Re: Wiki madness

Marginalia is not likely to be easy. Probably the approach would be to 
use table tags (not sure how twiki supports those), which would probably 
end up broken half the time.

I'd encourage people to make inline comments as bullet sub-paragraphs to 
the paragraph they're commenting on, and to make sure their entry ends 
with a "signature" (and maybe date).

But, really, I've personally found that most discussion is handled best 
by email. If someone has a long meaty idea, then a wiki page is a great 
place to stick that, then it can be discussed by email, with the wiki 
page changing over time to reflect the discussion. In a sense, each wiki 
page/idea gets a single owner (or a small group of people who end up in 
agreement) assembling a coherent point of view. But I know other people 
don't like this approach. My main reason for this model is because it's 
just easier to follow discussions via email (or discussion-oriented web 
interface), with wiki providing a snapshot web of coherent thinking (the 
problem with most discussion-oriented collaboration media is that the 
coherence is never reached). 
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/WikiForCollaborationWare


Mitchell Baker wrote:

> The marginalia idea sounds very helpful.  Does anyone know about the 
> amount of work that would be involved?
>
> We have no objection to inline comments.  We mark certain areas as 
> "Current OSAF Thinking" and ask people not to edit these areas.  As to 
> other areas, we hope people will find the work style that is most 
> effective.  I would imagine that involves actual editing of documents. 
> And as to your marginalia comment, we did not intend the Jungle to 
> reflect or encourage an "us" vs. "them" feeling.  I wanted to be sure 
> there was a place people could use for topics or workstyles that don't 
> fit well in the Chandler Discussion Topic area.  This latter area 
> reflects OSAF's view of Chandler and how we think we can work 
> effectively.  Some peole may not like the structure, or want a place 
> to work in a very informal setting.  We wanted to be sure to provide a 
> resource for this.
>
>
> Mitchell
>
> Andrew Gilmartin wrote:
>
>>>> - it's hard to comment on stuff.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Usemod-based wikis typically use subpages for discussions.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> We have tried to use a wiki for discussion and it does not work. 
>> Restricting
>> yourself to commenting only at the bottom of the page or using 
>> another page
>> raises the need for a referencing system (eg "Re paragraph 27"). 
>> While you
>> can create such a system that you have to create one in at all 
>> indicates you
>> are using the wrong system.
>>
>> A useful addition to a wiki would be a syntax for comments to be 
>> displayed
>> as marginalia. With this it would be much easier for the reader to be 
>> able
>> to choose to read the main text of heavily commented page with only 
>> being
>> peripherally being aware of the comments. For example
>>
>>  We've also left a corner of the Wiki -- | The jungle does
>>  the "Jungle" -- with no structure. You  | suggest an US vs
>>  can put anything that you want in the   | THEM attitude.
>>  Jungle, regardless of whether it fits   | -- AJG
>>  nicely in the structured hierarchy or
>>  not. Ideas that are so visionary that
>>  they are probably not practical should
>>  go in the Jungle. The Jungle can also
>>  be used for ideas that clearly relate
>>  to a Topic, ...
>>
>> And allow the writer to add comments inline.
>>
>>    [comment The jungle ...] We've also left a corner ...
>>
>> Since comments on comments should be allowed the common linear flow 
>> of the
>> wiki text formatting syntax does not naturally extend to this need. 
>> You need
>> a new syntax -- which everyone will dislike.
>>
>> -- Andrew
>>
>> -- 
>> Andrew Gilmartin
>> US Engineering Team Lead
>> [email protected]
>> 401-743-3713 (cell)
>> andrewgilmartin (aim)
>>
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Process" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Process" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process
>
>
>

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Process" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process