Talk:Massively distributed collaboration

Happy to talk about any part of the article, here. I've been looking, for some time, for a term and a concept which might cover what Wikipedia and econferences are developing, in terms of archival and useful information as well as discussion, and I now figure that "massively distributed collaboration" on content creation is it.

Anybody more hypertext-inclined than I am might rail that such a blanket term is not needed. But some of us are hierarchically-inclined, too -- DOS users -- and need a blanket. So that's my own motivation, in posting this. I'd like to see how the term scales up as Wikipedia & the rest do, too.

--Kessler 00:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally Kapor has given permission for use of his quote, here.

--Kessler 17:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kessler, I like what you're talking about, but you're strongly implying this is simply original research. To establish notability, you need to prove that the term has caught on widely. If you just want to promote discussion about a vaguely-defined but thought-provoking subject, writing an article here isn't the best way to do it. This article belongs on another collaborative wiki. How about Everything2? Mdmcginn (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed some categories per Wikipedia:Categorization, and that most articles have at most half the number of categories, and some of the categories very clearly didn't fit. Explanation for some of them are given below:

• Category:Automation — while anything written in software could be considered to be automated, automation defines it more as "replacing human operators", especially in an industrial setting. This article doesn't seem to fit with those.
• Category:Manufacturing, Category:Law, Category:International relations, Category:War, Category:Economics — things that could be discussed on a wiki/blog/website/etc, but aren't integral to the definition of massively distributed collaboration.
• Category:Computer science — again, wikis/blogs/etc are written in software, but the category deals with a narrower range of things (algorithms, data structures, etc)
• Category:Internet terminology — this category seems to deal more with dictionary/glossary definitions, and not larger things like blogs or wikis

--Interiot 04:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed Category:Literature and Category:Tools --Midnightcomm 21:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added in some "See also": finding interesting-sounding examples of mdc/massively distributed collaboration, also tools for same -- some of it old wine in new bottle, but the point of the mdc label I think is to see the pre-existing work in a new way. I'm not sure about the "democracy" of all of this, for instance, so it seems testing examples is the best way to try that out.

--Kessler 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of largest wikis was listed for deletion about a week ago. It has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace. I've replaced the wikilink with an external link so that mirrored copies of this article will still link correctly. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reasons Midnightcomm thinks the article needs to be cleaned up:

• Section titles
  • Applications, of "massively distributed collaboration" should just be Applications (even that looks bad as it appears to me like a list of collaboration software, such as MediaWiki).
  • I believe it would show structure better if each major bullet point (Education, Research et cetra) under Applications, of "massively distributed collaboration" would be a sub heading.

• Examples[1]. They look a little strange to me. Usually we try to use internal links as much as possible and have an External links section for external links.
• The Definitions section seems unnessary. Usually we use internal links for these words, rather then recreating the definitions inside the article.

Midnightcomm 22:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Flipfone. A more international usage would be mobile phone or cell phone.

Midnightcomm 22:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK citation update much appreciated. Also agreed as to the flipfone term, and your "headings" changes.

But about Definitions: the problem here as I see it is the unfamiliarity of these three terms in this particular combination -- "massively" & "distributed" & "collaboration" each have broad general meanings of their own, i.e. retail "distribution", but very specialized meanings as combined in Kapor's new term here -- so how better to express their definition?

My hope here is to open discussion of this MDC idea even more, so that others will contribute more & better examples: i.e. of good feedback systems in particular gameboards or wikis etc. -- or for content creation which involves MDC instead of just dumb Infotainment "distribution"... Better definition of the idea focuses that. If you know of good examples how about adding those in? I can think of some myself, but I'd rather get more outside input on that at this point.

--Kessler 17:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying this note, which appeared on the main article page, and made no sense to me:

Note: The point of an "encyclopedic" article, here, is both to develop a definition which will clarify what is going on -- in wikis, and international science publication and collaboration, and Globalization business, and transnational NGO etc. resistance to (or promotion of) same, and the rest, with examples and links — and to develop an overall understanding of the new "collaborative" content-creation processes now emerging online... all of them... changing that understanding as the tools and applications change... Not just a definition, or a list of tools and applications, but an article attempting to generalize from that and describe this new and very promising sort of resource, one increasingly provided by the Nets.

Anyone want to fix the problem? 129.98.212.58 01:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this note is evidence that this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but rather in another venue that offers discussion not verifiable facts. Mdmcginn (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some very disordered thinking has gone into this. And what's with all the ellipses?

The style of this article is far too conversational; in fact, it reads as if it were a "talk" page. Notability guidelines appear to be breached, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]