Revision history for HowTheWikiChangesWriting


Revision [6559]

Last edited on 2009-02-07 17:00:42 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
We read only what's going to be useful to us. And we how closely we read depends on how useful and valuable we take the stuff to be.
Deletions:
We read only what's going to be useful to us. And we read that very quickly, and in a very cursory way.


Revision [6558]

Edited on 2009-02-07 16:58:36 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Might also want to break out into two pages: //Writing// as a verb and //writing// as a noun. >>=====How the Wiki Changes Writing=====
Deletions:
Might also want to break out into two pages: Writing the verb and writing the noun. >>=====How the Wiki Changes Writing=====


Revision [6557]

Edited on 2009-02-07 16:58:12 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
>>Update spring 2007: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.
Might also want to break out into two pages: Writing the verb and writing the noun. >>=====How the Wiki Changes Writing=====
Deletions:
>>Update spring 2007: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.>>=====How the Wiki Changes Writing=====


Revision [6555]

Edited on 2009-02-07 16:55:39 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
>>Update spring 2007: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.>>=====How the Wiki Changes Writing=====
Deletions:
>>Update spring 2007: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.>>
=====How the Wiki Changes Writing=====


Revision [6554]

Edited on 2009-02-07 16:55:30 by MorganAdmin

No Differences

Revision [6553]

Edited on 2009-02-07 16:55:14 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
>>Update spring 2007: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.>>
Deletions:
''Update spring 2007: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.''


Revision [6552]

Edited on 2009-02-07 16:54:53 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
see also ReimaginingWriting
CategoryWiki


Revision [3939]

Edited on 2008-02-24 09:52:23 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
The same ideas hold on PersonalWikis.
Deletions:
The same ideas hold on PersonalWikis


Revision [3938]

Edited on 2008-02-24 09:52:06 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
The same ideas hold on PersonalWikis


Revision [3937]

Edited on 2008-02-24 09:51:16 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
WikiSupportsTopicalWriting and that changes things.
Deletions:
WikiSupportsTopicalWriting and that changes things


Revision [3936]

Edited on 2008-02-24 09:51:06 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikis are decentralized, authorless, supposedly neutral. That said, it is important to note that being authorless does not mean that it does not have authors. Being authorless in this case means that it has multiple authors. And the responsibility for developing, editing, contributing, and maintaining a wiki falls on whomever will take that responsibility. And everyone is invited. PrintLiteracy gives way on a wiki to WikiLiteracy when we look at WikiAsAWritingSpace.
WikiSupportsTopicalWriting and that changes things
The topic itself isn't so much important, as long as the wiki achieves a right balance in the way it presents its information. Between threads & documents.
Deletions:
Wikis are decentralized, authorless, supposedly neutral. That said, it is important to note that being authorless does not mean that it does not have authors. Being authorless in this case means that it has multiple authors. And the responsibility for developing, editing, contributing, and maintaining a wiki falls on whomever will take that responsibility. And everyone is invited. PrintLiteracy gives way on a wiki to WikiLiteracy.
The topic itself isn't so much important, as long as the wiki achieves a right balance in the way it presents its information. Between threads & documents.


Revision [3935]

Edited on 2008-02-24 09:48:38 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Also, people should, but don't have to, know how to create links and WikiWord s.
Deletions:
Also, people should, but don't have to, know how to create links and WikiWords.


Revision [3555]

Edited on 2008-02-16 08:35:47 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
=====How the Wiki Changes Writing=====


Revision [1643]

Edited on 2007-02-21 07:43:07 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikis are decentralized, authorless, supposedly neutral. That said, it is important to note that being authorless does not mean that it does not have authors. Being authorless in this case means that it has multiple authors. And the responsibility for developing, editing, contributing, and maintaining a wiki falls on whomever will take that responsibility. And everyone is invited. PrintLiteracy gives way on a wiki to WikiLiteracy.
see also WikiLiteracy
Deletions:
Wikis are decentralized, authorless, supposedly neutral. That said, it is important to note that being authorless does not mean that it does not have authors. Being authorless in this case means that it has multiple authors. And the responsibility for developing, editing, contributing, and maintaining a wiki falls on whomever will take that responsibility. And everyone is invited.


Revision [1324]

Edited on 2007-02-16 08:52:42 by MorganAdmin
Deletions:
It has taken me more time to become 'comfortable' writing on a wiki than on a blog. Just my personal problem, however, learning all the mechanics has been difficult for me.
At first I was uncomfortable with the idea that anyone could change what I write, but I'm finding out that that is a good thing about wikis! Ideas can be expanded, added to, made clearer by the collaboration of a group of writers. SharonSimpson
From the freelance point of view, a wiki just may be the best way to collaborate on a project. Especially in technical writing where too many fingers on the keyboard can ruin a document, or worse - losing months of work and risk losing a client. It's easier to just "roll it back" if the style sheet was accidentally messed up by the "I didn't do it" in the next office. A wiki would definitely save the day!
SandiPemberton
(Content refactored) TheCollective
A wiki needs to be defined and refined in it's purpose as Michael stated above. Unlike the blog, the Wiki is not for personal use or for any creative endeavor, but is best suited to group projects. In this way, publishing through a Wiki will force the writer to state ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.
In order for the Wiki and the collaboration it supports to become a useful tool, all participants must also submit to a universal code of conduct when it comes to manipulation of the wiki. It is a medium easily sabotaged, though the majority of the time it seems to work well and no one really has a problem behaving when using the wiki. This is a great thing for writing, and the antithesis to the world of journalism. This is what makes the wiki so unique as a writing medium: it has the capacity to bring people together in concerted effort to publish for the sole reason of information sharing, not recognition.
JessicaTheroux
The idea of having a 'clear objective' helps keep the writers of the wiki 'on track'. We then have a purpose to fulfill, and a goal to achieve. The individual writers then provide new insight into that objective, sometimes taking the group into new territory while still heading for that objective.
SharonSimpson
When thinking on wikis (and blogs for that matter) and the relationship with changing media, I'm reminded of the age old question, "If the universe is 'everything', and it's constantly expanding... What is it expanding into?"
We're constantly finding new ways to develop our language(s) into new ideas and ways to communicate. We're constantly pushing and expanding the borders of what we know, in ways we didn't even necessarily realize there was room to grow. Computerized encrypted word processing was barely a whisper of a thought when cryptographers were sending messages in WWII, and now we're sending vast amounts of encoded data on secure networks on a daily basis without a thought. We're collaborating on forums and wikis to make and explore ideas greater than ourselves and what our minds can achieve without the outside influence.
I find it fascinating how we are (in small ways) becoming TheCollective, as it creeps over us as a technological society and we become closer knit due to the distances and impedances between us evaporating.
~WilliamGrapevine
-----
As a random thought, I think all wikis are really a form of an encyclopedia. It's a hugh generalization, and Wikipedia may have set the stereotype, but I think it makes sense.
Here is the definition of encyclopedia from [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encyclopedia Dictionary.com]:
a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in
alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular
specialty
This is pretty much right on the money when it comes to defining wikis. Even the alphabetical part is true, as with the [http://199.17.178.148/~morgan/cgi-bin/blogsandwiki.pl?action=Index Index]. Can't every wiki be classified as an enclyclopedia in some form or another? They seem to fit that method so well. In fact, a wiki is kind of an upgrade to the encycolpedia medium in that the hyperlinking and such add a whole new dimention. The technology finally caught up with what an encyclopedia should be.
EncyclopediaWiki
MichaelHeilman

The encyclopedia analogy is interesting. Of course there is 'Wikipedia', but I hadn't thought about the medium as a whole being encyclopedic in nature. However, I think Michael has hit on something here. We are all adding our own 'definitions' to the topic at hand. We can add something completely new, expand on a previous definition, or totally re-write an entry to reflect our viewpoint. Then we can make new pages to link to, further expanding or clarifying a particular phase of a subject or idea.
SharonSimpson
The Encyclopedia analogy is apt. But I just recently managed to stumble on a most intriguing example of wiki useage. I highly recommend that everyone take a gander at this little one: [http://www.cni-home.com/ Rose Coloured Glasses]
This is a family that has taken to using a wiki as a sounding board for communication between disparate family members who may live in other towns. They use it for posting pictures, setting down solid dates and times for family events and funtions. And it's a wiki so anyone in the family can edit it, post a picture, etc. Instead of writing home, you can just tell everyone what you've been up to by posting it on the wiki. It's a notebook, a scrapbook, and an event planner all in one. Every member of the family appears to have their own page to customize and play around with.
This is such a superb example of what a wiki could be used for! It's amazing. I'm going to pitch the idea to my family, actually. It's not even technically a fishbowl. They have no password protection, and also, it appears, no fear of vandalism. It's so brilliant! Man, I get so excited about these things.
The thing that's really cool, is that I looked at the history, and it actually gets used. Maybe not daily, but it does get used, revised, edited. There are wedding pictures where all members of the family (and indeed, whoever else stumbles across them) can download them. It's so much easier than making copies and sending them out.
If a member of the family were to go on vacation, instead of telling everyone individually about the trip, they could boil down some salient and interesting points into a page on the wiki, and everyone could read and enjoy it. It's fabulous.
On a conceptual level, this page differs from something like wikipedia. Individual posts are not really authorless; and there is typically going to be very little, what we call "document mode." It's a constant thread, because it's not an encyclopedic wiki. There won't be as much repurposing going on.
This type of collaboration would not work on a blog, because of the chronological nature of a blog. Old stuff would get lost in the fray. That's why the hierarchical organization of a wiki is absolutely perfect for this situation.
I think I'm gushing about this, but I really get excited about this. It's like that whole anarchy thing. Out of presumed chaos (no rules, boundaries, etc), comes a semblance of order, and a certain sense of beauty. The underlying form, when you click your way around this wiki, is wonderful. I am in awe of it.
EricKuha
Not that I don't think this is a great idea or anything, but I think a weblog would be more pertinant to what this family is trying to do. The blog medium is just way more intuitive to this kind of thing. Wikis are too chaotic to be used as forums for posting updates. With a blog, the newest info goes to the top, which makes it really easy to see what the latest happening is. In a wiki information is all over the place, and the more it grows the harder it will be to organize things.
I still like the idea of a family wiki, but maybe they could change the overall purpose or redefine it somehow because it felt a little lacking when I visited it. I guess I'm just sticking to my guns on this one with the encyclopedia idea. Who knows, maybe this particular family works best in the chaos that wikis can provide.
MichaelHeilman
I checked out Rose Coloured Glasses, and I thought it rocked. In my first entry here, I agreed that a blog would be better than a wiki. But that was because I couldn't get to their wiki - However... I think the wiki is really working for them! It has everyone participating, sharing their news, and sometimes disagreeing. Like anything else, a wiki isn't for everyone.
A lot of my family members are like Sharon's and are just getting acquainted with computers. In that case I agree that a blog would probably be more appropriate for a family bulletin board. Each family member can still post what they are doing, and add pictures too. A lot of families are spread out over the country these days - and all over the world too, with so many of our military members [http://www.ussindianapolisinharmsway.com/home.htm in harm's way] - so either method would work.
But what I like best about blogs is that they look familiar, more like a "traditional" website. I think older family members can identify better with a blog for that reason. That's not to say an old dog can't learn new tricks - I learn something new everyday - but just that wikis seem a bit intimidating until you get used to them. If the family is just getting the hang of the internet, I think a wiki would hinder participation, rather than encourage it.
SandiPemberton
Eric, that wiki is so awesome! I would LOVE to do that with my family... However... only four people in my family even know how to use a computer :( but then again, that would still be fun, right? SharonSimpson
Thanks for sharing Eric! I'm looking for anything even remotely scrapbook-wiki-ish for my major project :)
~AspenEasterling
There are some very good points that Loni made (which are now refactored). I think all of us in the class assume that everyone can do the things we can and we forget that there are some technologically inert people. My parents for instance are not by any means capable of doing anything this class has achieved thus far. A wiki may seem simple for someone who has used computers in and out thier whole lives, but the casual computer user might not find a wiki comprehensible.
Even for someone like me who can pick up computer lingo pretty fast; if I hadn't taken this class I would still have never known what a wiki was or what its terms were or even what I could do with it. My instincts would have kept me away from the medium.
It's really important that someone introduce you to a wiki, as opposed to reading of them in books or even just attempting to figure it out yourself. The reason is that there are rules and precautions that one must learn so that the user doesn't fall into discouragement or even trouble. This reasoning might be a stretch, but hey, I tried.
It's really a select few who use wikis the way they were meant to be used.
MichaelHeilman
Michael, I disagree about your assessment of that wiki. I think the wiki is better than the blog format, because it's not just a news site. If you'll notice, the front page is chronologically arranged, they do post newsy stuff there, and then there is other stuff, like photo galleries that are set up differently. The hierarchical arrangement of the wiki is perfect for that sort of thing. The wiki is more flexible than the blog, so you can do more with it. And with a blog, it's a lot more tricky to get everyone involved. With the wiki, everyone can go ahead and get involved right away. And I am very impressed by that.
I don't know if there's a "way they are meant to be used." Oh sure, there are some applications that a wiki is ideally suited for, however, there are many other uses for them as well. That's why I like the idea of a family wiki because it bends, redefines, and reevaluates the potantial for what a wiki can do. It proves that wikis are not only geared towards encyclopedic monstrosities of "unbiased" information storage.
EricKuha
Passion often blinds. Being different for the sake of being different will bring you further away from the GroupSight that wikis must employ. Definitions are without emotion, neither better nor worse than the collection of thought they represent.
TheCollective
'''How People Write on a Wiki'''
(content refactored) ''TheCollective''
Some added thoughts:
From my limited experience with wikis, I've come to the conclusion (whether it be correct or incorrect) that a lot of writing contained in them possesses an air of confidence.
I've also noticed that a lot of wiki writing is devoid of such words and phrases as "I think," "probably," "it seems to me," "perhaps," "maybe," and the like.
Document Mode is supposed to be written in the third person, which gives it a certain "matter-of-factness," but I've also observed that much of the writing in Thread Mode, which is oftentimes in the first person, also carries this confidence with it. I don't know what it is about wiki writing, but it seems to encourage contributors to write their opinions, thoughs, and ideas down in a more straight-forward, self-assured manner.
LoniSwensen
Even in thread mode it seems that people write in an authoritative tone on the wiki. The nature of the wiki and the things they are used for almost makes writing with authority a necessity. Document mode is the cumulative effort of many, and must be synthesized into an organized, third person document in order to make sense. In thread mode, people write in a way that they sound like an expert on what they are writing. In order to be heard, the entry must sound inteligent and offer ideas not already represented in the document of the wiki.
JessicaTheroux
"Essentially, all writing in a GroupWiki? is about conformity." This quote is from the document mode part of this page. I disagree with it. Wikis are not so much about conformity as they are about creating a consensus.
TiffanyMcAnnany
"Is not consensus the same thing as conformity?"--I see conformity as being forced into having a certain opinion--everyone's ideas becoming streamlined by force. A consensus, on the other hand, is about discussing an issue until one point of view is agreed upon. The dictionary definitions may suggest that they are the same thing, but each word has different connotations that suggest '''my particular definitions''' (hmmm... that doesn't sound like consensus or conformity - in a wiki the group decides the '''connotations''' - that is, if it is either a consensus of the group or of the group conforming to each others ideas - I don't mean this as a zing either so don't hate me... too much - MichaelHeilman).--TiffanyMcAnnany
Apparently we just need to have more discussion on this point until one of us changes our mind--coming to a consensus--because I still disagree with you. :) TiffanyMcAnnany
ConformityVsConsensus
'''Consensus''' - General agreement or accord; an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
'''Conformity''' - Similarity in form or character; agreement; action or behavior in correspondence with socially accepted standards, conventions, rules, or laws.
You can't have a consensus without conformity, and you can't have conformity without consensus. I guess I just assumed that it was implied.
Try this sentance for both terms:
If a wiki didn't '''conform''' then there would be no central theme, which creates in-depth substance.
If a wiki didn't come to a '''consensus''' then there would be no central theme, which creates in-depth substance.
On a final note: If you don't agree with something then change it. You don't have to waste time with it in thread mode, unless you are unsure of your stance and wanted clarification. Why don't you conform and add your bit to the document. ;)
MichaelHeilman
I'm going to have to go ahead an concur with Michael on this one
EricKuha
Last year I read a book called ''House of Leaves'' by Mark Z. Danielewski. As I was sitting in class yesterday, I realized that this book would work incredibly well as a wiki. Go to the HouseOfLeaves page to find out why!
TiffanyMcAnnany


Revision [293]

Edited on 2007-01-07 16:18:19 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
''Update spring 2007: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.''
Deletions:
**Update spring 2007**: ''Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.''


Revision [292]

Edited on 2007-01-07 16:17:54 by MorganAdmin
Deletions:
- ...
- ...
- what people write in these spaces
- ...
- ...


Revision [291]

Edited on 2007-01-07 16:16:57 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
Wikis are decentralized, authorless, supposedly neutral. That said, it is important to note that being authorless does not mean that it does not have authors. Being authorless in this case means that it has multiple authors. And the responsibility for developing, editing, contributing, and maintaining a wiki falls on whomever will take that responsibility. And everyone is invited.
Deletions:
Wikis are decentralized, authorless, supposedly neutral. That said, it is important to note that being authorless does not mean that it does not have authors. Being authorless in this case means that it has ''many'' authors. And the responsibility for developing, editing, contributing, and maintaining a wiki falls on whoever will take that responsibility. And everyone is invited.


Revision [290]

Edited on 2007-01-07 16:16:20 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
**Update spring 2007**: ''Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.''
Deletions:
**Update spring 2007**: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.
''I propose refactoring by subtitles in relation to the above bullets. Erase the ones you refactor and add more you feel need addressing. We are done refactoring when the bullets are used up. Use the threads to work out the topics in more depth. To help us refactor using our threads we should put what subtitle bullet we are working on at the top in bold.''


Revision [289]

Edited on 2007-01-07 16:16:03 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
**Update spring 2007**: Refactoring needed. Some of this page addresses writing practices on the wiki - not how the wiki changes writing so much as techniques for writing the wiki. Refactor those parts by moving them to the appropriate existing or new pages.


Revision [286]

Edited on 2007-01-07 16:11:27 by MorganAdmin
Deletions:
-


Revision [285]

Edited on 2007-01-07 16:11:14 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
- ...
- ...
- what people write in these spaces
- ...
- ...
-
''I propose refactoring by subtitles in relation to the above bullets. Erase the ones you refactor and add more you feel need addressing. We are done refactoring when the bullets are used up. Use the threads to work out the topics in more depth. To help us refactor using our threads we should put what subtitle bullet we are working on at the top in bold.''
=== Writings Place and Role in Society ===
=== How People Write on a Wiki ===
For example, publishing through a wiki forces contributing writers to conform to the standard of stating their ideas as //clearly// and //concisely// as possible, whether they are writing in ThreadMode //or// DocumentMode, so others who come after them may follow their line of thought and continue to build upon it.
Let us use a parking lot as an analogy to better understand this concept. In the summer, the rules are clear - park between the yellow lines. Everyone understands this, and it makes parking a lot more managable. Now imagine that same parking lot, except this time in the winter with lots and lots of snow. There aren't any yellow lines to guide us, but we still have to park. The best way this problem is solved is to let someone try out a spot and park were they //feel// is correct. If everyone else "feels" that person is correct, they will park next to them, thus setting the example and the template to conform to. If the majority doesn't feel the ParkingPioneer is correct, then they won't park next to that car.
People need to really //want// to see the ideas and topics discussed on a wiki become more developed, because if they don't, their contributions will likely take the wiki nowhere. People need to believe in the mission of the wiki so that it encourages them to be more purposeful in their writing.
It's probably also pretty important, but not necessary, for people to understand that wikis are fluid, and that the //ideas// in people's writing are the focus rather than the writing itself on a wiki. It would probably be a lot easier (and perhaps less painful) for a person to understand ''prior'' to writing on a wiki page that their writing will most likely be altered and "played" with. In other words, it would be helpful for someone to be familiar with such basic concepts as ThreadMode, DocumentMode, and RefactoringPages.
It is very possible that the internet has matured to a point. More to the point, the people who //use// the internet have matured. The idea of the internet in people's minds has matured in such a way that wikis are a natural course of action.
What they read and how they read it is almost as drastic as //how they think about it.// When surfing around the internet, people read differently. When you're trying to find a specific piece of information, and navigate your way to a page, there are people who can give the page a cursory, maybe twenty second scan and determine whether it has what they are looking for. There are visual clues that a person subconsciously utilizes when surfing the internet.
Wikis are very similar. When I browse around on Wikipedia, even within a specific article, I am constantly looking for the most pertinent, relevant, and useful information for the project, the task, that I've given myself. Everything else be damned. The internet puts people in a "fast" frame of mind. Especially now that we're past the days of 9600 Baud modems.
Deletions:
*
*
* ''what'' people write in these spaces
*
*
* ...
'''I propose refactoring by subtitles in relation to the above bullets. Erase the ones you refactor and add more you feel need addressing. We are done refactoring when the bullets are used up. Use the threads to work out the topics in more depth. To help us refactor using our threads we should put what subtitle bullet we are working on at the top in bold.'''
=== Writing's Place and Role in Society ===
=== ''How'' People Write on a Wiki ===
For example, publishing through a wiki forces contributing writers to conform to the standard of stating their ideas as ''clearly'' and ''concisely'' as possible, whether they are writing in ThreadMode ''or'' DocumentMode, so others who come after them may follow their line of thought and continue to build upon it.
Let us use a parking lot as an analogy to better understand this concept. In the summer, the rules are clear - park between the yellow lines. Everyone understands this, and it makes parking a lot more managable. Now imagine that same parking lot, except this time in the winter with lots and lots of snow. There aren't any yellow lines to guide us, but we still have to park. The best way this problem is solved is to let someone try out a spot and park were they "feel" is correct. If everyone else "feels" that person is correct, they will park next to them, thus setting the example and the template to conform to. If the majority doesn't feel the ParkingPioneer is correct, then they won't park next to that car.
People need to really ''want'' to see the ideas and topics discussed on a wiki become more developed, because if they don't, their contributions will likely take the wiki nowhere. People need to believe in the mission of the wiki so that it encourages them to be more purposeful in their writing.
It's probably also pretty important, but not necessary, for people to understand that wikis are fluid, and that the ''ideas'' in people's writing are the focus rather than the writing itself on a wiki. It would probably be a lot easier (and perhaps less painful) for a person to understand ''prior'' to writing on a wiki page that their writing will most likely be altered and "played" with. In other words, it would be helpful for someone to be familiar with such basic concepts as ThreadMode, DocumentMode, and RefactoringPages.
It is very possible that the internet has matured to a point. More to the point, the people who ''use'' the internet have matured. The idea of the internet in people's minds has matured in such a way that wikis are a natural course of action.
What they read and how they read it is almost as drastic as ''how they think about it.'' When surfing around the internet, people read differently. When you're trying to find a specific piece of information, and navigate your way to a page, there are people who can give the page a cursory, maybe twenty second scan and determine whether it has what they are looking for. There are visual clues that a person subconsciously utilizes when surfing the internet.
Wikis are very similar. When I browse around on Wikipedia, even within a specific article, I am constantly looking for the most pertinant, relevant, and useful information for the project, the task, that I've given myself. Everything else be damned. The internet puts people in a "fast" frame of mind. Especially now that we're past the days of 9600 Baud modems.


Revision [65]

The oldest known version of this page was created on 2006-12-13 12:20:59 by MorganAdmin
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki