LogiLogi is an easy to use hypertext platform, also featuring a rating- and review-system which is a bit comparable to that found in journals. It tries to find the middle-road between the written word and a good conversation, and it's central values are openness and quality of content.
It makes commenting on texts, and more generally the linking of texts very easy. Most notably it also allows other people than the original author of a logi to add outgoing links behind words, but it does not allow them to change the text itself, so the author's intellectual responsibility is guarded. Also important is that all conversations on the platform run via links (comparable to footnotes), not via forum-threads, avoiding their associated problems like fragmentation and shallowing of the discussion.
To maximize the advantages of hypertext, texts are kept short within LogiLogi, at maximum one to a few pages. These texts, called logi's, can be informal and experimental and they can be improved later on, in either of two ways: The text of the original document can be changed (earlier versions are then archived). Or secondly, links can be added inside the text, possibly only when some terms or concepts appear to be ambiguous, when questions arise, or when the logi appears to arouse enough interest to make it worth of further elaboration.
Links in LogiLogi can refer to logis, to versions, and - by default - to tags (words that function as categories or concepts). Logis can be tagged with one or more of these tags. Multiple logis can have the same tag, and when a link is made to a tag or to a collection of tags, multiple logis can be in the set referred to. From this set the logi with the highest rating is shown to the user.
The ratings in LogiLogi are essentially grades, given by visitors and other authors. The average of these grades forms the rating of the logi. Moreover these averages are weighted averages. Voting-powers can vary. If an authors contributions are rated well, he receives more voting-power.
Authors can thus gain 'status' and 'influence' through their work. This makes LogiLogi a peer-reviewed meritocracy, quite comparable to what we, according to Bruno Latours philosophy of science, encounter in the various structures surrounding journals.
But the comparison to journals goes further, and in a similar fashion to how new peergroups can emerge around new journals, in LogiLogi too new peergroups can be created by duplicating the just described rating-system. Contributions can be rated from the viewpoints of different peergroups, logis can have multiple ratings, authors won't have the same voting-power within each peergroup, and visitors can pick which peergroup to use as their filter.
Thus except meritocratic, LogiLogi is also open to a diversity of schools and paradigms in the sense of early Thomas Kuhn, especially as here creating new peergroups - unlike for journals - does not bring startup-costs.