Two Old Hands In Thread Mode

RefactorDontDelete this example. It's long and itself a bad thread, but a better solution is to use this as a template or rough draft to create a page about the problems with thread mode and its solutions. This page is also written in somewhat of a PatternForm (though a little weak), which is another reason we should try to improve it rather than just delete it.

START OF EXAMPLE

Given the obvious and intentional limitations of this site, authors wishing to contribute to the community would be wise to write in a style that does not depend on familiarity with individuals for correct interpretation. Those wishing to confuse or otherwise demonstrate weaknesses of this site will likely do otherwise. Do not trust anything you read on wiki (or elsewhere) except to the degree that you find it useful.

The intentional limitations are absolutely essential to face up to ... blah blah blah -- RichardDrake

I'm not always the brightest bulb in the batch, but is this a fancy way of saying that one shouldn't sign work or encourage ThreadMode content (which I must admit I do a lot) or is something else being said in this quote? I figured, rather than let it go over my head, I should ask. -- RobertDiFalco

Don't get paranoid about it. Just don't trust that content is written by the person attached to the signature. Far more often than not, though, it works out in the end.

Also, don't refer to events in local time. Remember the WikiNow. Future readers won't have the same context frame as you.

END OF EXAMPLE

As it stood on 19th July 2000, ReferentsOnWiki consisted of three introductory sections by RichardDrake (the last two signed), followed by a quick anonymous question and answer (the answer rightly looking as if it was rd). Then came the text above. Since then, the page has been been changed in various ways, but we preserve a fragment here in its original form to discuss some subtleties of Wiki.

This page seeks to continue the "deep self-analysis" mode of ReferentsOnWiki. [IronyWarning, it isn't that deep.] It's really about the implied referents in Wiki dialogue (commonly known as ThreadMode) of the author and addressee of each utterance. I'm making up the terminology as I go but I'm trying to stay as close as I know how to current usage in ordinary semantics in linguistics. Any people with the right PhD out there? -- RichardDrake

An important anonymous contribution (anon1) was followed by some signed comments by me, followed by a question by RobertDiFalco specifically about the meaning of a sentence written by anon1, followed by an anonymous response to Robert's question (anon2).

Now I happen to know that anon1 was WardCunningham and anon2 wasn't. The first because Ward told me on the telephone, the second because I saw the signature of the person in RecentChanges. I know that the two people are different, in age, in location, in lots of different ways, although I think it's fair to call them both "old hands" as far as Wiki is concerned, compared to Robert, who was asking the question.

Now any Wiki reader who wasn't on the telephone to the first or watching RecentChanges those few hours but later reads the page might I think get the idea from the above discourse that anon1 is the very same person as anon2. Does this matter? If it matters at all, does it matter enough for me as a third party to edit the page in question and clarify the point?

As in all my ruminations around ReferentsOnWiki, I'm taking time to give the context and ask the question(s), because these are questions that have interested me for a long time on Wiki and I find it very hard to ask them without giving examples. If everyone ignores the questions, I will take that as disinterest on the part of Wiki in this level of self-knowledge but I will leave them around in case some people become interested in them in a year or two. -- RichardDrake As the person who asked the question, I knew from RecentChanges that Ward had left the comment and I was genuinely interested in a less subtle statement. I honestly wasn't sure what the sentence meant. The wording was too subtle for me - it seemed open to multiple interpretations. I usually do better with planks of wood (2x4's in America) smashed against my forehead. So I was asking Ward for elucidation. However, a response from another citizen who was sure that they understood unambiguously and weren't being subjective would be fine. In fact, the second response was nice. But it seemed more like innocuous encouragement than description. -- RobertDiFalco

Questions

Robert asked a question about the meaning of one of anon1's sentences. Would it have been wiser for anon2's remarks to start "Although I didn't write that particular sentence, my advice would be ..."? Would it be appropriate for a third party to edit anon2's remarks in this manner? Is the first anonymous contribution a "gift" to any future anonymous contributor to interpret how they like?

Arguments for doing nothing

The styles of anon1 and anon2 are clearly different and any intelligent reader should be able to pick that up.

Fair point.

Somebody would have to be very new to online discourse to think that they could deduce that anon1 and anon2 were the same, given Internet conventions on anonymity. The problem is even more obvious to anyone who's familiar with Wiki.

I think this reference to the Internet is much more problematic. A lot of the challenge here, for me, is to create a medium and culture (maybe indeed go back to one that Ward created) that people who are not versed in past Internet culture but are reasonably intelligent readers can benefit a great deal from.

Please note that I am not suggesting for a moment that in the various examples I have given, related to ReferentsOnWiki, I am pointing to the most heinous crimes ever committed on Wiki. What I want to comment on and question are the commonplace events that people take for granted every day in ThreadMode. I believe our current habits may be to the detriment of future readers. If everyone were clear and agreed on what the "right" answer was, it would be a waste of time to talk about it and a moral imperative to act. Something tells me that we may not have reached that level of consensus. This time, we need to get serious about the semantics and hermeneutics. Over the next year or two. For that, we need some real examples. Hopefully, better ones than I have assembled so far. But we need to start somewhere. -- RichardDrake

It doesn't matter. Content over form. You read Wiki for insights, not fame. Attributing statements is important only when someone crosses the line into dangerously wrong or venomous statements. Then responsibility is important. Remember, this is an InformalHistoryOfProgrammingIdeas, not formal.

It sounds to me as if you are convinced about some important things here, that others are finding harder than you to grasp. Could you explain a little more? For example, could you explain the referent of your first word it. What doesn't matter? -- RichardDrake

How best to clarify the situation

When faced with mods to a page by a couple of interlocking anonymous contributions that jointly changed the meaning of each and the implied attribution, I have happily written -- Anonymous 1 and -- Anonymous 2 after each, just to mark the change in author without changing any submitted text. Seemed pretty easy, no-one complained and it fixed that problem. Would such an approach work in this case? -- AlistairCockburn

My PlainEnglish instincts don't like it for readability but it's a helpful option to mention, thanks. I'd prefer that anon2 clarifies that he wasn't anon1, using his own words, for reasons of courtesy, clarity and readability. Given that I knew he wasn't and he had chosen to be anonymous, but in ThreadMode, would it have been ethical for me to alter the contribution of anon2 to clarify this? Or are you also saying that it's not ethics that counts but making sure that nobody complains about what we do? -- RichardDrake

It is certainly ethical to append "anon2" to the end of her/his append. It is even ok to change the text, since that what the wiki rules are (but not ethical to reverse the person's sentiment). For a long time, simply nobody complaining was adequate ethics here. I'd like to get to the point of (a) nobody reverses someone else's append (e.g. adding/deleting "not" in the middle), (b) people either don't complain if the wording is touched up, or else just change it back possibly with a note saying this is how they mean it, so someone else knows not to alter it again. It was that way for a long while, and that was a good time. I have no idea how to convince "everyone" to play to those rules, so I just play those rules myself. -- AlistairCockburn

I like this point of view Alistair. I have to say that I have never been edited in a way that has bothered me and I hope no one ever feels reticent to edit me down. I think these two rules have the potential to be quite powerful. -- RobertDiFalco

For a long time, simply nobody complaining was adequate ethics here.

I have a choice with this sentence. I could try being a MoralPhilosopher? and say "then it could never have been adequate ethics". Or interpret you as saying: "the ethics were great and the people didn't complain because there was a remarkable consensus on the ethics". I take the latter route. This isn't just WikiNostalgia? in my view, it's an important reality.

It was that way for a long while, and that was a good time. I have no idea how to convince "everyone" to play to those rules, so I just play those rules myself.

I endorse that Alistair. Thank you for saying it. Where we've slipped up on the rules, can we pull back, even with so many new people on Wiki and the genuine shocks to the system of the last six months? I think to some extent we already have and that we can. -- RichardDrake

Arguments against this kind of page

If something is confusing, just change it, don't analyse it. See AnalysisParalysis.

I have tried both action and analysis on Wiki, at different times. It is possible for actions to be unwise and stir up negative reactions. For the moment, I'm returning to a more analytical mode in the pages connected to ReferentsOnWiki.

In five pages now (WhatIsaReferent, SteveWozniak, BloodyOath, ProlificNewcomerInThreadMode? and this page) I'm giving some examples for others to think about. I'm genuinely not sure about the ethics of editing Wiki and I'm increasingly convinced that that's because nobody has explained even the most basic socio-linguistic issues in a way that makes sense to me. I am suggesting that we may need some much better brains, at least in the linguistics area, possibly over a number of years to do the job of analysis properly on this one. Note that I believe in EvolutionaryDelivery for software, I believe that AlanKay understood a great deal about the kind of language and environment needed to avoid AnalysisParalysis for software and I am very grateful for being exposed to such influences so early in my career. But I also notice that AlanKay's funding came from Xerox's revenues from copiers. How long did it take them to get the analysis, research and development for photocopiers right? Twenty years was it? How long has it taken for chemistry, geology, linguistics and the like to come up with even half-decent answers in many areas? Life is not all a single-user program without the unit tests. The AnalysisParalysis referent is therefore unsupportable for me here. I am not intending to be a major doer at the moment. I want to think through the foundations. By all means don't join me. But please be clear about what I'm trying to do. -- RichardDrake

[Note now that a substantial reduction to SteveWozniak yesterday means that the first bracketed phrase of my last paragraph is no longer accurate. The edit was "right", in removing material that was "off-topic" from that page. But does the editor in any sense have responsibility for the confusion caused for readers of this page? This sort of referent issue arises all the time, every day on Wiki, and it would sure get boring to catalog all of them. But some editors are more thorough in dealing with them than others, I'd say from my 18 months here. Some seem to be saying that the difference in standards doesn't matter. I'd say that it does and that we should seek to uphold high standards for editors, as well as being honest and realistic that we often fail to live up to them.]

I'm genuinely not sure about the ethics of editing Wiki and I'm increasingly convinced that that's because nobody has explained even the most basic socio-linguistic issues in a way that makes sense to me.

Good. If they did, they would be lying.

How about explaining this last statement. Why would they be lying? Are you suggesting there is no such thing as a "basic socio-linguistic issue" or that its impossible to explain a "basic socio-linguistic issue" in a sensible way? -- anon1276 aka DaveSteffe

Addendum for compassionate attention

I am extremely unhappy that I've become such a RecentChangesJunkie. It's such a great distraction that it has really hurt my productivity. As a result, I may have to go cold-turkey soon. In many ways, the simple existence of RecentChanges encourages more ThreadMode than DocumentMode contributions - but what's the alternative? -- RobertDiFalco

I may be way off base here but I have the feeling, if not whole-hearted belief, that the end game of wiki is DocumentMode. As such, ThreadMode is data collection which can be, should be or will be refactored into a document. I am very much in favor of ThreadMode simply because it collects information. I also believe individuals should sign ThreadMode; the signatures may be removed during the DocumentMode process. Isn't the DocumentMode process (meant to be) a collaborative effort? Signatures help to identify participants who may need to be referenced during the DocumentMode creation exercise. The very recent RichardDrakeInterviewsWardCunningham is an example of "streamlined ThreadMode" (both authors have signed have they not) AND the ThreadMode interview moves rapidly to DocumentMode as Richard refines his questions and Ward modifies his answers. -- DaveSteffe

If the end game is DocumentMode then, looking around, it sure is going to be a long game! But thanks for this insightful view. I don't know if Ward or I know what mode the interview will end in. But it seemed a worthwhile experiment. -- rd

Temporary section

Who's 'me' in the second section? Quoting this page: [It] would be wise to write in a style that does not depend on familiarity with individuals ... -- JuergenHermann

Quite right Juergen! Any better this way? Many thanks for some of your other refactoring this morning on Wiki.

If everyone ignores the questions, I will take that as disinterest on the part of Wiki - I am interested, but as it is WikiOnWiki it is considered by many to be off-topic here, so I was/am reluctant to comment.

Preamble: I would like dialogs between anonymous contributors to be interpreted as being in DialecticMode, as being between abstract characters. [I like that a lot, can I be Zeno!! -- rad] What matters here is not whether the authors were the same but whether the characters were the same. In this case, it seems to me that they were, at least according to the second author. (Of course, other people may disagree with him, re-edit, introduce new abstract characters, and the page will evolve accordingly.)

Although we may have inhibitions about editing signed comments, when someone leaves a comment unsigned I would like that to be interpreted as being open to subsequent editing. The question here is not "do I have permission to edit" but "what edits will be best for readers".

I am trying here to avoid making objective statements about what the conventions on this Wiki are, because people often disagree about such. Leaving that aside... in my view there are conventions which must be understood in order to understand a text. If someone mistakenly thinks anon1 has the same author as anon2, it is because they don't grasp the convention. The problem, then, is that having a whole bunch of conventions and required prior knowledge raises the barrier to entry for new users.

That's bad, but I think that to try to convey the conventions afresh on each page will probably be worse. If you can do so elegantly, then great. If not, I'd consider some WikiBadge approach. (For example, signing stuff AnonymousDonor and than writing on that home page that stuff signed that way may have multiple authors. This is not ideal but at least it is discoverable.) Usually it will be better to just hope people know or guess the conventions without any special signs, and to correct misunderstandings when and if they occur. Using non-link signatures like anon1 and anon2 will often be a good compromise.

I'd prefer that anon2 clarifies that he wasn't anon1, using his own words, for reasons of courtesy, clarity and readability. - I'd prefer not. I think that would be a bad thing to do because it breaks the metaphor. It is not the kind of thing the abstract character would say. It is also intrusive and gets in the way of refactoring. It is meta-content, not content. -- DaveHarris

Strictly I'd say this example wasn't a dialog between anonymous contributors. RobertDiFalco was asking WardCunningham a question but a later reader would see RobertDiFalco asking anon1 a question and anon2 answering him. I also take it pretty seriously as a counter point that as far as I know Ward doesn't ever use AnonymousDonor to sign, let alone other forms of DramaticIdentity. I for one am unhappy for dialog to diverge so far from the conventions and preferences of our host. We can experiment more radically elsewhere, but it doesn't seem right on Wiki. -- rd

From what RobertDiFalco says above, he was happy with an answer from anyone who could give it. So I think it is appropriate to abstract away from the identity of the authors, even if those identities happened to be known at the time. Identity just wasn't important. It didn't matter who the referents were.

Incidentally, in my view it would have been better to rephrase the original statement to make the question unnecessary, then delete both question and answer. A "real" WikiMaster would not need to sign as AnonymousDonor here. AnonymousDonor is at best a poor compromise.

Perhaps this is why Ward avoids it. I really don't like to infer what Ward wants, let alone why he wants it. As far as I can tell, we are to evolve good solutions for ourselves, without them being imposed on us from above by him. So I am suspicious of arguments like, "Ward doesn't do it therefore we shouldn't", at least when he does not send clear messages. -- DaveHarris

Ward hasn't had the time to be "hands on" host for six years solid. Wiki has been incredibly time-consuming for him. Maybe the right word isn't host but "superhero" or at least "role model". I certainly didn't like the thought of him becoming either the KingLear? of DrFrankenstein? of Wiki and those possibilities seemed all too real at times this year. I say we should seek to follow Ward's style and social aspirations, the best we can (he says in hated ThreadMode). But I agree about the unsigned summary being the best destination in this case, if we're confident about it. My questions were about that little moment where anon2 wanted to make his point and what, if anything, to do straight afterwards. Minute nitty gritty WikiOnWiki - but just look at the chapters NoamChomsky writes about much smaller linguistic examples. There is much more to this than meets the eye I believe. I'm saying Wiki should get on with things the "old way", the best it knows how, while some really expert analysis starts quietly, over many months. One day, it will percolate back and surprise us. -- RichardDrake

My point was Ward has avoiding killing off experimentation, even in directions he may privately consider dubious. There is probably a good reason for his tolerance. I don't think it is because he is unable or too busy to make his preferences explicit. I don't object to the questions. I have tried to answer them. -- DaveHarris

Dave, sorry to come across quite strong. I appreciate the four word delete and your tone throughout. I'll just comment on the host issue for now. There are a number of preferences of Ward's that I have read on Wiki that people don't seem to take much notice of. Others are still influential. To "police" or "coerce" is certainly not the man's style or ethos. But humbly leading by example, which worked so well at first and was the aspect of Ward's approach that impressed me so much in my early days, became way too time-consuming for any one individual (and I have email testimony of the same from another humble, yet self-confessed WikiMaster). Shortly after the point Ward had to give up all hope of being a major influencer by example, a number of things in the "social fabric" started to come apart, in my view. The two are linked for me. See the very brief but nonetheless important comments at the end of WhyNotRefactorHomePages. (And note we had someone with a spouse heavily into sociology, if not linguistics, that opened up that discussion. Pity we lost them.)

What a great last sentence. See WikiRefactoringStories, last major section, for some reasons that I struggle with the limitation of this principle to unsigned comments only. Meantime, I'm open on the RedHat, WhiteHat stuff. As long as it doesn't put off slower folk, people like me, but actually makes things more readable. -- RichardDrake