A subset of the problem of choosing the topic of a wiki is choosing its "topical scope". For example, MeatballWiki is about online community, and CommunityWiki is about community.

Topical scope is more fluid with OpenContent

Note that since CommunityWiki is OpenContent, anyone could fork it, start an OnlineCommunityWiki or whatever, and take a subset of CommunityWiki's content. The topical scope can essentially be refactored the same way we refactor individual wiki pages. Anyone can create a new wiki page which is more or less broad than a previous one, and copy some of the content to the new page (and then the rest of the community can decide which page lives and dies, either by deleting one immediately, or seeing which one gets used over a longer period of time). With OpenContent, you can also create an entire wiki with different topical scope, and copy some of the content of the old one. (you wouldn't have to copy those pages one-by-one; using WikiGateway, you could copy a list of pages in about a paragraph of Perl.)

Although it would be possible to do something similar with MeatballWiki, it would require some degree of consensus and permission (because moving content would only be legal if the destination was also within the MeatBall project).

So choosing the right topical scope right off the bat is not as essential as for an OpenContent wiki as for a non-OpenContent wiki.


See also MeatBall:CommunityWikiArchive.

I would want some recognition of the difference between:

I mean, we're hardly talking about Twin Oaks here.

We're talking about wiki technology, strongly biased FOR InterWiki, wiki communication patterns, social process, etc., etc.,.

We should probably also mention WikiFocus. Tolerance for WikiOffTopic?… Hm…


Define external redirect: WikiOffTopic

EditNearLinks: MeatballWiki MeatBall