Wiki Iceberg

This was moved from MentalInertia. Folk were concerned that all the recent comments about ExtremeProgramming would turn away people who favoured more formal approaches.

I am struck by the transience of the ExtremeProgramming discussion. I read Wiki starting from the RecentChanges page. There was a lot of activity about ExtremeProgramming so it dominated for a while. It seems to have stopped now, perhaps as much because people got bored as because there is nothing new to say. The discussion then fades from view, the threads die; once they drop off the RecentChanges page they are much less likely to revive.

I think someone coming to Wiki now would get a different view to what they would have 2 or 3 months back(from?). Now it seems dominated by this semi-mystical identity stuff. I expect there are other themes that have been dominant in the past, now submerged. There's a vast amount of value in the old Wiki pages that doesn't surface much. This WikiIceberg effect bothers me a little, but I think it means we only turned off those formalists who appeared during the brief anti-formalist period. -- DaveHarris

Can you prove that? Or test it? ;-> -- RonJeffries

Well, a search on "ExtremeProg?" gave me around 50 hits. It's not easy to search for the abbreviation "XP"; they would push it a bit higher. Say, 2.5% of the Wiki pages mention it. That's more than I expected, but it is still a pretty small proportion. I think it supports my contention that someone who comes and looks at random pages isn't going to be overwhelmed by ExtremeProgramming stuff. (I noted the smiley, but it's not an unreasonable question.) -- DaveHarris

JeffGrigg used the raw data in WikiMines to estimate ExtremeProgramming coverage of pages at 11%.

RecentChanges is like Wiki's stream of consciousness. Memories fade as time goes by. But, this is only one of several WikiReadingHabits.

StartingPoints suggests other ways to explore this site's heritage. But there could be more. Maybe we need a link to RandomPages. Another possibility, throw random unchanged pages onto the RecentChanges list. But, that is kind of sinister. It is fun to click on the title of a page to get cross-references. It is also cool to try to embed as many relevant links as possible to allow people to get deeper.

Also, when someone does go deeper, and finds something to add, then the subject is once again on recent changes.

One entry point I would like to have is a list of the most linked-to pages, which I would expect to be among the really important ones. What do you think? I'll put a note on WikiWikiSuggestions. -- FalkBruegmann

Personally, I like the constantly changing focus of Wiki's stream of collective consciousness. Some threads fizzle out and lead nowhere but others (which may not seem important to you now) may return and gradually bind together disparate areas of thought into new patterns. I think there are places where the semi-mystical and practical can work together and I think this is one of those places. Not all problems are so amenable to direct instrumental thought - sometimes it takes a little 'looking sideways' to see a clear path through the maze of twisty passages all alike. -- SeanOhalpin

The question is whether the most linked pages are actually the most important ones. Some of the best patterns I've seen have no comments next to them simply because the page has described everything that is needed -- anything else is commentary.

The important aspect of Wiki is that the SignalToNoise ratio remains high, and useful discussion remains for others to add to. This hypertextual representation of UseNet is really where Wiki excels, as conversational threads never die, but are stored as a dialog.

The main danger is that all conversations fizzle out eventually and accumulate barnacles -- witty comments, timewasters and other fluff amounting to 'kilroy was here' graffitti (of which I am very guilty). The conversation becomes a kernel of truth surrounded by questions, amplifications, counterpoints and clarifications, somewhat like the Tao. Every so often someone has to come around and scrub out the NavelLint.

-- WillSargent.

When I find a page that I really like, I often make a link to it from outside wiki. I hope that this introduces a new group of people to Wiki, and provides a new entrance. If you find an iceberg that you want to keep from fading from view, get links made to it from other sites.

-- RalphJohnson

One problem here is that you can rarely know when "now" is. ( -- JohnClonts, 12/30/99 :)

Hehe -- WilliamUnderwood 04/17/02

Very true -- GideonKlok 2004-06-15

Someone wrote nearer to the start of this page:

StartingPoints suggests other ways to explore this site's heritage. But there could be more. Maybe we need a link to RandomPages. Another possibility, throw random unchanged pages onto the RecentChanges list. But, that is kind of sinister.

I find the first one a really interesting suggestion: it's like if some unnoticed event (like a scent, or color, or a particular situation, picture, &c...) brings a vivid memory you haven't thought of for a long time. Memory really works like that, specially with smell, which is not wired through the hypothalamus...

Putting random links on recent changes, on the other hand, may be deceptive. I'd very much prefer a random link access.

Being a pretty recently arrivee, I've messed up with lots of old pages, adding my bits there, so that's a good way of bringing old links back to life again, bringing in more new people... but for the 'veterans'... In my view, the more possibilities, the more enjoyment... -- DavidDeLis

A way to revive old pages and to organize and refactor content is surely an activity to be encouraged. Perhaps the creation of a WikiAtlas would help us to VisualizeTheWiki.