One Minute Aint

The OneMinuteWiki page has been heavily expanded since I first wrote it. The follow-up pages (OneHourWiki thru OneDecadeWiki) weren't much better content-wise and had really odd names (which is my fault of course).

Following a failed attempt to fix this, and then a discussion about what to do next, I've created some new pages, starting with one called BriefIntro, that attempt to recreate and improve on the original OneMinuteWiki's spirit.

This page documents the original thread, from around Feb 2003, originally on WikiRefactoringFeedback, that discussed the problems with OneMinuteWiki and what to do about it.

-- RalphMellor

Hi y'all,

Several questions:

I have refactored some pages. Having saved my refactoring, with an explanation of the refactoring written on those pages, I find the refactoring aborted, with no explanation of why. The abort is specifically of my changes not anyone else's. How do I find out why?

Are changes kept/aborted largely on merit, or is there a community standing factor here?

In the years since I first wrote OneMinuteWiki it has become long-winded and complex. This contradicts the page's title, reason for existence, and ease-of-translation. Wouldn't it be good to fix these problems?

OneMinuteWiki has been reverted to a very long page. OneHourWiki has been reverted to a very short and useless page. Other One*Wiki pages have been left as my newly edited versions, which now make little sense given the reversion of OneMinuteWiki. Shouldn't this partial abortion be tidied up?

-- RalphMellor

Explanation - it was rewritten from the old version, removing most of the duplication and making it more compact. (It can now be read in a minute, but some things could still be omitted perhaps). The reason was that it's a significant port of entry, and your new version of it was a bombscape. OneHourWiki isn't realistic (nor OneWeekWiki) - the short but mildly funny version served to discourage development of the page, which is good. More to the point, it seemed likely that few people would read the other pages. Also, it seems sensible to keep the scope of OneMinuteWiki similar to that of (most of) the versions in other languages.

-- Anon

A few months ago, I refactored many of the NewUserPages, including OneMinuteWiki, so I can be blamed for the current layout of the page. I don't know what the original looked like years ago, but the one I rewrote was way too long and had no clear purpose. My intention was to create a simple page that explained the basics of using wiki, and which could also serve as a reference for newbies. However, it has fattened up since then. If it was up to me, I'd get rid of the stuff about deletion, about security, and the advice from old-timers.

As to why your other refactorings get undone, you may never know. I've tried deleting things from my own home page, only to have them restored by others without explanation. I don't know whether those people are trying to be helpful, whether they can't stand to see anything deleted, or whether they just enjoy messing with me. It's just one of those things you have to live with.

It would be nice if people who don't like refactorings would drop a note to the refactorer explaining what they don't like about them. It would also be nice if refactorers would expose their UserName when refactoring so that you know who to ask. Unfortunately, WikiUserNamesHaveFallenOutOfStyle, and refactorings are usually completely anonymous.

-- KrisJohnson

To see an older version, Kris, translate WikiEnUneMinute from the French. Hence, I would opt to retain the note on security.

-- Anon

Mark, I'm not yet ready to start a private dialog. I first want to achieve some consensus on what to do that y'all agree with, especially Anon.

Kris, the original version of the page did not include "stuff about deletion, about security, and the advice from old-timers".

-- RalphMellor

BTW, below is OneMinuteWiki as of March 2001. -- anon

Read. You can treat this web site like any other. See also InternationalOneMinuteWiki (with translations).

Write. Anyone can change, add to, or comment on anything you see written in this WikiWikiWeb. To do so, click the EditText link at the bottom of the page, edit the text, and then click the Save button shown at the top of the editing page.

Experiment. Visit WikiWikiSandbox......and enjoy!

Create a link by editing an existing page. Then, to create a link to a page, type its JoinCapitalizedWords name and save the page. When you redisplay the page, the references to existing pages will be underlined and the references to new pages will be followed by a ? which you can click on to edit the new page.

Security? There is none. Yes, any kiddie can barge in and delete lots of content. Some stuff might get restored. Don't fret about it; it's part of WhyWikiWorks. Some WikiEngines have revision controls at the bottom of the page, so restoring is the proverbial click away.

Next? Maybe you should create your own page (e.g., RalphMellor), then vote on your favorite tip page (such as this page, hint) on the TipsForBeginners page. You might also set up a UserName that will then show up in RecentChanges.

Why? A wiki eliminates the distinction between writers and readers of a web site (or part thereof). It imposes no particular structure. Last but not least, if you can type, you can contribute. This combination turns out to be surprisingly effective at enabling collaborative evolution of a web of information.

The above version is from a few years after my original page. I think it's significantly better than the current version and significantly worse than both my original version and the new version I recently created but which failed to stick due to Anon's editorial override.

Consider the following comment, recently added to the current (improved by Anon) OneMinuteWiki:

: "A problem with Wikis - this is from a new user - is that there is no sense of context. There's no spatial awareness on a page, or sense of relationship with "prior content," or "following content," or even things-I've-just-seen, or anything at all. There's no map, no reference point. Also, there's no straightforward way to add content - you have to hunt and search for a question mark. Wikis could be pretty powerful if a few information architecture principles could be added to them .... but as it is they really, really suck for beginners."

It's not clear if exposure to VisualTour, and a correctly sequenced introduction to editing, would have altered this newbie's viewpoint, but I think it's likely. If so, my recent "bombscape" version would likely have outperformed the current page, at least for the quoted newbie.

-- RalphMellor

I've substituted the version from three months earlier (March 2001), which is the earliest version I have (but seems worse than the June 2001 version). (When did you originate the page?) The "problem with" paragraph seemed over-complex (so now it's in this page only). The lack of structure struck me as an advantage (rather than disadvantage) when I first encountered this site. -- anon

I had thought I created it around 97, but I could be way off. I know I edited the page around the time of the above version. -- RalphMellor

Anon, I believe that:

OneMinuteWiki should be about the length of the "bombscape" I created, notwithstanding the fact that it is a common port of entry;
translated versions don't need to be kept in sync with the English version;
I should be able to contribute to this Wiki just as I did by writing the original OneMinuteWiki years ago.

So, Anon, what do I do? How about I create a BriefTutorial page and add a link to it besides some of the existing links to OneMinuteWiki (a sort of manual version of a TrialBalloonRefactoring)?

-- RalphMellor

I'd be interested to know how you would score (out of ten) each paragraph in the current OneMinuteWiki. I would suggest you invite people encountering OneMinuteWiki for the first time to contribute to a discussion page relating to your ideas, or just to vote on your idea if you think that would be more likely to secure a response. You could use such a discussion page to outline the nature of the tutorial you mentioned without having to perfect it. If you name the discussion page WikiTutorial, and provide links to it, you can use TopTen to discover how many people are visiting it. -- Anon

I won't score the paragraphs because the quality of individual paragraphs is not really the problem. Thankyou for the suggestion about a way forward. I'll do as you suggest. -- RalphMellor.

I like the name OneMinuteWiki, and the old version I saw when I first started with Wiki. I also agree that the current version is a mess. I suggest starting one or more new pages (say NewOneMinuteWiki?), and then ironing out a new version in parallel. If multiple versions are created (e.g. from users with different visions for the page), then we can have a WikiCountingVote after all the versions are basically complete. Once a general consensus is reached, we can replace the current OneMinuteWiki with the new version.

Here's what I'd like to see:

A page that really only takes about a minute to read.
A page that works well as the second link on NewUserPages.
Doesn't go into more detail than necessary (other pages can do that).

I was one of the ones who started NewUserPages and put the note at the bottom to discourage adding too many newcomer-unfriendly links (StartingPoints had too many). That seems to have worked pretty well, and NewUserPages has remained mostly short-and-sweet, and is quite stable against change. Maybe we could have a similar note on our new version of OneMinuteWiki.

I think that the current version of BriefIntro is not friendly at all, in fact confusing. However, at least the motivations for it are on the right track.

-- Anon

The title "OneMinuteWiki" was a clear request not to fatten the page up, but obviously not an effective one. I think you're right that an explicit editing related comment on the page itself, as you've used on NewUserPages, and I've used on the Brief* pages (though probably shorter/friendlier than my current note), might work and should be used.

The Brief* pages were supposed to be the parallel pages of which you speak, except that I wanted a bit more tutorial aspect. I'd like to do something like the alternate Hmm... Time passes...

I've just spent a while reflecting on this and have ended up with an OrSee? concept. Inspirations for this were:

Your suggestion about developing pages in parallel;
Evolutionary theory;
The way EveryThing has an OrSee? related concept as pretty much its most fundamental operating principle;
The SeeAlso convention;
The WikiWay;

For the moment, I can think of three primary uses for OrSee? pages:

Summaries of a page.
Variations of a page written for a particular audience.
Translations of a page.

I agree that the Brief* pages ought to be friendlier, and I agree with the list of things you'd like to see (although I'd emphasize that the page should take a minute or so to read and act upon and understand).

-- RalphMellor

Here are the main sections at this time. We can discuss them to arrive at a common goal for the NewOneMinuteWiki? page:

I've added comments on individual pages. But first, general questions:

Are these separate pages a temporary device while we ruminate? Or a permanent arrangement that helps OneMinuteWiki to stay short?
The above list of pages reflects what ended up in OneMinuteWiki. Is it the right breakdown? Is it complete?
The biggest problem I see is the tendency for OneMinuteWiki to bloat up over time. I think a sentence asking people to avoid that, and OrSee? treatment (see next point), will help, but will just these tweaks be enough?
I think OneMinuteWiki, and perhaps other OneMinute?* pages, are prime candidates for OrSee? treatment. We should probably decide if this is appropriate up front (because it effects what belongs on any given OrSee? variant).

-- RalphMellor

It's temporary for rumination, not a complete or minimal list (only a starting point). I only broke it up so that I could comment on each section individually without making this page a ThreadMess.

What do you mean by 'candidates for OrSee? treatment'? Since OrSee? is a convention, I don't think it should be required knowledge to understand OneMinuteWiki.

For readers, the convention is self-teaching: if someone sees "Or see: XPIntroSP for smalltalk programmers" at the very top of a page, most readers will see it on arrival, and will understand that the link is an alternate to the current page for those familiar with smalltalk.

For writers, the convention means that one doesn't necessarily need to write for multiple audiences with conflicting needs.

Perhaps a "A separate tutorial is available at BriefIntro" or something similar at the end of the page (or maybe at the beginning if it fits). Is that what you meant?

That's not what I meant. My concern in this context is to keep pages, that are specifically meant to be brief, as brief as they can be, and no briefer. Consider "Adding a page". For me, and most programmers I know, it took a short sentence and a few seconds of my own exploration to both work out what to do (including directly altering the URL as one method) and glimpse the myriad implications (including some sense of the influence on hypertext growth). I've seen some people fail to even work out the basics after reading multiple paragraphs about WikiWords and spending a good while exploring. I don't want to wade through explanations that seem long-winded to me, but I also don't want others giving up on what seems to them cryptic and overly terse explanations. One of the tools that might avoid OneMinute* pages trying to be all things to all people, and then failing to be good for anyone, is to make use of the OrSee? convention.

-- RalphMellor

I've eliminated OrSee? as a separate page and concept from SeeAlso. -- RalphMellor

Along the lines of OrSee?, I was just thinking about the conflict between 'telling them everything they need to know' and 'keeping it short'. What if we had links to tutorial pages for each important task that may need expanding upon? For example: To edit a page, click on the EditText link, blah blah blah. For a more complete tutorial, see EditTextTutorial?.

[EditTextTutorial? would contain discussion on formatting, conventions, etc.]

Then, we could describe at the top of OneMinuteWiki: Read this page once without following any links. Then, if you need more guidance, follow one of the tutorial links or any other links that interest you.

Something like that. The idea is that the OneMinuteWiki page can remain very tight and brief, but the user can get more juicy details for a particular section by following a tutorial link.