Revision history for TheWikiWayChap10


Revision [12853]

Last edited on 2013-03-04 08:45:12 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
This chapter of TheWikiWay focuses on wiki writing practices and the wiki community that engage those practices. Cunningham and Leuf develop the chapter as a set of tips (Tip 10,4: Encourage Contributions), but do so in a framework of more general topics about writing style and style guidelines, writing modes (ThreadMode and DocumentMode), refactoring (the source of our ReFactoringPages), and creating structure on wikis. Wikis are inherently full of tension, as as illustrated by counterpoising two topics: When wiki works and When wiki doesn't work.
Deletions:
This chapter of TheWikiWay focuses on wiki writing practices and the wiki community that engage those practices. Cunningham and Leuf develop the chapter as a set of tips (Tip 10,4: Encourage Contributions), but do so in a framework of more general topics about writing style and style guidelines, writing modes (ThreadMode and DocumentMode), refactoring, and creating structure on wikis. Wikis are inherently full of tension, as as illustrated by counterpoising two topics: When wiki works and When wiki doesn't work.


Revision [12852]

Edited on 2013-03-04 08:42:58 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
=== Summary, including publishing info, and other works of authors and in similar vein. ===
=== Detailed notes, with links out to sources and side references ===
Deletions:
== Summary, including publishing info, and other works of authors and in similar vein. ==
== Detailed notes, with links out to sources and side references ==


Revision [12851]

Edited on 2013-03-04 08:42:25 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
ThreadMode, DocumentMode, and ReFactoringPages are offered as a way to change these paper-based, school-based composing habits.
Deletions:
ThreadMode, DocumentMode, and ReFactoringPages address these changes in habits.


Revision [12850]

Edited on 2013-03-04 08:41:33 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
=== Points of contention/dispute/further discussion,with links to local pages for development (CamelCase), and links out to sources===
== a consideration of composing habits and TheWikiWay==
ThreadMode, DocumentMode, and ReFactoringPages address these changes in habits.
Deletions:
== Points of contention/dispute/further discussion,with links to local pages for development (CamelCase), and links out to sources==


Revision [12849]

Edited on 2013-03-04 08:38:52 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
One aspect that gets downplayed too often is that writing on a wiki demands a change in writing practices from writing in traditional settings and spaces. It's not just using affordances of links, headings, lists but of considering the contribution to make: add new stuff? edit? refactor? add heads to create an organization?
Then there's a change in the pace of working. TheWikiWayOfWriting expects multiple visits to the project, spaced out a little, rather than a single shot, or DeadLining. DeadliningIsNotTheWay. The alternative is SynchronousComposing, as made possible in Google Docs. SynchronousComposing requires all composers to be present at the same time. Wikis support AsynchronousComposing, which requires making multiple visits. This is a fair exchange in getting things done
There's also a change in ownership of the text tied to habits of development. Those who are in the habit of spending one episode drafting a page define the task as done once their session is up. Closed, finished. Nothing to add or change. But WikiPages are ongoing, wide open. Never really finished. (There's a connect between this idea and the one-draft-perfect work of novice writers and the 50 minute block of time that HS writing is typically defined in. That is, the habit of do-it-0nce-never-to-return, and defining the writing task as taking about an hour is a cultural artifact of HS.)
Deletions:
One aspect that gets downplayed too often is that writing on a wiki demands a change in writing practices from writing in traditional settings and spaces. It's not just using affordances of links, headings, lists but of considering the contribution to make: add new stuff? edit? refactor? add heads to create an organization? Then there's the time of working.


Revision [12848]

Edited on 2013-03-04 08:25:18 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
One aspect that gets downplayed too often is that writing on a wiki demands a change in writing practices from writing in traditional settings and spaces. It's not just using affordances of links, headings, lists but of considering the contribution to make: add new stuff? edit? refactor? add heads to create an organization? Then there's the time of working.
Deletions:
Doing this will start to create a set of vocab terms.


Revision [12847]

Edited on 2013-03-03 21:54:54 by PederAalgaard
Additions:
==Notes==
Wikis have their own sort of culture when it comes to posting. It seems difficult to describe but there is a definite sense of growth when Wikis are handled with care and without adding too many limits. With the ability to change and share some resemblance of intellectual ideas, plenty of wikis become a greater whole.
The open concept of wikis sometimes seems too much for new users. It does feel weird to completely alter what someone has written, especially since a change to one sentence can change what the original author meant to say. The unwritten request to be polite to one and all on a wiki does seem to prevent a few people from editing or correcting pages. It seems that even with the open aspect of wikis, it is capable of building a community. By submitting content, users tend to have an actual interest in working on the wiki as well as encouraging others to do the same.
Writing styles tend to fall into two types: Thread Mode and Document Mode. Document Mode is seen on Wikipedia and other wiki pages that are meant to provide information to visitors. Threads are designed for discussion between authors and are usually signed.
==Thread==
I never considered wikis as something people could use for discussion or as something that can have culture. Most wiki's I've visited were either Wikipedia or else something based on a TV show, video game, or comic book characters. All of those wikis were written in Document Mode and were meant to provide information, not debate. There were links to forums created by the wiki but I never had a reason or desire to investigate.
On thing that interested me in the notes were how wikis don't work. It seems that anyone that abuses their power can easily ruin a good system for people who want to try and have good discussions or know when enough editing is enough.
PederAalgaard


Revision [12805]

Edited on 2013-03-03 14:34:52 by LeahFleming
Additions:
JackTuthill I likes your key phrases list because I could feel all of those phrases being repeated throughout the articles in some way or another. As for your notes about wikis being used for debate, there was some debating going on right above you on this page. But I'm using the word debate more loosely. I don't think that things were really getting that heated.
==My own notes and contribution==
Not having much experience with wikis myself, I thought that this assigned text presented a lot of necessary information in how to use a wiki, navigate a wiki, and the proper ways to write on a wiki. I highlighted this passage
In academic settings, scaffolding has proved important in guiding student users in how to post and what to post where.

Okay. Makes sense. Scaffolding for us would be the wiki that McMorgan has already set up. The further guidelines would be posting our notes and comments here, practicing ThreadMode and DocumentMode. The explanation of these two modes of writing helps to give me a clear idea of what it expected of what we contribute/write.
LeahFleming


Revision [12790]

Edited on 2013-03-03 13:19:00 by JoeStusynski
Additions:
JackTuthill I also feel the same way, it has taken me some time to get used to the whole format of wikis and using the different typing/input lingo. It most definitely is an acquired taste. I thought your pont on 'Leuf and Cunningham believe that wikis mimic true/real community efforts.' very interesting. Although I think this to be true, I think that they mostly reflect happenings. When I think of the word mimic, I think of a doppelganger or a copy of something, which can be seen in wikis, I see wikis as more of a place for people's view on everything. Whether their view is biased or unbiased, they are giving their their 2 cents on the topic at hand.
Deletions:
I also feel the same way, it has taken me some time to get used to the whole format of wikis and using the different typing/input lingo. It most definitely is an acquired taste. I thought your pont on 'Leuf and Cunningham believe that wikis mimic true/real community efforts.' very interesting. Although I think this to be true, I think that they mostly reflect happenings. When I think of the word mimic, I think of a doppelganger or a copy of something, which can be seen in wikis, I see wikis as more of a place for people's view on everything. Whether their view is biased or unbiased, they are giving their their 2 cents on the topic at hand.


Revision [12751]

Edited on 2013-03-02 11:30:26 by JoeStusynski
Additions:
I also feel the same way, it has taken me some time to get used to the whole format of wikis and using the different typing/input lingo. It most definitely is an acquired taste. I thought your pont on 'Leuf and Cunningham believe that wikis mimic true/real community efforts.' very interesting. Although I think this to be true, I think that they mostly reflect happenings. When I think of the word mimic, I think of a doppelganger or a copy of something, which can be seen in wikis, I see wikis as more of a place for people's view on everything. Whether their view is biased or unbiased, they are giving their their 2 cents on the topic at hand.
JoeStusynski


Revision [12726]

Edited on 2013-03-01 11:17:37 by MatthewAdams
Additions:
The two main writing modes are discernable in a multi-user wiki: DocumentMode and ThreadMode. In the document mode, the writers view the piece of text as community property that can be changed as the community consensus dictates it. In the thread mode, it's an exchange of information like one would use an email. The document mode seems to be the better of the two, however, as the wiki makes an opening statement that declares wisdom or asking for a clarification of something. Then, the feedback can be continuous.
Deletions:
The two main writing modes are discernable in a multi-user wiki: DocumentMode and ThreadMode. In the document mode, the writers view the piece of text as community property and can be changed as the community consensus dictates it. In the thread mode, it's an exchange of information like one would use an email. The document mode seems to be the better of the two, however, as the wiki makes an opening statement that declares wisdom or asking for a clarification of something. Then, the feedback can be continuous.


Revision [12723]

Edited on 2013-03-01 09:21:50 by JackTuthill

No Differences

Revision [12722]

Edited on 2013-03-01 09:21:24 by JackTuthill
Additions:
JackTuthill
Deletions:
One last question: who is the hell BillProznik? Can someone elaborate?


Revision [12721]

Edited on 2013-03-01 09:20:18 by JackTuthill
Additions:
But I’ am beginning to see the merit in wikicommunities. You a’re able to share information, give helpful tips or suggestions, make corrections …and all of this is great, but I think it greatly depends on what you’ are using the wiki for. If the wiki is being used in a collaborative effort for a group project at school or in a work environment, wikis can be extraordinarily useful. But suppose it is just put together for absolutely anyone to contribute to; merely a wiki for those with similar interests. Where’ is the incentive to keep up the wiki and ensure its protection? Like the article states, “People using a shared resource such as a wiki do no’t treat it as well as they treat their own private stuff.” When wikis are used for work or educational purposes they’ are more likely to be more reliable and helpful tools of the internet.
I think wikis are helpful tools but only in certain situations. It all depends on what they are used for.
People have to take them or leave them. WikiCommunities aren't for everyone. The people who survive are those with thick-skinned psyches, as well as those who don't mind change and babbling over scholarly issues or mindless endeavors ./BillProznik
I thought I would highlight some key points from the chapter, and tell what I found interesting. I know very little about wikis thus far, so this all may sound incredibly wrong (sorry). Wikis are foreign territory. The readings and the wiki itself is slowly helping me grasp just what exactly my role in this secret society is, but I am not there yet. It is going to take time, without a doubt.
There were a couple of key phrases I found relatively early in the chapter that peeked my interest. Here they are:
- An acquired taste
- A sense of growing community
- A forum for open debate
- Affects in an overall positive way
- True community efforts
- Wiki is change
- Visitors can feel uneasy
The chapter points out that wikis can be too open and chaotic for some, and that it can be an acquired taste. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, which is the only wiki I was aware of prior to this course, I think people are drawn to it but most would steer clear of actually making changes/corrections. I do not know what "wiki culture" feels or looks like (yet), but I have a feeling I will find out soon and will be able to make a judgment towards the "acquired taste" aspect. It feels as if this is true, but I refuse to make that call just yet.
Once engulfed in the wiki it is said that we discover a sense of community that expresses itself through its archived writing and the continual editing of content. I certainly see why, and just like in any community there is going to be mistakes, animosity, frustration, discovery, growth, failures, rebirth, etc.
Is a wiki a forum for debate? Perhaps. Not all wikis are open for debate I would imagine. I am sure there exist some that are run by one man, one woman, or several people who choose not to step on each other's toes. I do not know enough about them yet, but I feel as if it will difficult to edit other people's hard work with my own that could be equally incorrect.
Overall, the view of wiki's involvement is seen as positive. Overall, I agree how they could be. These interactions through wikis can have dramatic effects on knowledge, understanding, self-worth, skills, etc. There can always be a negative underlying in there, but I image that overwhelmingly the affects of wikis are positive.
Leuf and Cunningham believe that wikis mimic true/real community efforts. The members of these communities have to deal with ethics, abuse, change, conflict, coexistence, diversity in views, rights, etc. But that is not what actual communities go through day-in and day-out, really. There is family, disease, actual love, blood shed, face-to-face human contact, and so on. I see the point they are trying to make, but I doubt a sense of true community will come as a result of my involvement in a wiki. However, there are going to be other things that come about as a result that are just as formidable as a true sense of community. Time will tell what those things are.
"Wiki is change." Constant, never-ending, tiring, educational, disheartening, uplifting change. It does not stop, but that is the point. They can't stop. They won't stop. They won't blink, nor should you. It is a lot to take in, I am certain, but if you embrace the madness and worry none than the result will be knowledge and understanding.
There is a perfect quote from the chapter that illustrates the feelings of probably 90% of our class two days following our submergence into wikis, "Especially when new to a wiki, visitors can feel uneasy and therefore hesitate to edit pages. For them the Wiki system is simply too open, too anarchistic." I will end on that note.
One last question: who is the hell BillProznik? Can someone elaborate?
Deletions:
But I’m beginning to see the merit in wiki communities. You’re able to share information, give helpful tips or suggestions, make corrections…and all of this is great, but I think it greatly depends on what you’re using the wiki for. If the wiki is being used in a collaborative effort for a group project at school or in a work environment, wikis can be extraordinarily useful. But suppose it’s just put together for absolutely anyone to contribute to; merely a wiki for those with similar interests. Where’s the incentive to keep up the wiki and ensure its protection? Like the article states, “People using a shared resource such as a wiki don’t treat it as well as they treat their own private stuff.” When wikis are used for work or educational purposes they’re more likely to be more reliable and helpful tools of the internet.
I think wikis are helpful tools but only in certain situations. It all depends on what they’re used for.
People have to take them or leave them. WikiCommunities aren't for everyone. The people who survive are those with thick-skinned psyches, as well as those who don't mind change and babbling over scholarly issues or mindless endeavours./BillProznik


Revision [12619]

Edited on 2013-02-27 07:32:35 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
== The following set of threads need refactoring, organizing, moving to appropriate pages. Some look like they will fit under Points of discussion on this page, but need refactoring, summarizing and organizing. ==
Deletions:
== The following set of threads need refactoring, organizing, moving to appropriate pages. Some look like they will fit under Points of discussion ==


Revision [12616]

Edited on 2013-02-27 07:27:19 by JoeStudent
Deletions:
=== Should I be signing my name to all of my entries? ===
Because I really don't feel like it anymore. I like being the voice that needs no recognition. Besides, all you have to do to identify an entry of mine is ask yourself if it makes any sense. If it doesn't? Bingo! You found me.


Revision [12573]

Edited on 2013-02-26 07:43:33 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
ThreadMode and DocumentMode
The two main writing modes are discernable in a multi-user wiki: DocumentMode and ThreadMode. In the document mode, the writers view the piece of text as community property and can be changed as the community consensus dictates it. In the thread mode, it's an exchange of information like one would use an email. The document mode seems to be the better of the two, however, as the wiki makes an opening statement that declares wisdom or asking for a clarification of something. Then, the feedback can be continuous.
Refactoring content (an attempt to distill valuable information from earlier unfocused discussions, may not be ideal but it is a way as they said to "mine useful patterns." The keys to this would be to add a signed comment furthering the conversation. If comments seem to be converging, suggest single paragraphs that capture the ideas present in the discussion. These are better anonymous or collectively signed so that all contributors know they are welcomed to fine-tune them.
Below the DoubleLine
== The following set of threads need refactoring, organizing, moving to appropriate pages. Some look like they will fit under Points of discussion ==
Deletions:
Trickiest because there's a question of following structure of reading or of work. Eg Wiki collab has section addressing social concerns of hierarchy, etc. summarize that as addressing those concerns. See if there are those who raise these concerns, see if there are others who have answered this article.
Below the DoubleLineikiAsCulture
ThreadMode responses
The two main writing modes are discernable in a multi-user wiki: Document mode and thread mode. In the document mode, the writers view the piece of text as community property and can be changed as the community consensus dictates it. In the thread mode, it's an exchange of information like one would use an email. The document mode seems to be the better of the two, however, as the wiki makes an opening statement that declares wisdom or asking for a clarification of something. Then, the feedback can be continuous.
Refracting content (an attempt to distill valuable information from earlier unfocused discussions, may not be ideal but it is a way as they said to "mine useful patterns." The keys to this would be to add a signed comment furthering the conversation. If comments seem to be converging, suggest single paragraphs that capture the ideas present in the discussion. These are better anonymous or collectively signed so that all contributors know they are welcomed to fine-tune them.


Revision [12572]

Edited on 2013-02-26 07:36:10 by MorganAdmin
Additions:
===== The Wiki Way: Chap 10 =====
== Summary, including publishing info, and other works of authors and in similar vein. ==
Comments and considerations on TheWikiWay, chapter 10: Insights and Other Voices
This chapter of TheWikiWay focuses on wiki writing practices and the wiki community that engage those practices. Cunningham and Leuf develop the chapter as a set of tips (Tip 10,4: Encourage Contributions), but do so in a framework of more general topics about writing style and style guidelines, writing modes (ThreadMode and DocumentMode), refactoring, and creating structure on wikis. Wikis are inherently full of tension, as as illustrated by counterpoising two topics: When wiki works and When wiki doesn't work.
== Detailed notes, with links out to sources and side references ==
Trickiest because there's a question of following structure of reading or of work. Eg Wiki collab has section addressing social concerns of hierarchy, etc. summarize that as addressing those concerns. See if there are those who raise these concerns, see if there are others who have answered this article.
== Points of contention/dispute/further discussion,with links to local pages for development (CamelCase), and links out to sources==
Doing this will start to create a set of vocab terms.
==Further reading and links. ==
WikiAsCulture
Below the DoubleLineikiAsCulture
Deletions:
: Comments and considerations on TheWikiWay, chapter 10: Insights and Other Voices
This chapter of TheWikiWay focuses on wiki writing practices and the wiki community that engage those practices. Cunningham and Leuf develop the chapter as a set of tips (Tip 10,4: Encourage Contributions), but do so in a framework of more general topics about writing style and style guidelines, writing modes (ThreadMode and DocumentMode), and refactoring, and creating structure on wikis. Wikis are inherently full of tension, as as illustrated by counterpoising two topics: When wiki works and When wiki doesn't work.
and see WikiAsCulture


Revision [252]

The oldest known version of this page was created on 2007-01-07 15:20:46 by MorganAdmin
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki