Well, on Wikipedia we already have "pure DocumentMode", and it works quite well. We do have discussions in the back room, but they don't get a lot of attention. That probably counts as some kind of egoless wiki.
Yes ! But here the IdentityGame is different ! It's not some kind of roleplay where users build themselves intricate fake identities - the identities are shared !
Yeah, that's what you say. but in the meanwhile, EmileKroeger created them, and only he is using them now. If that isn't some weird ego-stroking identity game, than what is ?
Aw, come on, I'm not claiming ownership or anything. I want other people to experiment with these ! Plus, the recent "wiki" characters are clearly more than masks.
I'm sure there are issues in the ImportanceOfIdentityInOnlineCommunities that would be raised. Pseudonyms are misused.
Perhaps, it'd have to be tried, I don't trust pure theory.
I'd suppose PureWikiDrama would only work for some stuff. It would not be a good way to get to know other people. It may make a good DebateTool, though. I don't think Trolling would be such of a problem - some identities would have troll-like behaviour by their very nature, and being offensive wouldn't be as much of a problem.
What in a buletin board or a wiki could degenerate into a screaming contest may simply become a very good, and lively dialogue.
I suspect it would be a good way to talk about 'sensitive" issues - politics, religion and the like, on a wiki.
(hmm, as a side note, I'm not sure that having so many characters is a good thing … it feels confusing …)
And mixing real names and dramatic identities may not be a good idea. It makes things even more confusing.
Ah ! I think I have the reason why many objections to pseudonimity on MeatBall don't really apply here : A DramaCharacter is not really a form of identity. The whole identity discussion is therefore not that relevant. It's more like a special form of markup / tagging (like TypeThreadedDiscussion?).
Well, halfway between identity and tagging at least.