I can’t move forward with the dictionary (401 project) until I solve a presentation problem with myself. The question is; Do I make my own website, or use the wiki?
To understand my question, I first must explain my piece so far. The point of this piece is to create an emphasized subjective-reality, (I’m aware of the paradox in putting subjective and reality together, it’s the point, to put emphasis on the ironic truth) it’s basically another view or an abstracted view of the world of narrative. The words are facts interpreted through subjective thoughts, arguments, and situations. The point of view is stressed through the element of colour, each colour is a single facet, it stands as a cognitive embodiment of expression. Each coloured expression reveals a perspective and a list of words. These words are put in particular lists because they share fibers that fall suite to that particular facet revealed through the mood of the colour. Now, that’s not to say that one word can only fall suit to one colour, they can be expressed through multiple colours, this is what makes up the irony, the putting together of two (or more) truths. So far, they’ve developed a surprisingly funny dialogue, I’m considering putting some of it together for a play, which would un-abstract (is there an actual term I could use here? perhaps reconstruct? but that doesn’t work as it implies that it was deconstructed, which it isn’t it was simply translated into a new identity) from the alternate view of narrative that I have created. Now this is where my question comes in, if I leave it in it’s wiki-state, it will be at it’s purest form, it will exist as cognitive exploration through software that was made with the intention of collective understandings, and differences in mind. The concept of wiki software is like the bottom layer or skeleton of the concept. However if I make my own website, it will follow the specific narrated design plan needed to convey a more horizontal hierarchy, which would relay the point most effectively. This is important because, I guess it would reveal my own opinion as the artist, it would make the entire thing have a signiture moral or viewpoint. My own reasons for creating this piece is based on my feelings, that there is no value in being ignorant. The egocentric or ethnocentric mentality, will only be lost and celebrated among those of your colour, and will only represent a theory of the truth, therefore the more worldly your view is, the more applicable it is to reign truth.
So do I create a narrative? or do I set the stage? Which brings me to this, is it possible to simply just set the stage? I guess it depends on what my narrative is. I’ve been stumped on this for weeks.
…I’m not sure if any of that makes sense.
anyways, here it is if you want to look
http://facetedwords.wikia.com
AMANDA LEHMAN-CHOI 
Firstly:
to un-abstract, which is a solid description can also be described as, to actualize or to solidify (related to concrete).
Secondly:
I find the wiki quite interesting. While the structure of the wiki lends itself to the concepts you’re discussing, the purity of the information is diluted by the excess of the site itself. Using a website will provide the chance to maintain clear communication directly related to your concept. Perhaps you can create a website that has some of the functionality that you se the wiki format containing.
The concept of creating a colour coded personal dictionary is quite intriguing. Are you exploring the term at all to gain an external influence to reword into your own personal experience, or are all the definitions from the moment?
Umbrella: overarching structure of a smaller set of organizations
What’s crazy is how naturally the process occurs. Yes, they are of the moment, I define a word once it has become something pressing on my mind, so it acts as a journal to my thoughts. The dialogue came out as it started to progress. It all came together very instinctively, probably one of my most honest pieces. It speaks well to the idea of subjectivity, and contradiction. I’m starting to get really interested in the idea of lexicography…did you know that the guy who wrote the majority of the contributions to the Oxford dictionary was in an asylum? It’s an interesting thing to think about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Chester_Minor
Interesting story, this Minor fellow. I wouldn’t say that he wrote the majority of the contributions to the oxford dictionary, but I’d say he made the most out of the volunteers and has the most memorable backstory.
It appears that dictionaries are massive undertakings of many decades of work. Technological advances have provided wikipedia a chance to grow at a rate far faster than the OED ever would have been able to. Imagining the processing of volunteer slips and the slow evolution of the book is quite the vision of the mind.
A very interesting topic.