Loading...
 
Print

CommentsVsForums

Comments are probably not a good idea; they are not readily available and I'm not crazy about the non-editable format. But what does everybody else think?

Kris


Well, we could actually talk about things right on the wiki page; three hyphens and you've got yourself a horizontal ruler to separate the speakers. But it does seem as if forum or comments are more the proper "place" to carry on a discussion. We had a link to the forums in the lefthand column, but Steve took it out as we weren't using them. We could put that back.

And perhaps we could add a prominent "Come to the forum to discuss" link at the top and bottom of pages that we hope will generate good discussion. This could be a link to the forums in general, or to a specific forum, such as the Popular Archaeology forum.

Kristin

I guess my concern is comments getting lost (and my own stupidity in not checking for them). Is there a way to highlight changes since the user has been to the site? I know you can check for Wiki changes (click in the left hand column where it says "Wiki changes"). But can you do that for comments/forum changes? Is there a way we can have online nags (that is, when you log on the pages that have changed are listed somewhere), or more actively, if there are changes you are notified offline? That would facilitate things for sure, whether in a Wiki or whatever.

Even now, I didn't notice Sarah's comments on Scientific Rigor from October until yesterday (sorry, Sarah!). Think what it's going to be like when we get real dense (there's a joke in there somewhere, but I'll let it pass).

Kris



when we get dense?

One way to encourage comments: Wikipedia has a "Discuss this page" link in the left sidebar. Example: On the Infinity page when you click on the "Discuss this page" you then get Talk: Infinity — where I've added a comment at the top with a link to Steve's infinity article.

This seems like something that might be easier to use than either comments or forums. But Wikipedia uses a different wiki software, so I don't know if we could do that for the Wasteflake Project.


I've been thinking more about what we are trying to do, and it has some implications for this conversation.

The theory is, right? that the Wiki form of communication is a qualitatively different form of communication (I'd say discourse, but then you'd think I'd had somebody peer-review my comments). Steve, didn't you say that there is some discussion some place about how the programmers found using the Wiki encourages GroupThink? If you know a link, could you stick it on a GroupThink page? I've noticed that so far Wasteflakers (and I love that term, Kristin) are hesitant to try the Wiki, that they use the comment box instead, which is a more traditional form of web communication (who'dathunk we'd already have traditions?).

The comment box is segregated from the body of the communication physically, and it's not visible to anyone who is not logged on. We don't want to encourage that, if what we're aiming for is GroupThink. Is the communication box a stepping stone that people will use until they feel comfortable with using the Wiki, or is it a hindrance to the use of the Wiki communication system? Kris



Interesting to look at discussion on the Portland Pattern Repository wiki about ThreadMode and DocumentMode. By "thread mode" they seem to mean something very like this page, with sequential comments signed by the commenters. Document mode seems to mean an article on a topic, written in the third person, which they think is more inviting to collaborative writing and editing. — Kristin


Created by KKris. Last Modification: Sunday 07 of March, 2004 02:37:59 UTC by kristin.