Wiki Pairing

[An elaboration of the rules of a game proposed on GentleReductionism]

The creation of Wiki content by multiple contributors (it doesn't have to be limited to just a pair).

Start with a DocumentMode passage. Each contributor may:

edit the passage to change its form but maintain its content
move some or all of the passage to another page (splitting, but not destroying, content)
add new content to the passage
ask questions or make comments in out-of-line ThreadMode
delete ThreadMode comments or questions by incorporating or answering them in the DocumentMode passage

The end result should be well-factored, on-topic DocumentMode pages that contain little in the way of ThreadMode.

The rules for deletion have been elided. The reason for this is that close attention must be paid or the deletion may be missed. For the most part moving content is as good as or better than deletion anyway. Certainly it is more effective for purposes of this game.

One component of the definition is cooperation not conflict

A WikiThicky needs WikiPair?ing to learn and grow in sophistication. But pairing on Wiki (once called PairRefactoring) is extraordinarily difficult for the Wiki community to commission, for the pair (or group) to execute and most important of all, for the community to endorse.

The story of the WikiReductionists should be seen in this light. The execute part we did, a lot of really quite intense work and discussion that was mostly snuffed out before you could say "Solaris backup".

But the commission and endorsement, I think not.

This is raised for the good of the community, not to open old wounds, in the belief that there is a general problem here which is well worth solving.

Idea for preserving EditCopy during WikiPair?ing

Everyone in the "pair" (group) sets their UserName to WikiPair? or an agreed name (accountability would suggest creating the page and listing the participants, but that could also get messy) for complex, maybe controversial joint work on a page. So that those not wanting to take part can take a look at the result and restore to the original if it really wasn't a success (but this also needs conventions of how to say when it's "done"). EditCopy is keyed on UserName, not IP address, in other words. And yes, that does mean vulnerability too. Wiki was ever thus. -- RichardDrake

RichardDrake and I have been testing that theory and it turns out to be true. There's a corollary to it, of course, which is that anyone can permanently delete anything they like by first deleting it and then changing their UserName and making an additional change to the page. Ward knows about this, but I thought that he'd fixed it. -- PhilGoodwin

I've been thinking a lot about this possibility. I believe that we should try some WikiPair?ing, by which I do mean two people going off and attacking some really quite difficult pages to refactor, using a UserName like WikiPair? (but also being expected to use email). When the pair thinks they're finished the community is invited to take a detailed look at the changes, using EditCopy. But the community needs somewhere other than the page(s) edited to comment or only the first person gets to benefit. I'd suggest a single page like RefactoringNotes for this, or even one of the pair's home page, with all comments there understood to be ephemeral. Once a number of people say they're happy with the result the pages revert to "normal" (socially speaking, there's no technological protection, in the finest traditions of Wiki). -- RichardDrake

Why WikiPair? though? In other words, why does it have to be only two people. Why not use WikiTeam or WikiEntity?. I think if it were not for Xp and PairProgramming, you would not be using the term WikiPair?. If this is the case, it is good to use a term that does not couple Wiki to XP. However, if it can and should only be a pair, then fine, so be it. -- RobertDiFalco

>> The term does come from "coupling Wiki with XP." The term WikiPair?ing initially appeared on GentleReductionism as part of some early ThreadMode. The link was intentional; XP experience and techniques to assist GentleReductionism goals if not methods. >>

I admit I changed my mind about this over the last few days. I think we should start with pairs, with two people, to see how that works. I suggest it's the first increment to try, given the current state of everyone editing on their own, using separate UserNames. (Although maybe one begins to view names like AnonymousDonor not as a person but as a super-pair, a super-group this way. Somehow I quite like that. But in practice the folks using those names haven't deliberately focused on the same set of pages.) -- RichardDrake

Instead of messing about with User Name, you can just make a copy of the page somewhere before you start. Perhaps on your home page, if you want it to be available without creating a new page. Maybe add a line to the top of the page explaining what is going on and where the archive is. I am not keen on changing User Name for things like this.

I agree on reflection that we shouldn't monkey with UserName and I would suggest that section is moved or removed. -- RichardDrake

Too much HardWork for my tastes. -- HansGerwitz

That's the key argument against WikiPair?ing. Thanks for putting it so concisely.