@jonny All of the wikis have the same interface, though. I think we should still expect that wikis that do a better job of communicating to perform better, right?
-
@jonny All of the wikis have the same interface, though. I think we should still expect that wikis that do a better job of communicating to perform better, right?
We did find that talk pages were being used, with (IIRC) a median of ~85 edits.
-
jonny (good kind)replied to Jeremy Foote on last edited by
@jeremy
yes totally, wasn't suggesting the result was bunk at all. I def need to read the paper to not waste your time answering questions u may have answered in it lol.I was thinking re: the question of getting a community started that it takes a large amount of domain expertise to a) know how to make communication/information organization systems on a wiki and b) know how to communicate those systems effectively to new contributors.
so in addition to usage patterns or communication network structure thinking about how the default invisibility of those systems doesn't naturally suggest to casual readers that they can edit or that their edits would be valued. I wonder how that would compare to a wiki system more designed to surface the social nature of contribution like fedwiki.
-
Craig Nicolreplied to jonny (good kind) on last edited by
@jonny @jeremy that's interesting because the earlier online communities such as Usenet were well known for communicating norms to new contributors (until AOL and the Eternal September) and the communities grew strongly with those norms.
I wonder if the wikis with the greatest longevity also had the strongest community practice? I can certainly see some fandoms being particularly drawn to written rules, and new contributors welcoming a RTFM approach to joining, whereas others are very "don't tell me what to do". And the former have tended to last longer than the latter, even when they fight.