LarrySangerAndLessonsInCollaboration is an attempt to understand the perspective of the participants in the largest collaboration project, namely WikiPedia (includes its predecessor as well).
Here's the key lesson for David Liu (and many others like him) quoted from LarrySanger (emphasis are mine -- CostinCozianu):
-
- Some of [WikiPedia's] earliest contributors were academics and other highly-qualified people, and it seems to me that they were slowly worn down and driven away by having to deal with difficult people on the project. I hope they will not mind that I mention their names, but the two that stick in my mind are J. Hoffman Kemp and Michael Tinkler, a couple of Ph.D. historians. They helped to set what I think was a good precedent for the project in that they wrote about their own areas of expertise, and they contributed under their own, real names. The latter has the salutary effect of making the contributor more serious and more apt to take responsibility for his or her contributions.
There lie lessons somewhere. Need SeekFirstToUnderstand
- I am late on the wiki collaboration scene. Arrived when a lot of people said "been there, done it". But I have not adopted the view that wikis "had it".
Reference article (part 2):
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9
I am inclined towards the PatternInEverything worldview and think there could be lessons for us, in our current and future collaboration attempts.
Warning: I am still in midst of reading the article, without a view yet. So if you want something more organized, come back in a few days time.
Missing parts
?comments on mechanisms to maintaining NeutralPointOfView (here it is called MakeRoomForAllViewpoints), and yet keep alive tolerance for people who hold views that threaten ones one value system?
Bits and pieces from Larry's article, not all in order
Some institutional traditions begin easily but die hard.
- what we did not have worked out in advance was how the community should be organized, and (not surprisingly) that turned out to be the thorniest problem
- Nupedia Chalkboard, a wiki which was to be closely managed by Nupedia's staff
- most Nupedia editors and peer reviewers were not persuaded that the Chalkboard was necessary or useful.
mechanisms
- there needed to be a way, moreover, in which ordinary, uncredentialed people could participate more easily.
- we began just with the very basic wiki concept and not so much of the culture
- wiki software as simply a tool, a way to organize people who want to collaborate
- wiki software does encourage, but does not strictly require, extreme openness and de-centralization
wiki characteristics (some consciously avoided in WikiPedia
- Opinions are very welcome on a typical wiki.
- in "Thread Mode" (as in "the thread of this discussion") the dialogue can become complex.
- Wiki software also discourages (or at least does not facilitate) the exercise of authority
- (wiki) would be too informal and unstructured, as the original WikiWikiWeb was (and is), to be associated with Nupedia
- nasty, heated exchanges live on forever on a wiki, festering like an open wound
- Welcoming Committee", "Volunteer Fire Department"... fell into disuse
- participation ...increasingly a struggle over principles, rather than a shared effort toward shared goals
- (change from) cooperative (to) competitive
- no ... unified community ethos and no uncontroversial "moral high ground"
- loud minority, even a persistent minority of one person, can remove the appearance of consensus
-
later processes
assessments
- radical openness was surely not necessary
- highly qualified people...worn down...driven away
- real names...has the salutary effect of making the contributor more serious
- persistent and difficult contributors tend to drive away many better, more valuable contributors
- In retrospect ... "Speak softly and carry a big stick." (is better)
- compelled to "speak loudly," which I regret.
- governance controversies ... make the job of a volunteer project leader even more difficult
- need to have more experts like "free software movement"
- should have nonnegotiable policy early on
- honesty to recognize problems and creativity ... made Wikipedia succeed
DeclineOfCivility
"...there was a growing problem: persistent and difficult contributors tend to drive away many better, more valuable contributors"
- Wikipedia was from the beginning and is both a community and an encyclopedia project
- http://www.weblogsky.com/archives/000301.html
- many newer arrivals on the scene made great sport of challenging my authority... I thought that I needed only to "put my foot down" a little harder
- debate was distracting the community from our main goal
- many people did not care what happened on the meta-wiki
- many new people who would need to be taught about Wikipedia's standards and positive cultural aspects
- harsh words from a leader are empty threats if unenforceable
- "wiki-anarchist" ... were able to portray me as dictatorial
- ignore the trolls (much harder on wiki).trollish contributions ... sit out in the open... and "festering."
- Persistent trolls ... a serious problem...if they were able to draw a sympathetic audience
- WikiLove not helping with increasing troll problems
- patient, well-educated Wikipedians ... driven off the WikiPedia project not only by trolls but by some of the more abrasive and disrespectful regulars.
WikiNow not always desirable
"On a wiki, contributions exist in perpetuity,.... consequently... whoever starts a new page for discussion also, to a great extent, sets the tone and agenda of the discussion." See RuleOfDibs
"... nasty, heated exchanges live on forever on a wiki, festering like an open wound, unless deliberately toned down afterwards"
- "if the same exchange takes place on a mailing list, it slips mercifully and quietly into the archives."
history
- Ben (Kovitz) explained the idea of Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb to me (2Jan01)
- Nupedia wiki went live January 10 (10Jan01)
- newly independent project was launched at Wikipedia.com on January 15, 2001
- 600 articles end Jan, 3900 May, 13000 Oct01, 20K at 1st anniversary
- 9 months after started, -> does not scale problems become very big
- meta-wiki ... was continually infested with contributions by people that can only be called trolls
- Jan02 Larry became (involuntary volunteer)
- Feb02 Spanish Wikipedia forked (linked to opposition to advertising)
- Jan03 Larry break away
The last word
To reach its full potential, the process of identifying mistakes honestly and creatively seeking solutions must be ramped up and continued unabated.
- seems a fair statement to me -- dl
Comments on applicability of WikiPedia experience in problem and solutions to C2 requested.
CostinCozianu (originally on WikiChangeProposal):
WardsWiki and wikipedia are fundamentally different, so the general approach to dealing with conflicts at WikiPedia should not be applied here.
I am a late comer to the wikis and have to take the above statement as the starting point for me to understand similarities and differences. I can see WikiPedia is focussed on producing encyclopedia and have various mechanism debated and tested, including those for ConflictResolution. However I also understand both C2 and WikiPedia are wiki based collaboration mechanisms, with WikiPedia being orders of magnitude bigger.
So does that make experiences on WikiPedia (e.g. dealing with WikiTrolling, competition for EditorialControl ) completely irrelevant to C2? Are there not principles we can abstract from their (successful) processes and reimplemented here with local adjustments?
Maybe people like ClayShirky has already done comparative analysis, and commented on issues and opportunities? Or done so here at C2 (or MeatBall)? If so, I appreciate references.
Thanks for sharing your views and information. -- dl
CategoryCollaboration
Larry Sanger And Lessons In Collaboration