ThomasKalka: Comments are atomic, have a date and an author. Just allow these as seperate, nested micro-content, for wiki-pages also. benefits:
what kind of technical support would i like to have for reworking
Lion mentions taking notes while reading. I try this out here. (I could also try out in emacs, which would allow me to also try ZergCreep) “CommentGranger?” or a “WikiGranger?.” That is what I am doing with this post to my WebDB, which I am typing in a small window that comes up when I click on a bookmarklet in my browser.
Lion also explains why technology is a bigger factor in LackOfReworking than social issues.
Huge contribution by Lion, see his BulletedSummaryBlocks on the page.
We need to, as a community, I think: Smash the ideal of simplicity.
When the ideal of simplicity serves us, as it did with the birth of wiki, it is a great thing. But that ideal is not serving us any more. Instead, it is controlling us.
ThomasKalka: LackOfGranularity seems to be the main problem. So SupportGranularityInWiki.
BillSeitz: When discussions are about abstract ideas not intended to lead toward short-term WebSeitzWiki:DAndD, then it’s hard to evaluate whether a ReWork? has improved clarity (or any other metric of good-ness), and at what cost.
AlexSchroeder: on Community Wiki we have a lot of explorative or philosophical pages. They are subjective and tentative by their very nature. There’s very little refining to do, unless you agree with the basic idea. he benefit of reworking is too small -- I'd rather work on something new!
So basically I think our current format doesn’t require a lot of reworking.
Lion: It would be nice to get summaries of our conversations. Reworking is not necessarily about converging on opinions; A simple “conversation highlights” would be interesting, a convergence on what was said and notable being all the necessary convergence that’s needed, then.
Mattis: Whatever probably takes a community closer to the point to be able to write a good three line summary of a page, reacting fastly on developements of a path of thoughts (summary on recent changes and in the rss-feed) is good.
Helmut: Wikis do not give much technical support for reworking and it is makes sense to think about TechnicalSupportForReworking
AlexSchroeder: I like to read web pages that have key points in bold.
Zby: I am not sure how much you can compress a conversation before you lose something from it, see Conversational writing kicks formal writing's ass.
Lion: The point of compressing conversations is “to lose something.”
In this perspective I do agree with Thomas that we need a forum for the conversation part and only use wiki for the refference with easy interlinking and attaching of conversations to documents.
Keith: As a fan of design’s role in problem-solving, I believe there is an affordance for everything (WhatIsAffordance)! I have considered this problem of LackOfReworking, and tried to design a widget that encourages reworking.
There are several barriers to reworking:
The thing that drew me to wikis intitially was the potential to use the tool to synthesize knowledge.
I think, after reading this page and taking quick notes on it, that the LackOfReworking problem is both a technical (Lion), and a social problem(Helmut). ("It's a floor wax!", "It's a dessert topping!", you're both right!).
LackOfReworking is a techno-social problem. A set of problems that stems from the way that we collectively solve problems through technological mediums.
We desire more ordered DocumentMode pages for future readers and future reference.
Yet, in the more immediate, closer-to-bounded present, we function and flow more loosely in a conversational pattern.
We use wiki technology here as a techno-social attempt to weave together the past, present and future.
The CommunityWiki HiveMind is close to creating a sustainable techno-social system here for doing this past/present/future weaving. LackOfReworking can mean a LackOfWorking in the present for the future. Why should you have to re-work? (I know that these points have already been made in different ways by others). You are already working. DoItOnce. DoItOnce to weave together the past, the present, and the future, and be doen with it.
So, my contribution to LackOfReworking is:
* How do we DoItOnce within the bounds of the current technology?
* How do we change the technology to let the machines do the work for us?
Original Location: http://www.communitywiki.org/en/LackOfReworking
|20512||Open the Future: Second Life, Economic Evolution and the CopyBot||25/11/2006|
|20251||Smart Mobs: CitizenEngagedGovernment||11/11/2006|
|19471||Allband Communication Cooperative||22/09/2006|
|19464||Getting open thinking through Gated Communities||20/09/2006|
|19402||CitizenLab :: Version 4.0||12/09/2006|
|19223||Research on Wikipedia authorship CooperationCommons||05/09/2006|
|19218||Thirteen Tips for Effective Tagging||05/09/2006|
|19097||Extreme Democracy Why Don't Techno-Utopians Read Political Theory?||28/08/2006|
|19090||What is Social Computing||27/08/2006|
|19070||FTC On Net Neutrality More Of The Same||24/08/2006|
|19023||Collective Action Against Spam?||21/08/2006|
|ID||Title||Graphical Style||Flash Style||Last Update|
|1||projectroles||No||Open Business look Gray||08/01/2007|
|2||socialnet||No||Open Business look Blue||29/11/2006|
|3||How Do I Spread and Sustain A Message Online||Open||Open Business look Gray||25/07/2006|
|4||Knowledge management 101||Open||Open Hi-Tech look||18/07/2006|
|5||Gravesian Levels, Emotions, and Neuroanatomy||No||No||15/09/2005|
Live Feed: The Glogger Community