See for a tabular form to expand the idea : http://www.dpo.uab.edu/~raygan/inet-collab/IntCollab_Raygan.html
What are the forces involved, and how may they be balanced?
What are the manifestations, and how may they be classified?
[discussion moved from CollaborationBooster]
Is it just me, or is there a prevailing attitude/CommunityExpectation that wiki collaboration is an accidental/opportunistic event, and not a deliberate/directed thing? Both are valid, I believe, and although both having scaling problems they are probably BalancingForces.
It is the prevailing attitude because it's the attitude of WikiWiki. Certainly IncidentalCollaboration is vital to any wiki. However, it doesn't have to be the only method of collaborating. Certainly we have BarnRaising events here on MeatballWiki on occasion and that works well for us. Interestingly, CoordinatedCollaboration? can also have negative consequences, such as CoordinatedAttack?s. Or even soured efforts. See Wiki:WikiReductionists for an example when a coordinated group of people sought to impose their perspective on the community and failed. -- SunirShah
I have actually not seen much accidental collaboration on the wikis I frequent. Certainly while I contribute, collaboration is never accidental. On the contrary. I open two browsers, edit a page in one window and search for related pages in the second window. This allows me to link to existing pages. AccidentalLinking doesn't work for me -- I don't trust it. I even searched for "accidental link" before writing "AccidentalLinking!"
Furthermore, I conclude that it is very important to create a good infrastructure when you start a new wiki. The Emacs Wiki is a good example, I hope: Starting from the [main page], you are lead to a table of contents. Reading the first paragraphs introduces the most important help pages. The howto-page explains how to add your name to the list of homepages. The table of contents is based on categories; categories and site map are not orthogonal. This introduces the wiki and establishes community expectations, style and categorization. Basically, it establishes how collaboration will work.
Note that collaboration is not coordinated using explicit information such as BarnRaising events. Collaboration is not accidental such as depending on AccidentalLinking and ad hoc categories. Collaboration is encouraged via community expectations. The tricky thing is to communicate these to newbies such as to make NoRespectForHistory impossible.
Perhaps your experience is a facet of the way you think. Certainly many people will not find the accidental virtues of wiki as they are driven and organized thinkers. For myself, I have to say that I have experienced the accidental nature of wiki many times. I am anything but an organized thinker. (I am an organized problem solver, but that's like work, man.) This is why people bring up Wiki:TheProgrammersStone's distinction between mappers and packers when referring to those who don't get wiki. -- SunirShah
Excellent - we don't all agree on the definitions (yet).
A little exercise: name a wiki thing and classify as to which form of collaboration it encourages the most [moved to document mode at top] ... if you disagree with a classification, make the change and explain. Certainly add more as you think of them, even if you're unsure which classification (sure way to spark debate ;-)
Changed StyleGuide to guided because following the style guide is a voluntary thing. It would only be accidental if the newbie pages don't point to the style guide.
Changed RecentChanges back to accidental as it encourages accidental collaboration.
"attention", yes, but collaboration? Not necessarily. It causes people to be in the same place at the same time (sort of), and so encourages accidental collaboration ... but there is no call for collaboration in itself, as RecentChanges can lead to all manner of different activity (eg. reading, deleting, flaming, etc)
I put ArchitecturalCollaboration? at the top tentatively for now. I have to think about whether RecentChanges is a means for collaboration or not. Keep in mind its role in SoftSecurity, or the RoleOfRecentChanges in general.
No one has tackled the classification of AssumeGoodFaith. I can't see it fitting into any of the four current forms, yet I don't feel confident that it should be ignored. Perhaps there is a fifth form, that of CulturalCollaboration? ... there are other pages that would belong with AssumeGoodFaith in the CulturalCollaboration? category - TrustButVerify, DocumentMode, RealNamesPlease [...]
CulturalCollaboration? is similar in a classification sense as ArchitecturalCollaboration? ... but although ArchitecturalCollaboration? and CulturalCollaboration? feel as if they belong together, they still stand apart from the original three. The original three had to do with scenarios of participant choice, and evidenced with specificity. You could point to a page and say "look, that's GuidedCollaboration?", while with ArchitecturalCollaboration? and CulturalCollaboration? it's a more subtle affair, more diffuse, and affects more pages, and are specifically evidenced via the original three forms. Perhaps ArchitecturalCollaboration? and CulturalCollaboration? are the underlying forces of the forms of collaboration? -- EricScheid