Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
> news:49359573$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>What you say makes some sense, that a group is composed of individuals so 
>>you can't build the momentum of a collaborative group without the 
>>contributions of individuals, and so ultimately it comes down to the 
>>decision of each individual to contribute or not.
>>
>>I remember I thought the wiki idea had some exciting potential. For me it 
>>stemmed from the sense of flexibility and scalability. The promise, it 
>>seemed to me, was there would be a readymade place to build, say, a 
>>tutorial, or have a conversation around some technique, that would make it 
>>easy to do, similar to how blogging servers make things easy.
>>
>>I know what discouraged me early on was the unfortunate security issues 
>>and apparent vandalisation. It led to the feeling that work put into a 
>>tutorial, say, could be vandalised.   I know that techical people around 
>>here did a good job of nipping the problem but it sent a chill.
>>
>>Now of course I would also be fighting time constraints along with the 
>>realization that my own work, technically, has fallen even father behind 
>>the leading edge of what is going on here.  But I still love the idea of 
>>metaphorically speaking, being able to walk into a room with a chalkboard 
>>available, and have a converation with a you or a Thomas De Groot, or 
>>Steve Piaget, and be able to quickly illustrate what we mean as easily as 
>>if drawing on a slate.
>>
>>Also I think it might prove worthwhile to try and analyze what the 
>>newsgroup format offers that has given it such lasting success here.
>>
> 
> 
> To start with your last comment, I believe that the lasting success is 
> certainly due to the unrelenting dedication to the povray matter of each and 
> every individual posting on these newsgroups. That is not as obvious as it 
> seems apparently, many newsgroups sooner or later degrade into uninteresting 
> blah blah. We do not, and surprisingly, all newcomers take over the 
> unofficial standards that have been set or have grown over the years. 
> Another point of success certainly is also the fast, friendly, and expert 
> responses people are getting to their questions. For all those years I am 
> visiting these newsgroups, I am still always deeply impressed by all those 
> high standard contributions given freely and in good humour. Let me make use 
> of the opportunity to suggest a big applause to all of you, and especially 
> to those who always know the answer to the whole range of simple to 
> difficult matters. 


Huzzah!




> monitoring?) I am rather a lay person about that. However, the fact that the 
> wiki is more exposed to the outside and has to be protected forcibly is a 
> sad development which does not make its use easier. 

Yes, I think I was not mature enough to accept that as is on the first pass.


>So, I suppose that 
> people are going mainly to the newsgroups for their information, even if 
> that means that older information is more difficult to find again, which 
> results sometimes in re-inventing the wheel several times in a number of 
> cases. 

That is a good point of comparison.  A wiki should, in theory, make the 
history of endeavor around a particular idea nore accessible because it 
is all recorded in the same place. But that issue is a little vague to 
my personal understand.  In a wiki is history eclipsed by subsequent 
additions, or retained in an understandable way?


Related to this idea is the notion of information depth.
Might we have to face up to the possibility
that we were frightened away from the wiki precisely because it offered, 
and in a sense, demanded, more depth?  It may be that really only a few 
herw have the real ability to take advantage of the increased richness. 
  Just as Twitter's popularity stems from a kind of imposed limitation, 
is it possible that the type of activity flourishing here finds the most 
effective support in the limited or improvised capacities of a newsgroup 
posting?

Another possible issue is a kind of author ownership of ideas.  With the 
present setup, we have a minimalized trading floor to link to private 
sites for tutorials etc., where the author might gain more personal 
benefit from making their contributions public.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message