Comments on: Collaborative Futures 2 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2010/01/20/collaborative-futures-2/ My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication. Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:36:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2010/01/20/collaborative-futures-2/#comment-100638 Mike Linksvayer Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:38:28 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/?p=899#comment-100638 Nihiltres, Agreed. As I wrote above at the top of the post <blockquote>I think its centralization has allowed [Wikipedia] to scale in a way not possible otherwise</blockquote> and in the chapter copied above <blockquote>decentralization can make community formation more difficult</blockquote> The pluses and minuses of [de]centralization for collaboration were discussed among the book sprint group with some nuance and was on a few <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mlinksva/4296692393/" rel="nofollow">planning stickies</a>, but I'm not sure whether that made it into the book anywhere else (I have yet to read it word for word in its final form). Still, it is at least <em>possible</em> that the incredible Wikipedia social-technical complex (in which I include all Wikimedia sites, their communities, the foundation, and the Mediawiki software) has resulted in lower net innovation in one of these areas. I'd say the best candidate for this effect is probably technical -- MediaWiki might be used by default for projects that otherwise would have explored WikiNature in different ways. I say this having personally urged several projects to adopt MediaWiki rather than rolling their own! Nihiltres,

Agreed. As I wrote above at the top of the post

I think its centralization has allowed [Wikipedia] to scale in a way not possible otherwise

and in the chapter copied above

decentralization can make community formation more difficult

The pluses and minuses of [de]centralization for collaboration were discussed among the book sprint group with some nuance and was on a few planning stickies, but I’m not sure whether that made it into the book anywhere else (I have yet to read it word for word in its final form).

Still, it is at least possible that the incredible Wikipedia social-technical complex (in which I include all Wikimedia sites, their communities, the foundation, and the Mediawiki software) has resulted in lower net innovation in one of these areas. I’d say the best candidate for this effect is probably technical — MediaWiki might be used by default for projects that otherwise would have explored WikiNature in different ways. I say this having personally urged several projects to adopt MediaWiki rather than rolling their own!

]]> By: Collaborative Futures 3 « Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2010/01/20/collaborative-futures-2/#comment-100626 Collaborative Futures 3 « Mike Linksvayer Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:22:31 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/?p=899#comment-100626 [...] Mike Linksvayer My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication. « Collaborative Futures 2 [...] [...] Mike Linksvayer My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication. « Collaborative Futures 2 [...]

]]> By: Nihiltres http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2010/01/20/collaborative-futures-2/#comment-100622 Nihiltres Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:24:34 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/?p=899#comment-100622 I think there's a key distinction between missed here: the distinction between social and technological issues. Here they overlap somewhat, but I see the criticisms of e.g. Wikipedia "sucking the air out of" other projects as missing a point because one of the particular innovations of Wikipedia is that it is based on social strength rather than technical strength. Social systems *should* have some degree of centralization: the control, or freedoms, in a social setting definitively does, or do, reside with the group rather than with the individual. For example, a distributed Wikipedia would likely fracture as soon as one enterprising node-user decided to serve only "their" version of an article and attempt to wrest control from the group. I think there’s a key distinction between missed here: the distinction between social and technological issues. Here they overlap somewhat, but I see the criticisms of e.g. Wikipedia “sucking the air out of” other projects as missing a point because one of the particular innovations of Wikipedia is that it is based on social strength rather than technical strength. Social systems *should* have some degree of centralization: the control, or freedoms, in a social setting definitively does, or do, reside with the group rather than with the individual. For example, a distributed Wikipedia would likely fracture as soon as one enterprising node-user decided to serve only “their” version of an article and attempt to wrest control from the group.

]]>