause it to change itself, or to open itself into dialogue. Power lies in the ability not to hear what is being said, not to experience the consequences of one’s actions, but rather to go one’s own self-centric and insulated way. Plumwood (2002:27) notes two key moves in sustaining hierarchical dualism and the illusion of autonomy – dependency and denial. The pole of power depends on the subordinated other, and simultaneously denies this dependence. The image of bi-polarity thus masks what is, in effect, a singular pole of self. The self sets itself within a hall of mirrors; it mistakes its reflection for the world, sees its own reflections endlessly, talks endlessly to itself, and, not surprisingly, finds continual verification of itself and its world view. This is monologue masquerading as conversation, masturbation posing as productive interaction; it is a narcissism so profound that it purports to provide a universal knowledge when in fact its violent erasures are universalizing its own singular and powerful isolation. It promotes a nihilism that stifles the knowledge of connection, disables dialogue, and maims the possibilities whereby ‘self’ might be captured by ‘other’. Levinas equates these totalising monological narratives with war. This is not to say that monologue itself lacks debate and conflict, but more deeply that it is self-totalising in only including what it can accommodate within its own narrative, and by insisting that others, if they appear at all, appear as they are considered by that monological narrative. Indeed some monological narratives are so broad as to be able to encompass everything, but only within the terms of the narrative. Elizabeth Povinelli’s (2002) brilliant new study of Australian multiculturalism gives a much more complex face to public monolocultural discourse than I am able to present here. She focuses on the 'cunning of recognition', examining the impossible necessity for Aboriginal people in certain contexts to be able to produce for the nation an identity that the nation defines as authentic (see also Merlan 1998). This is one of many ways in which monological narrative scoops up others on its own terms and within its own self-understanding (see chapter 3). The dismantling of the war-like theory of … ... |
” |
— Rose, D., 2004 Reports [Reflections]—best buy this book! giving the author their great due—; :) |
→ WikiMedia March 2011 Update – Strategic Planning
→ WikiMedia May 2011 Update – Strategic Planning
(–from WikiMedia Strategic Planning)
Some straight talking Wikipedia policy of consensus that i really appreciate, but which now has been sterilised, banalised:
Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run.
It was removed here (diffs) – i don’t know if there was any discussion about its removal.
A little bit of straight talking regarding the goodness of apologising may still be found unsterilised here in Civility – Apologizing - It’s OK to say sorry.
The Wikipedia editor - competence essay should be written as a more scholarly and formal Wikipedia competence policy, including higher scholarly standards of reliable sources’ research and use as the basis for article statement writing/editing. Not everyone has the experience, skills or ability to do reliable sources’ research and reliable sources’ based scholarly writing, to this scholarly standard—a part reference, the essay: Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia - Not everyone can write articles—or in subjects outside their expertise if they have subject expertise—one more part reference: Expert retention. This issue requires much more policy elaboration, in my humble opinion. This unscholarly quality is the biggest shortcoming of this Wikipedia encyclopaedia project, in my humble experience, in my awareness of public opinions of it, and the reason why it gets nicknamed: dodgy–paedia, 'Dickipedia' *, gossip rag masquerading (as encyclopaedia). Moreover, this describes why it gets thought of as reflecting popular prejudices (aka, particularly in politics: Demagoguery).
etc..
Then some not doing professional journalism, who, like me, like to think of themselves as bigger than mere geeks—hehe, e.g.: "… the sun will still set in the West, the worlds will not collide, and Wikipedia articles will still show #1 in Google search results … " —Wikipediocracy. e.g. * * *, *, etc..
Quotation: "In a land of the blind, a one–eyed man is king" —who said that renowned quotation? In reality, let’s keep perspective, both eyes open wide, genuine maturity and let’s not deny the flaws—no sane (whitewash) fairytale exists to escape to—then we might solve them.
How do you do? Do you think that Wikipedia (main), here, is for plain and simple English only??? ie. technical, advanced, eloquent or even brilliant English language not allowed even when the subject necessitates it??? Well, one word for you: Ligature [the typographic kind]! Also, two more of many article topics for you: Bohr–Einstein debates & Adiabatic theorem.
Simplistic English is what that is called when necessarily advanced–language–subjects get unnecessarily banalised—dumbed down, motivated by an inappropriately simplified and plain English version of the language—see policies eg. WP:NOT PAPERS—see professional media comment eg. NY Times.
Simple English Wikipedia is the place for that; as appropriate for people who have those degrees of English language, from just starting to learn English, to English as a non-native language.
(The world’s vast majority of people have multiple native languages, except for monolingual English speakers. Very few people in the world speak only one language that isn’t English. In other words, very few people do not speak more than one language. In other words, the world’s vast majority of people are either: 1. fully bilingual, trilingual, etc. or 2. have a fully fluent first language and fully functional, if not fully fluent, second, third, etc., languages.)
Simple English Wikipedia also is for people who suffer from dyslexia and other reading difficulties; and for people who simply want to read their chosen subject in a cut–down, simplistic Wikipedia story.
The seriously–fun big–puzzle question is: Who is going to write up the Simple English Wikipedia articles of: Ligature, Bohr–Einstein debates, Adiabatic theorem, etc.?
Then there are ineffable major subjects in reality. What does one do in Wikipedia to write up them???
My life, professional and personal, includes lots of learning awareness, very varied and wide learning—an autodidact, who did attend University 1988–90, and had already learned before that from giants: in cultured–nature; in ecology eg. D.C., J.B.K., L. Webb, T. Irvine, etc.; in natural history eg. many 'Field Nat’s' and late D. Neale, etc.; in botany, eg. D.C., late D. Neale and Jim Willis ("doyen"), G.C., etc.; in philosophy eg. W.F.; in horticulture; etc., etc.. Lots of and very varied technical and/or advanced awarenesses. So, i edit accordingly, in articles here appropriate to the fullest possible use and exercise of my skills and ongoing learning!—only, i have little time for Wikipedia.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) –from:
Aboriginal Bush Foods at www.RGBSyd.NSW.Gov.Au{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |conference=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help)Quoting the Publisher:
Australian Aborigines taught themselves thousands of years ago how to build a sustainable society in our fragile landscape. In a unique collaboration, a Swedish knowledge management professor finds out from an Aboriginal cultural custodian how they did it, and what we can learn from them.
Description
We are consuming more than our earth can provide. In Australia, cities and towns struggle to maintain a reliable water supply, climate change triggers droughts which devastate farmland, and fish stocks are running low. It is increasingly clear that we are heading towards collapse if we don't change direction.
Aboriginal people taught themselves thousands of years ago how to live sustainably in Australia's fragile landscape. A Scandinavian knowledge management professor meets an Aboriginal cultural custodian and dares to ask the simple but vital question: what can we learn from the traditional Aboriginal lifestyle to create a sustainable society in modern Australia?
Karl-Erik Sveiby and Tex Skuthorpe show how traditional Aboriginal stories and paintings were used to convey knowledge from one generation to the next, about the environment, law and relationships. They reveal the hidden art of four-level storytelling, and discuss how the stories, and the way they were used, formed the basis for a sustainable society. They also explain ecological farming methods, and how the Aboriginal style of leadership created resilient societies.
Treading Lightly takes us on a unique journey into traditional Aboriginal life and culture, and offers a powerful and original model for building sustainable organisations, communities and ecologies. It is a compelling message for today's world.
KARL-ERIK SVEIBY has for several years been Professor of Knowledge Management at Hanken Business School, Finland, and Honorary Professor at Griffith Graduate School of Management, Brisbane, and at Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney. He is the author of twelve books in business and management.
TEX SKUTHORPE is a Nhunggabarra man from Nhunggal country in northwestern New South Wales and a painter, educator and custodian of traditional law and stories. He was awarded Aboriginal Artist of the Year by NAIDOC in 1990/1991 and currently works with young Aboriginal offenders in Kariong Correctional Centre, New South Wales.
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |quote=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) –
UQ Press Description in order form –
Complex designs reveal country’s first architects (National news - Sydney Morning Herald) –
Gunyah, Goondie + Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture Of Australia - "The myth of a country devoid of indigenous architecture - 'architecture nullius' - has long persisted." (smh.com.au Book Review){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Google scan of the 1989 printed book{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |conference=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
Sample pages
NLA page{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)[Abstract:]
The concept of naturalness is implicit in all attempts to assess the extent to which Australian ecosystems have been modified by 200 years of European settlement, as well as by 40,000 years of Aboriginal occupation. Yet, failure to recognise that naturalness is a culturally constructed concept, rather than a universal one, has produced such inconsistency and ambiguity in the terminology used for these assessments that the terminology lacks the precision and ecological rigour required for incorporation in theoretical models of landscape change, and for application to the management of landscape change.
The primary aim of this chapter is to provide a conceptual framework for Australian studies of the modification of natural ecosystems by human intrusion or influences. The meaning of the concept of naturalness in Western technological societies is examined in an attempt to clarify the uncertainty and ambiguity currently associated with the use of the terms "natural landscape", "natural ecosystem" and "natural vegetation". A revised terminology and definitions are presented based on the biocentric concept that places humanity within nature, and treats human intrusion or influences as only one of the many natural agents of landscape change.
[Abstract:]
Ethnographically, Australian and New Guinean societes are contrasted, the former as hunter-gatherer, the latter as agricultural. This contrast has directed our research to the point where similar kinds of evidence are interpreted in different ways in the two areas.
[Abstract:]
Discusses the origins of agriculture in New Guinea. Evidences suggesting early agriculture in the country; Reasons behind the distinctive long-term history of New Guinea compared with other regions of the world where early agriculture developed independently; Factors that can be accounted for the primitive nature of New Guinean societies in comparison with other agricultural lands.
[Quotation:]
Although the need to study agriculture in different parts of the world on its 'own terms' has long-been recognized and re-affirmed, a tendency persists to evaluate agriculture across the globe using concepts, lines of evidence and methods derived from Eurasian research. However, researchers working in different regions across the globe are becoming increasingly aware of fundamental differences in the nature of, and methods employed to study, agriculture and plant exploitation practices in the past. Contributions to this volume rethink agriculture, whether in terms of existing regional chronologies, in terms of techniques employed, or in terms of the concepts that frame our interpretations. This volume highlights new archaeological and ethnoarchaeological research on early agriculture in understudied non-Eurasian regions, including Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the Americas and Africa, to present a more balanced view of the origins and development of agricultural practices around the globe. Sponsored by the World Archaeological Congress.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help)[Quotation:]
This volume, the first in the One World Archaeology series, is a compendium of key papers by leaders in the field of the emergence of agriculture in different parts of the world. Each is supplemented by a review of developments in the field since its publication.
Contributions cover the better known regions of early and independent agricultural development, such as Southwest Asia and the Americas, as well as lesser known locales, such as Africa and New Guinea. Other contributions examine the dispersal of agricultural practices into a region, such as India and Japan, and how introduced crops became incorporated into pre-existing forms of food production.
This reader is intended for students of the archaeology of agriculture, and will also prove a valuable and handy resource for scholars and researchers in the area.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help){{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help){{
cite conference}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help){{
cite journal}}
: External link in |journal=
(
help)[Jacket inside front cover summary:]
Across Australia, early Europeans commented again and again that the land looked like a park. With extensive grassy patches and pathways, open woodlands and abundant wildlife, it evoked a country estate in England. Bill Gammage has discovered this was because Aboriginal people managed the land in a far more systematic and scientific fashion than we have ever realised.
For over a decade, he has examined written and visual records of the Australian landscape. He has uncovered an extraordinarily complex system of land management using fire, the life cycles of native plants, and the natural flow of water to ensure plentiful wildlife and plant foods throughout the year.
We know Aboriginal people spent far less time and effort than Europeans in securing food and shelter, and now we know how they did it. With details of land-management strategies from around Australia, The Biggest Estate on Earth rewrites the history of this continent, with huge implications for us today. Once Aboriginal people were no longer able to tend their country, it became overgrown and vulnerable to the hugely damaging bushfires we now experience.
… And what we think of as virgin bush in a national park is nothing of the kind.
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
Interview about the book, 11 Oct 2011.
Talk, contextualised for Melbourne history, 27 October 2011.{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help)[Abstract:]
Hitherto, the earliest archaeological finds of domestic cereals in southwestern Asia have involved wheats and barleys dating from the beginning of the Holocene, 11–12000 calendar years ago. New evidence from the site of Abu Hureyra suggests that systematic cultivation of cereals in fact started well before the end of the Pleistocene by at least 13000 years ago, and that rye was among the first crops. The evidence also indicates that hunter-gatherers at Abu Hureyra first started cultivating crops in response to a steep decline in wild plants that had served as staple foods for at least the preceding four centuries. The decline in these wild staples is attributable to a sudden, dry, cold, climatic reversal equivalent to the 'Younger Dryas' period. At Abu Hureyra, therefore, it appears that the primary trigger for the occupants to start cultivating caloric staples was climate change. It is these beginnings of cultivation in the late Pleistocene that gave rise to the integrated grain-livestock Neolithic farming systems of the early Holocene.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help)