DigestedChanges

SunirShah wrote about "digested changes" on MeatBall:DigestedChanges. I wonder if we can write something like that using the following technology:

  1. Link to the page if the topic was discussed on one page only.
  2. Link to the PageCluster if the topic is confined to a cluster.
  3. Use SubscribedRecentChanges for multi-page discussions.

Example for 2004-01

There was lots of talk on DavidChess's page about awareness, but it is mostly David and Lion talking to each other.

The MultilingualExperiment is still going strong.

We're still not sure how to deal with off-topic content or people that don't fit. The issue of forking also comes up when talking about not including people, and that leads to the same ol' ForkingOfOnlineCommunities discussion. My subscribed pages: OffTopic, ModerateInclusiveness, RadicalInclusiveness, RightToFork.


CategorySyndication

Discussion

I'm not sure: Would the "My subscribed pages" example above be better by showing all changes?

This is an interesting level here. I would like to read and write DigestedChanges like in the example above. "still going strong", thanks. 040103 10:19 – MattisManzel

I like the idea of DigestedChanges, and don't mind having a page for it.

It strikes me that- if not much is going on, it can be on the level of a week. If a lot is going on, a day. If there are three posts in a month, it'd probably be fair to have one entry for the entire month.

We may even want to support layered levels: Read a bunch of digested dailies, and write a digested weekly. Read a bunch of digested weeklies, and write a digested monthly.

I'd probably want the wiki software to help us draw calendars, and see what has been digested at what layer, and what has not.

I don't think that summarizing should be mandatory. Just: If someone wants to do it, if someone wants to be a historian, that's fine.

LionKimbro

Alex, what's the name for our variant of DigestedChanges? The original vision is described at the top of the page. What we have now is something different.

What's it called again? We should link it from this page.

Yeah, what's the name for the feature where change summaries are themselves persistent and editable?

Anyway, I have a suggestion related to that:

I think that the change summaries are now doing double duty as documents, and also as messages (see DocumentsVsMessages). The messages may be directed towards a specific person, but often they are targeted at the entire community. In addition, there seems to be a strong drive to use the summary field to describe the change you just made (I think of this as actually a special case of a message to the entire community).

Using the change summary field to send a messages and to describe single changes makes the change summary field, considered as a document, much less readable. This works against the intent of the feature (that people who aren't RecentChangesJunkies can read the change summaries and get an idea of what's been going on in the page over the past week or two).

Consider this example:

  • 12:18 UTC Cluster: WikiTing . . . . MattisManzelWikiTing: Ting-room on teamspeak server. also for mac. → super-ting-tool. We may use the server. password? pw on #onebigsoup. tings hosted on servermama.dyndns.org now. Time for enableing people to set up their own tings. (Lion's thinking about it.) sunday 18:00 UTC. Good ting as ususal, link. writely-ting testing. [en]

You might say, "well, if people would just rework the change summaries more, there'd be no problem". But I think people are reluctant to do that because that would entail throwing out others' messages, and people have a sense that the messages in the change summary are often still relevant to some readers.

Therefore, I propose that (at the cost of additional complexity), we separate the change summary into two spaces; a persistent document space and a message space. The document part would work like change summaries do now, and the message part would work like they used to.

You might say that this would make the change summaries unbearably long. Actually I think it would make them shorter – because the document part would get a lot shorter, and only one message part is displayed at a time. Right now what happens is that we get the last 3 or 4 messages concatenated together with what should be the document part; with this proposal, we'll only have to look at one message and one document part at once.

I like this idea. The doc part of the summary could be leading in the text, somehow taged on the top of the page. Trying in WikiTing.

I could imagine it like that

  • both the doc summary and the talk have a limited number of lines in the recent changes. I propose 3 for the doc and 2 for the talk.
  • The doc is taken from the header of the page.
  • The cursor in the talk-field should by default be at the end of the already entered text. You can add text to the field and when you reach 2 full lines then it removes the first letter whenever you add another one.
  • Maybe devide talk contributions by | and delete them entirely when there is not enough space.
  • The former talk contributions can still be seen in the history.
  • Hmm.

Double-hmm. To completely mindblow: We could categorize our summary contributions. When I thought to turn this page's summary into doc and talk I hesitated. Bayle's proposal is another category. Maybe you should be free to create new summary fields and also to remove them?

re-hmm. The difference is, we get a chance to make our recent changes readable for newcomers. We have the chance to style these three lines of summary of every page dynamically by everyone and on the recent changes meta level. Following wikis would get immensively more easy. rss feeds would get immensively more informative.

Ideas are hard to evaluate, 'gree. A nice day to all of you, I'll buy some food now. When I picked up on Bayle and span the idea a little further I had this feel for it might become important (one of my favorite feels). Sorry for moving this a little back up in the rc's. Ciào.

Hmm-mm. It's easy to try it out. All it needs is the possibility to insert a blanc line into the summary field.

EditNearLinks: ForkingOfOnlineCommunities RecentChangesJunkies SunirShah

Languages:

The same page elsewhere:
MeatBall:DigestedChanges