For the 2015 Future of Text symposium, I outlined seven capabilities that I believe provide for individual agency in collaborative writing. site Ward dubbed these the "Forsyth Criteria"; I'd like to refine the list, and explore how they apply to a variety of collaborative "spaces" (including, but not limited to, web sites). I plan to work on this extensively in 2017, and would be interested to hear from anybody interested in the topic.
YOUTUBE EuoluxGxsbM Published on December 22, 2015
Pete's seven capabilities are well supported by the mediawiki software hosting Wikipedia. This is beneficial to community members; the nature of implementation also makes many of the features beneficial to critical readers. pdf
- perceive __that__ something has changed - perceive __what__ changed - perceive __who__ changed it - perceive __why__ the person wanted to make the change
- __address__ the person who changed it - __undo__ the changes of others - __create__ changes of one’s own
Ward separated the capabilities into mechanisms of observation and those of action, the environment facing parts of the OODA loop. wikipedia
YOUTUBE O-ykvRYsk2o I discussed these ideas at the following Future of Text symposium as well (see the first ~7 minutes of this video, especially starting about 5:00).
Spaces to evaluate
Here are spaces (including, but not limited to, web sites) I might evaluate against the Criteria:
* Quora * Ballotpedia * SeeClickFix * PDXreporter.org * Twitter * Facebook * MediaWiki 1. Wikisource proofreading extension 2. Media Viewer 3. VisualEditor * Google Docs * Slack * Internet Archive * DMOZ * Snopes * Traditional newspaper * Traditional academic publisher * university campus
Ward suggested examining the support the Federated Wiki provides for each point, documenting the features and their expected workflow, and smoothing the interaction model on all platforms for reader/authors so engaged.
Playing with the Federated Wiki has suggested new ones to add to the list. (June 2017)
* Know what constitutes taking an action, know what the result of taking that action will be (e.g., who else will perceive it and how), know how to undo one's own action, know what kind of record will be kept of one's action. * Ability to mimic what you see others doing * Stability: Confidence your work will endure (i.e., the site will stay up, edit history will not disappear, your work will not be removed from the canonical page without cause, etc.)
It's often been said that Wikipedia is impossible in theory, but possible in practice. Apart from Clay Shirky's "cognitive surplus" concept (which applies only in the broadest strokes), what are we doing to update the theory? That's what I'd like to work on here.
What is the opposite of effective collaboration? What is time poorly spent? What would discourage somebody from collaborating? In a word, _futility_. If your actions do not have the intended consequences, you will not have much reason to continue acting.
* Some archetypal images of futility from the ancient Greeks: Sisyphus has to push a boulder uphill eternally, only to see it tumble back down; Tantalos can almost reach the fruits and water that will satisfy his cravings, but they barely elude his reach; and the Danaides were tasked with filling a tub with only the use of a seive. * Opening scene of a _Wire_ episode (push/pull on desk)
YOUTUBE DhkndQ3LML8 Several colleagues are trying to move a desk. After much effort, it turns out they're working toward opposite goals. From the TV series "The Wire".
"I’ve been saying since the No Impact Man project first started in 2007 that lasting personal happiness does not come without contributing to community and world happiness. But there are big issues that stop us from trying to contribute or that make us really frustrated when we do try." from colinbeavan.com
People to interview
* Ward Cunningham: When did each of these features "arrive" in wiki? * Sunir Shah * Magnus Manske