|«« Wikipedia Paves the Way for Massive Collaboration||FanConcert Dev Process Retrospective 1 »»|
I'm Ryan Lowe, a Software Engineering graduate living in Ottawa, Canada. I like agile software development and Ruby on Rails.
I write this blog in Canadian English and don't use a spell checker. Typos happen.
» Full-time Ruby on Rails freelancer
» Full-time with Rails since May 2005
» Former committer for RadRails (now Aptana)
» I also have a few Rails side-projects in development:
1. wheretogoinTO.com Toronto nightlife
2. Hey Heads Up! TODO list and sharing
3. Layered Genealogy family history research
4. foos for foosball scoring
5. fanconcert for music fans (on hold)
Hiring Rails developers? I can telecommute by the hour from Ottawa, Canada
»» Email: rails AT ryanlowe DOT ca
Now hosted on Hey! Heads Up -- check it out!
Derek Lowe's (Ryan's older brother) words at Ryan's funeral
firstname.lastname@example.org no more
Forging Email Headers: Good, Bad or Ugly?
Sarcastic Dictionary (Part 1 of Many)
Twisting Rails is Risky Business
Risky Business? My Take on Early Alphas
Whoa, it's August 2007
A Postscript to "Growth at the grassroots"
»» All Blog Posts
David Heinemeier Hansson
James Duncan Davidson
Signal vs. Noise
Amy Hoy: (24)slash7
Luis de la Rosa
Exactly. There's no moderation system in a wiki, it's a free-for-all. An improvement on a collaborative website could:
- Identify people who have expertise or knowledge on certain subjects.
Then in the pool of the remaining non-"experts" you would have to seperate:
- The careful researchers who find and submit factual information, even on subjects where they are not experts.
Push all of that into a moderation scheme and you've got something more reliable than a free-for-all wiki. The experts get more of a voice and the saboteurs get much less.
The downside is that it's likely to be far more complicated and that reduces the barrier of entry, which in turn reduces the number of people that are likely to collaborate.
The upside? Like I mentioned before, Wikipedia has already paved the way. People will be more likely to collaborate now even though it's more difficult because:
1. They already have seen it work on Wikipedia. They know the benefits of submitting: that their work won't go to waste and will be enjoyed by others.
Wikipedia was never very good at crediting people -- credits are shoved in the back end with the edit history. This makes almost every Wikipedia article effectively anonymous. That in turn reduces an individual's personal responsibility to the facts because it's difficult, though not impossible, to trace errors to specific people/users.
If you insert some personal accountability measures into your new collaborative website, all of a sudden quality improves. Imagine that. Sometimes it's as simple as putting people's names on their work, like Everything2 does.Posted at October 19, 2005 at 03:29 AM EST
Last updated October 19, 2005 at 03:29 AM EST