NOTE: This description is adapted from some content I authored in a few other project wikis. -- Kevin
Contents |
Wiki Discussions
In MediaWiki sites, a separate namespace — "Talk:" — is engineered to parallel all articles. In the default wiki skin, a "discussion" tab appears at the top of the page next to every article tab, allowing readers to make comments about the article content without editing within that content page. This same functionality is available in our PoliticWiki skin in the right-side navigation column.
Discussion on a wiki is difficult, mainly because the natural site interaction — editing pages — does not fit will with the traditional asynchronous method of threaded discussion. Potential solutions might include the integration of standard forum spaces or a new set of protocols for discussion in a wiki medium. Ben Kovitz authored a page on deep conversation culled from conventions established through interaction with the original wiki, and many of those protocols might be utilized here. Below is an itemization of Kovitz' summary of wiki discussion and how it may or may not apply to the PoliticWiki.
Separate Presenting and Querying
"Don't mix arguing with listening: page starts with Document Mode exposition, followed by Thread Mode discussion(s)."
Wiki articles are meant to be complete thought. Discussion is meant to elicit feedback from other contributors about the article. The two should not be mixed together. In many wikis, the convention is to separate the primary composition ("Document Mode") from the discussion ("Thread Mode") by placing the latter below a line between the two modes.
In PoliticWiki, this is discouraged in favor of using the Talk namespace for all threaded discussion. The main article should represent the latest iteration of a coherent thought, with authors contributing to improving the content through edits. All discussion should be relegated to the "discussion" link accompanying every wiki page, using a convention that makes it easy to follow an exchange of ideas. So in our case, the separation of presentation and querying is more literal than the Kovitz interpretation.
Exposition, Not Verdict
"Edit for clarity, don't insist on agreement."
Editing can be viewed as a dialogue of action. While further explanation and inquiry is welcome in the Talk namespace, it should not be necessary to comment on every edit. The primary goal of editing an article is to improve its clarity. In some cases, that may be accomplished through revising or correcting published wording. In other cases, new information may expand on an ambiguous idea. After an edit, an article should always be easier to understand.
Because different authors may have varied perspectives on the meaning of an article, there will inevitably be times in the process of editing when conflicts arise. The most effective course to take is to find room for opposing viewpoints within the content itself, presenting it in a manner all authors feel understood but without making the article unclear. Agreement on a point is not needed to come to consensus about good editing choices.
Concept is Not Argument
"Separate concept pages from argumentation pages. Present a sustained argument on its own page."
In some cases, discussion in the Talk namespace is not sufficient to come to resolution about article content. It is sometimes helpful in these situations to spawn new pages formalizing an opinion about an article. Unlike threaded discussion, these argumentation summaries are articles in their own right and will likely prompt its own dialogue. As articles, the content should stay on point and respect the intent of the author to express a specific opinion. Typically, argumentation summaries are created in pairs, with each article stating the point or counterpoint of a debate. The most significant benefit of this action is to remove contention from the original article, which should be clear and subjective.
In the context of PoliticWiki, this is best exemplified by the Position articles that develop around a given issue (see What is a PoliticWiki Plank?). Rather than battle one another over which view is right, work to edit cohesive, well-supported positions that can be discussed on their merits to influence the creation of a consensus platform plank.
Short Objections are Questions
"Object on the assumption that the other person has something to teach you."
This is an implied interpretative skill that all wiki participants should have. When objections are raised about content or structure choices, an author can have two basic intepretations of the objection: viewing it as an attack, or viewing it as a question. If interpreted as the former, resulting action will likely lead to contentious debate. If viewed as a question, an objection will elicit an answer trying to address the concern, perhaps posing a follow-up question in response.
Answer The Question
"Meet the other person on his own ground."
In relational therapy, the key to connection is to start where the other resides. That is, if one takes a stance of absolute knowledge and expects others to come to that understanding of the world, it will be a long and hostile wait. If, on the other hand, the author seeks empathic understanding of the critic, questions will follow. Those questions will be more comfortable to the other person because they will deal with the familiar. So, a helpful way to interact during debate is start by understanding the other person's perspective.
Move Tangents to Separate Pages
"Tangents do not need to make a mess."
All conversations have a good chance of branching out into other topics, some of which are worthy of a larger debate. The main Talk pages are intended for asking simple questions or starting conversations on a topic related to the article content. When a thread in that shared conversation space gets too deep, it may be a sign to break that conversation into a separate discussion page. This can be done most easily by adding a "/" to a wiki link and creating a sub page from the main Talk" discussion page. Sub pages will automatically add breadcrumb navigation back to the main discussion.
NOTE: The auto-breadcrumb trail that is supposed to be part of the use of subpages does not seem to be functioning in the current PoliticWiki skin. That is on the to-do list.
Sign Comments in Thread Mode
"Saying who said what helps readers follow the thread."
Attibution is not necessary in article collaboration (in fact, it is a hinderance), but it is vital to wiki discussion. Adding your name and a timestamp to any comment you make in a discussion space will help future readers follow the discussion. This is most easily done by using the --~~~~ signature markup (also available by clicking the signature icon in the editing tools at the top of an Edit text area). If you include a signature markup in an edit, it will be replaced automatically by an attribution with a link to your user page and the date and time you made the edit. It is also helpful to indent and change the style of the text (from italics to plain, etc) to aid in readability.
This solution is a common wiki convention and acceptable for the reasons above. However, the main problem with threaded discussion is that it is applying a structure from another medium (bulletin boards, email) to one that does not lend itself to threads (wiki). Ultimately, discussion on a wiki will likely evolve into a form that makes better used of the inherent strengths of this medium.
Steer Quickly
"Don't debate or dilly-dally about what to do."
Wiki editing is active dialogue. Just as long lulls in verbal conversation conveys indecision and even apathy, articles that need editing but don't receive attention threaten to kill the dialogue about its content. If an author feels a change should be made, make it. Edit histories are there to preserve versions of the content, so nothing will be lost through action. Repetitive edits are cause for discussion, but that should not dissuade active dialogue through editing article content.
Teach Wiki Technique By Editing
"If they mess things up, just quietly fix it for them."
Again, editing is active dialogue. Rather than posting a note about every error in spelling, grammar, formatting or structure, simply correct the problem to conform with accepted protocols. All authors should make a habit of monitoring their work to see what changes have occurred, and learn through example. If the same author repeatedly makes the same mistakes, a discussion might follow to reduce corrective editing..