Site Navigation

Download a zip file of
all pages
for Obsidian or LLMs.

WORK IN PROGRESS:
PAGES NOT YET REVIEWED BY
HUMAN EXPERTS. VERIFY
CLAIMS AND CONSULT
ORIGINAL SOURCES FOR
AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION.

Contact Peter Kaminski

Edit on GitHub


Work Log

Development journal for the OGM Curiosity Call Wiki, November 13-14, 2025.

Newest entries at the top, separated by horizontal rules.

November 14, 2025 - Attribution Error Correction and Typo Fix

Problem Identified

User noticed two issues:

  1. Typo: "Stacy" should be "Stacey" (3 instances)
  2. Serious misattribution in Stacey Druss.md: The "Fear of Asking Questions About Illness" section incorrectly attributed statements to Stacey that she was actually making ABOUT other people

The Error

What the page said: That Stacey herself was afraid to ask questions about illness and didn't have tools to behave around people who are unwell.

What Stacey actually said (lines 967-1053): She was explaining why OTHER people don't ask questions about illness (specifically responding to Gil's story about people not asking about his wife Jane's health). She said: "Sometimes people are afraid to hear the answers, and they're so uncomfortable with sickness, and they don't want to know... sometimes really caring, loving people are just so uncomfortable with feelings, and don't know what to say."

Then Stacey said about HERSELF: "I tend to be somebody… I will ask the question, Because I don't want to make up a story in my head. It's usually, I've found in my life, it's better to ask the question and know for sure than to just imagine what the answer is."

How This Error Occurred

Root cause analysis:

During the systematic enrichment phase (reading transcript lines 1000-2000), I misread the context and attribution. I saw Stacey discussing fear and discomfort around illness and incorrectly assumed she was speaking about her own experience, when she was actually analyzing other people's behavior.

Contributing factors:

  1. Reading speed - Processing 2,600 lines of transcript content quickly
  2. Context collapse - Not carefully tracking who was speaking about whom
  3. Confirmation bias - The section seemed to fit the "vulnerability" framing, so I didn't question it
  4. First-person assumption - When a speaker discusses emotions/experiences, I may have defaulted to assuming self-reference

What should have prevented this:

Corrections Made

Files corrected:

  1. Stacey Druss.md - Complete rewrite of that section:

    • Old title: "Fear of Asking Questions About Illness"
    • New title: "Understanding Why Others Don't Ask About Illness"
    • Added new section: "Her Own Approach: Asking to Avoid Stories"
    • Now accurately reflects that she DOES ask questions to avoid making up stories
    • Properly attributes the fear/discomfort to others, not to Stacey

  2. Typo fixes (Stacy → Stacey):

    • Stacey Druss.md (1 instance)
    • Curiosity as Social Practice.md (1 instance)
    • Genuine vs Performative Curiosity.md (1 instance)

Lessons Learned

For future enrichment work:

  1. Slow down on biographical claims - Any statement about what a person feels/thinks deserves careful verification
  2. Track pronouns carefully - "They" vs "I" vs "we" matters enormously
  3. Look for contrasts - When speakers say "some people... but I..." pay special attention
  4. Re-read before committing - Biographical sections deserve extra verification pass
  5. Trust but verify - Even when reading seems clear, check the actual transcript lines

Quality principle established: Misattributing someone's words or experiences is one of the most serious errors in this type of documentation. Participant pages must accurately represent what people said about themselves, not what they said about others.

Impact

This error was caught before wider distribution but serves as a reminder that:

November 14, 2025 - Systematic Transcript Enrichment

Objective

User requested: "Systematically work through the chat and the transcript to enrich pages in the wiki as needed."

Approach

Phase 1: Complete Transcript Reading

Phase 2: Cross-Reference with Existing Pages

Phase 3: Systematic Page Enrichment

Pages Significantly Enriched

1. Noticing and Attention.md

2. John Kelly.md

3. Question Formulation Technique.md

4. Kevin Jones.md

5. Stacey Druss.md

6. Eve Blossom.md

7. Gil Friend.md

8. LP1 (Louise).md

9. Doug Breitbart.md

10. Victoria (Spain).md

Content Statistics

New content added:

Pages transformed from stubs to comprehensive:

Pages significantly deepened:

Methodological Insights

What worked well:

  1. Reading entire transcript in sections before enriching
  2. Cross-referencing findings with existing pages systematically
  3. Using line numbers from transcript for verification
  4. Preserving participant voices through direct quotes
  5. Adding context around quotes for comprehension
  6. Maintaining wiki linking structure throughout

Patterns observed:

Quality markers:

Files Modified

  1. Noticing and Attention.md - rebuilt from stub
  2. John Kelly.md - major enrichment
  3. Question Formulation Technique.md - comprehensive addition
  4. Kevin Jones.md - three stories added
  5. Stacey Druss.md - fear and noticing content
  6. Eve Blossom.md - place-based practices
  7. Gil Friend.md - norms and boundaries
  8. LP1 (Louise).md - teaching observations
  9. Doug Breitbart.md - connection philosophy
  10. Victoria (Spain).md - QFT methodology
  11. Work Log.md - this entry

Next Steps

All major participant pages now have comprehensive coverage from the full transcript. Future enrichment could focus on:

November 13, 2025 - Chat Coverage Analysis

Problem Identified

After creating 95 orphan pages, user review found that some stub pages had missed substantial discussion from the chat logs. The initial wiki creation focused primarily on the transcript, with chat content only partially integrated.

Methodology Developed

Created _bin/analyze-chat-coverage.py to systematically cross-compare chat content with wiki pages:

Approach:

  1. Parse chat file - Extract all 146 messages with timestamps and senders
  2. Identify substantive messages - Filter for messages >100 characters (exclude short reactions)
  3. Topic extraction - Look for specific topic keywords in longer messages
  4. Match to wiki pages - Find corresponding pages and measure their size
  5. Flag gaps - Identify where substantial chat discussion exists but wiki page is minimal

Key patterns detected:

Findings

Topics with substantial chat discussion (>100 char messages):

Stub pages needing attention:

Quality of stub pages: Most stubs are appropriate - topics were genuinely only mentioned in passing. The script confirms that major topics discussed in chat already have reasonably comprehensive pages.

Approach Going Forward

For enrichment work:

  1. Manually review chat for topics mentioned multiple times
  2. Check if those topics have minimal wiki content
  3. Cross-reference with transcript sections we didn't fully read (only read first 1000 of 3618 lines)
  4. Prioritize pages where chat shows depth but wiki page is thin

The script can be reused to:

Key insight: The 95 orphan pages were created correctly as stubs because most topics were indeed only mentioned briefly. The real opportunity for enrichment is in:

  1. The unread portions of the 3618-line transcript
  2. Ensuring major framework pages (DSRP, Playing Games, etc.) capture all detail
  3. Participant pages might benefit from more chat quotes

Tool Created

_bin/analyze-chat-coverage.py:

November 13, 2025 - Wiki Creation Complete

Final Pages Created

Created the last set of orphan pages for key concepts:

These were prioritized as they represented substantial contributions that needed their own pages.

Stats

Total pages created: 50+

Categories:

Cross-linking:

Design Decisions

1. Participant Pages

2. Theme Pages

3. Orphan Pages

4. Linking Philosophy

November 13, 2025 - Major Theme Pages

Created comprehensive analysis pages for main discussion threads:

  1. What Is Curiosity - Definitions, components, complexity
  2. Is Curiosity Declining - Evidence, pushback, alternatives
  3. Education and Curiosity - How schools kill or cultivate it
  4. Cultural Dimensions of Curiosity - Japanese, European, American perspectives
  5. Curiosity as Social Practice - Pete's key insight on learned vs innate
  6. AI and Curiosity - Tool as crutch vs mind-bicycle
  7. Tools and Frameworks - QFT, 5 Whys, DSRP, Playing Games Model

Each page synthesizes multiple participants' contributions while preserving individual voices.

November 13, 2025 - Concept and Reference Pages

Created pages for frameworks, tools, organizations, and people:

Frameworks:

Tools:

Organizations:

People:

November 13, 2025 - Participant Pages

Created individual pages for all 16 participants:

Each page includes:

November 13, 2025 - Structure and Organization

Created core infrastructure:

README.md - Home page with:

Details About This Wiki.md - Meta-documentation:

Concept Index.md - Complete categorized index:

This created three entry points: thematic (README), structural (Details), and comprehensive (Index).

November 13, 2025 - Analysis and Planning

Initial Analysis:

Design Principles:

  1. Capture all voices, especially quieter ones
  2. Preserve disagreement and complexity
  3. Use extensive cross-linking
  4. Create multiple navigation paths
  5. Add orphan pages for mentioned topics
  6. Keep tone informative, not prescriptive

File Structure:

Linking Convention:

November 13, 2025 - Project Initiation

Task: Create comprehensive wiki from OGM curiosity call artifacts.

Source Materials:

Instructions: Follow methodology from Instructions for AI Assistant.md:

Branch: claude/follow-repo-instructions-019ctjHQcaAaiM6kceoxgAjZ

Pages that link to this page