I started thinking "wouldn't the web just be generally better if it had total WikiNature?"
And a nagging little voice argued back, "of course not. Sometimes people are in conflict. And Wiki assumes cooperation."
So I wondered, "Could there be a CompetitiveWiki? Designed to support groups in conflict?"
And that reminded me of my idea for TypedThreadedDiscussion forums.
Are you sure wiki assumes cooperation? Say, I deleted all your text, it is built into the system to undo changes, isn't it?
The thing about groups in conflict is that they are not very likely to come online together. (I talk about real, life/death/love/hate kinda conflict, not a simple argument..) Which in a way points at a flow in the internet as an environment. The groupings which call themselves "communities" are rather like the age old clubs and societies of essentially like minded people. Is it not time English was free of CalifornianDreaming?
Maybe everything shouldn't be wiki because we need SlowNetworks.
:*I don't understand, I have always thought of wikis as SlowNetworks (never could articulate it before now, thanks for the info) and the Blackbelt peice agrees with that also. What are you thinking of when you say a wiki isn't a slow network? * --
: I guess I was thinking that the speed of networks was related to how quickly information could be put on it and other people could reply. This kind of turn around can obviously be very fast on wiki, because there are no gatekeepers to slow things down. But maybe the speed has more to do with the speed at which people use the network. If you only browse a wiki once a week, that's as slow as magazine. But I think I need to reread the articles to check that that's what slowness really means in this context -- PhilJones