Refactoring comments into content

This index page is a dynamic journal/news/brainstorming page. It has links to new pages that have been added and a bit of dicussion. When something gets old, it gets refactored and moved to a different page, with links added appropriately.

This means that this page is kind of a weblog, but their are no archives. Everything becomes content after a time. Comments on this separation? -- Wim

But Wim there are archives in RCS. Which might lead to having a PageHistory ? link or something. --fozbaca


I like the pseudo weblog moving to content pages idea. The only problem is it takes more editoral thought after inital informationcollction. It will make for a great experiment. +1 -- fozbaca

Yeah. Right now the pages like MiniWiki and FeaturesWantedInMiniWiki are becoming really disorganized. -- Wim


Some food for thought, DocumentMode http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DocumentMode vs. ThreadMode http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ThreadMode

Most Wikis end up DocumentModeish where the goal to is get a consise document on the topic or the major points one way or the other. ThreadMode is more newsgroup or SlashDot style which is more folks spouting off. As the Wiki crowd feels DocumentMode is usually better. So what do you think, will you reply ThreadMode or DocumentMode? Or there is always MixedMode http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MixedMode but which would be the PC response :)

--fozbaca

Got another one for ya. Taken from MeatballWiki's WikiLog ? http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLog

WikiWikis are good at sifting and synthesizing knowledge from data. This is an ongoing and collaborative process, undertaken by many people, contributing to and editing the data flow in an attempt to derive meaning from it.

WebLogs are good at presenting ongoing data and encouraging Socratic-style dialogue about it.

They both qualify as CollaborativeHypermedia, but they approach the function differently. WikiWikis treat media as a shared endeavor, or a set of knowledge to be built. WebLogs treat it as a flow to be discussed and commented upon. To put it succinctly, WikiWikis manipulate the data, WebLogs comment upon it.

Just throwing out some food for thought. --fozbaca


Interesting. So when Weblog meets WikiWiki, then the WikiWiki is manipulating the comments on data?

The way my experiment has been going so far, it seems a bit of both. Some of our comments being rewritten into actual pages, but also pages just appearing.-- Wim


I think ThreadMode is anti human. If two people have a chit chat together, they'll talk about a variety of topics; they quickly change topics, rarely returning to a previous topic. This happens all the time, especially when there are more then 2 people. Consider the water cooler, coffee pot, sushi, and campfire talks: they wander all over. Potential threads are dangled out, but never jumped on an created. I would say that this common social trait is b worse with more people around. Also, real life conversations don't scale well; once you hit a certain number (say 10), you either need a moderator to field questions/answers, or let the group break up into subgroups to talk with each other.

This changes and becomes easier with a medium such as newsgroups, email, weblogs, and Wiki. Now it's easier to refocus on previously discussed topics, and keep track of what others were talking about. Concurrency is handled much better; instead of trying to listen to 10 people at once, you let them talk (write), then go through the queue, read everything, and respond.

Ok, I lost my train of thought; I'll try finish this idea off if it comes back to me. Argh. Maybe it's the music I'm listening to?

I see problems when Wiki pages get really long. It gets hard to scan through and refactor. Wiki pages are best kept short; if a topic gets long, then its high time to move chunks of logical data out to a new topic. Wiki pages must stay on topic.

I like ThreadMode on Slashdot and in email, as a means of talking back and forth and keeping track of what post something is in reply to.

I think one of the strong points behind Wiki, is that there are very few constraints. Ie, providing an author name, or subject, or date for a comment is not required. There is a lot of human things being tossed about: trust, ownership, confidence, creativity, construction, destruction, and so forth. Of course, many say that these are the weak points.

As you can tell, I really like the simplicity factor: a minimal amounts of links, minimal header/footer/sidebars, and minimal content per page. Small, tasty, easily digestable portions. --Wim


ThreadMode is antihuman, or at least antiusability. I read somewhere, maybe JoelOnSoftware or Nielsien ?, that Threaded Discussions are very hard to use and are really just a workaround for bad subjects. So in a Wiki the reasons for threading are mote. --fozbaca
CommunityBuilding --fozbaca

The progression of informal discussions to content requires constant refactoring. Check out Scratch2Content for some theorizing and links to other people's thoughts on the topic. --Wim

See SiteTemplate for an example of page that I rewrote from comments into nice content. --Wim