The purpose for such a system is obvious: To encourage, create, and establish a means of OpenlySharing ContentProducedByIndividuals in an Internet PeerToPeerEnvironment. The Results of the Collaboration and the groups, associations and companies it might be influential in generating as a result of initial SharedInterestsAndGoals is mind-boggling. It is the NextBigWave in Internet usage in my opinion. 

The structure and creation of the SharedFilesAndDirectories should be simply created, and just as simply abolished by the owner of the resource. The insistence on Identity and the use of Passwords and Authorization should also be possible at the option of the owner. Some however will not be worried about access by those anonymous because the shared resource is intended to be widely distributed and discoverable. The system should be from the users side be similar to a tuner, where selection of channels, categories, and so forth are made for content searching. It should be filterable, such that material deemed objectionable by the user, cannot be presented. This would be a mandatory requirement, and those who find a way to bypass such controls should be considered and prosecuted as criminals. The benefits of such a system far outweigh the potential dangers which might exist, in the same way as the owning of a home and and automobile has much more benefit and will be pursued, even if there might be a slight chance that some would break-and-enter or steal ones private property. In a PeerToPeer System one will AssumeGoodFaith and enter will into PositiveDialogue and SynergisticInteraction. Ideas that are useful and beneficial should be shared universally. 
----
'''Starting Points'''

What started my thinking on this matter:
 http://distribnet.sourceforge.net/design.html

----
'''What about editing of the content on a Peer's machine'''

Peer to Peer networks are great for distribution, but I cannot imagine a system that would allow for editing. Editing content requires a central master with a definitive role in locking and conflict resolution. Adding content to the filesystem would be easy, but modifying existing content would be extremely difficult in a P2P environment. I would love to be proven wrong, but I cannot think of any system that allows the editing of content without a Master/Slave relationship.

''While I think it could be done, this is not the intent, since editing and modifying of the idea to your liking would be done on your own machine, with notice of the modified idea being published. Your editing may so change the idea as to make it quite different and deserving of existence alongside, instead of in place of the idea you grabbed and modified. It is somewhat like the existence of a class in ObjectOrientedProgramming, except instead of being hidden as private, it is exposed to view. The originator could discover your changes, again by some notification mechanism and perhaps even adopt some or all of your ideas in original space, and modify some more, changing it. This is the collaborative nature of this system. You publish the idea's existence(location), it remains as is, but available to any discovering and accepting it. The intent is that your machine contains shared ideas which reflect your notions and understandings of the idea, which in turn by participation and collaboration may and probably will change in the process.'' 
----
'''How different from existing methodologies'''

''Wiki is a centralized repository. This is proposing a similar system with a distributed, masterless repository.''

*This seems very similar to the external markup systems for web pages. Basically they allow users to tag anyone's site with comments - then other users can read/edit those comments.
*This system would allow one to retrieve specific content on a P''''''eerMachine, having been notified that it is there by some C''''''ontentPublishingSite, then to place it where you want on your machine, becoming your understanding and acceptance of the idea as something you wish to deal with. The editing is done on your content, which when complete is placed in a your S''''''haredInternetIdeaSpace, and its existence published.

Q: ''So how does that differ from the BlogoSphere? You post content onto you blog, somebody takes that content and mutates/comments upon it and so on down the chain? Or a wiki where you grab the content off another wiki and then edit it yourself? I'm not seeing how a S''''''haredInternetIdeaSpace differs from a regular webspace. Am I not grokking something?''

*A1: Blogoshere -- First by name, second by purpose, and third by intent. 
*A2: Wiki -- Mostly by scope, when you visit or participate in a wiki you read, modify, copy and delete in that space, it knows nothing about your spaces and shared content. 
*A3:R''''''egularWebspace -- By the intent of the organization, limited usage of content, method of connection, and location of content being on a peer's machine, while its existence is published in a R''''''egularWebspace.
*Commentary: I like what KatherineDerbyshire says on BlogoSphere on MeatBall - she seems to understand what is intended, without ever having read any of what has been said of the concept discussed here. 
** Neither wikis nor blogs are "perfect" community tools, whatever that means. I'm not sure any software is diverse enough to support the full range of human communication and interaction. Instead, I expect that as online communities evolve, they will develop complete toolsets that individuals can choose from as needed. For me, arguing about which category of social software tool is better makes about as much sense as arguing over the relative merits of hammers and screwdrivers." 

See: D''''''ataNotification