Towards learning in public

Argument

As with a multi-disciplinary approach, continuous learning and creation has become integral to my work and to my life. This necessitates the organization of knowledge, the construction of conceptual relationships, and the implementation of experimental testing. The result is a corpus of knowledge that I perceive as valuable and undergoing continuous improvement. By contrast with both traditional scholarship (i.e., paper) and informational streams (i.e., web 2.0 and social medias feeds), and in line with computer and web practices (e.g., hypertextual web, versioning & open source), this corpus is topographical – it belongs to a network of connected nodes, impermanent – subject to change, and multimedia – incorporates text, images, code and videos. I believe this body of work also holds collective value.

The tendency to guard ideas to prevent theft or premature criticism is widespread, especially in the academia. I’m now grasping how sharing knowledge openly can yield significant benefits for both the individual and the broader community. This practice aligns with open science principles and contributes to the public knowledge base, while also serving as a valuable professional asset. Open sharing imposes a sense of responsibility for the quality of one’s work. It invites scrutiny and feedback. Knowledge also evolves rapidly, and its true value lies in the ongoing development of ideas rather than in static snapshots. Thus, it makes sense to publish ongoing work instead of waiting for polished pieces. It also means that any snapshot will inevitably be outdated. Hence, it advertises for its author rather than the snapshot itself.

The /Posts section of this website serves as the platform for publishing content from this evolving corpus of knowledge. It embodies the practice of learning in public, where one shares their learning process in real-time. This approach holds the learner accountable and encourages the production of higher-quality content by putting one’s reputation on the line. It aligns perfectly with the ethos of open practices, including the open science principles I advocate for.

Digital gardening offers an interesting philosophy for sharing such personal knowledge. At its core, digital gardening involves publishing imperfect, continuously revised, and interlinked personal knowledge on the web. This practice is inherently experimental, multi-disciplinary, and personal. Knowledge is shared at early-stage ideas, necessitating a commitment to transparency.

In line with these principles, the /Posts section of the website comprises two categories: polished articles published on external platforms (e.g., medium.com) and non-definitive notes published locally. Each post is tagged with relevant concepts, allowing the section to evolve into a network of contextual relationships between ideas and content. To maintain transparency about each post’s status, I include creation dates, update information, status indicators, confidence levels, and effort estimates wherever possible. This approach is intended to reflect the developmental aspect of the posts. Specifically, status, confidence and effort are meant as categorical and continuous epistemic evaluations of content:

• Status: baby, child, adult
• Effort: low, moderate, high
• Confidence: from 1 to 100 (in %)

Ultimately, this approach serves as a learning tool, a means to organize and develop thoughts, a showcase of skills, and a contribution to the broader community. With the goal of disseminating knowledge, advocating for cooperation and fostering trust among peers (See Van Bavel, Pärnamets, Reinero and Packer, 2022).

Thank you for your time,

---

Bibliography:

• Learning in public. Shawn Wang. https://www.swyx.io/learn-in-public
• A Brief History & Ethos of the Digital Garden. Maggie Appleton. https://maggieappleton.com/garden-history
• Van Bavel, J. J., Pärnamets, P., Reinero, D. A., & Packer, D. (2022). How neurons, norms, and institutions shape group cooperation. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 66, pp. 59-105). Academic Press.