I'm glad to see that we didn't retreat from the critical stance that we initially brought forward. Our perspective was that Kostakis et al. tended towards a 'provisionist' and paternalistic sort of development trajectory, a kind of neo-colonialism, even though they are pitching their work from within peer-to-peer and free software settings. The same issue could easily come up with patterns, i.e., if they are offered as the solution. Realistically, it's possible to read a lot of the patterns literature this way (including Alexander), regardless of what they say about adapting their patterns for local circumstances. The medium of print holds the more egalitarian process of pattern development hostage, and makes pattern authors seem much more arrogant than they ever intended to be! This is why we've focused on participatory processes of pattern development here. Furthermore we're not saying that this is an exhaustive treatment of that topic! Hopefully it is clear (though, if not, this will take more work) that what we're trying to develop is the opposite of 'provisionist' thinking. (BTW, for this term, Cf. Boud and Lee "‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education"

This part could be relevant for thinking about 'pattern mining' and how to contextualise it. Consider the various situations where we run into a problem of language, i.e., where we don't have any language to talk about something that actually urgently matters to the parties involved. Things can either end badly there, or the parties can engage in a process of language development.