Retain Original Author

Feature: The originator of a page should have his/her name always associated with that page, no matter how many people change it in the future!

Use: Having this available would make things like the FeatureEnhancementRequest page nicer: you can have the author's name and the "last changed by" name - and that would be a nice way to see changes, too. Part of this idea might be vanity, but it does seem "fair" to me, somehow.

-- DavidLeBlanc - 16 Mar 2001

Perhaps we just need to give access to RCS's rlog?

-- MartinCleaver - 19 Mar 2001

With or without a s/w solution, retaining the original author credit as something of value seems to be largely up to the author. If the title and original content were well-thought-out, and the page was tended over time - all comments tidied up for typos, topic forks moved out to new pages, links to and from related topics added (in some cases, topics even merged), forward movement encouraged if the discussion is still healthy but input has dropped off - like, um, tending a little garden - such a page would become a classic!

This is a really interesting...feature request. My obvious suggestions - basic Wiki rules - aren't much work at all, IF the author is committed to his topic. It also makes this full-on Wiki collaboration ideal, as a practical process, seem a lot more realistic and possible. Some people will never do it - and they may seldom start topics, either; others will, to varying degrees; and a smaller group will tend to consistently help maintain as many other topics that interest them as they can. It should even out, if existing topics represent the standard. And it sounds a lot more do-able, compared to mentioning the R word: refactoring. (Also, individual topic credits may lose importance, as the overall web/site and contributors become the focus.)

In many CollaborationSituations, achieving this would seem to be the main difference between Wiki and a fully modern message board (see XMBMessageBoard).

Also, check the just-found perfect complement: TopicsThatDie.

-- MikeMannix - 1 Jan 2002

Mike,

Re:

With or without a s/w solution, retaining the original author credit as something of value seems to be largely up to the author. If the title ...

I'm puzzled -- are you saying that the "original" author only deserves credit under certain circumstances? (Does your second "author" refer to the original author or a later editor / collaborator / coauthor?

-- RandyKramer - 02 Jan 2002

Randy: "Deserves credit" is a pretty loaded concept. It seems to be the issue behind this feature idea: automatically creating a permanent credit - not just a record, which is already in RCS - but a clearly displayed "original author" credit, for the person who creates a new topic. My reply didn't want to go there at all - MartinCleaver's answer kind of dealt with that, succinctly. The alternative, a discussion of the value of sigs and credits, in all sorts of situations, isn't something I had ideas on here.

What it made me think of was another take on the ongoing generating-Wiki-collaboration-synergy theme, directing the idea away from "credit" - which IS important, on many levels, IMO - to "quality". A topic with a good premise and title, well-managed by whomever, will have quality. To get fanatical about it, since we have GoodStyle rules, why not break things down even further, starting with the above - as an example:

• As the originator of a discussion topic of any sort, you should:
  • Consider your title and intro carefully, make sure they're well-written, spellchecked, and clearly pose a question or basis for agreement, disagreement or support by example
  • Create an in-topic headline, closely related to the actual WikiWord title, but with spaced words, or slightly expanded to improve meaning (template)
  • Create TOC (TWiki) and include Intro (or Overview, Summmary, etc), Discussion, Related Links sections (template)
  • Depending on how active your site, check back at least every day or two for comments
  • Do minimal corrections on comments: correct typos, fix broken links - don't rewrite, just improve readability if necessary
  • Reply - it's your topic, you should have something to say to any response
  • Actively maintain your Related Links:
    • Actively look through old and new topics for ones to add to the related topics section
    • Check related topic links that're posted (copy links in comments to the related topic links section),
    • if and where appropriate, post a link back to your topic, with a clear explanation of the fit (even insert a link IF IT REALLY FITS in a particular topic)
  • If another topic is close enough to yours to merge, make a clear decision, decide which title/intro/etc is better or if they should be combined, and propose the idea on the other topic, asking for a sort of vote
  • If you see a clear topic fork, a shift into a new discussion not directly related to the original thread, ask that it be moved to a new topic, or do it yourself, leaving a note and link in its place
  • If feedback dies out, while the discussion is developing well but and it hasn't come to what seems like a reasonable resolution, actively recruit comments, by possibly:
    • emailing contributors who seem to have more to say
    • posting notices (which you may later delete) on related topics, summarizing your topic's the discussion to date, and asking for more input
  • Look for opportunities to improve clarity within your topic:
    • especially on longer topics, you may see ways to reorder comments - do so if it absolutely makes sense, preserving the sigs
    • in the same way, if a comment clearly covers two points that fit in two places, split them, copying the sig
    • if sub-threads develop that are not forks, but are distinct areas of the main topic, group them under their own headings
  • If you feel the core main topic has come to a natural resolution, and even if comments continue, they're drifting or not adding, close the topic with a summary, located at the top of the page.
  • If you find people flipping out at the way you split their comments, or post on other topics, or whatever, STOP DOING IT. See if someone will help you out. Keep up with the rest: related links and replying promptly to posts, at least...

So, that was my comment. It's really what it takes. Of course, not everyone can or will do it. But in a group, it should be possible to find a balance of talents and inclinations, if everyone in that group is rather well-motivated on a personal level to be there, and may contribute even if only as "dues".

RetainOriginalAuthor, besides requiring working out the logistics and criteria for handling topic forks and merges, I don't think would encourage any of the above. At best, I'd imagine it might move people to create more topics (though having one's name on a lot of topics isn't necessarily such a great thing, it seems).

If all of that comes to your question: Does "the 'original' author only deserve credit under certain circumstances?" vs automatic, permanent credit, I'd say, "Yes." But that really wasn't on my mind.

Perhaps a Page maintained by: additional credit might be good...

-- MikeMannix - 03 Jan 2002

Mike,

Good response, thanks! I especially appreciate the suggestion to create an in-topic headline. (I've been wishing that TWiki would display the TopicName "spaced out" but don't immediately recall thinking of including this on each page (or on the template). (Unfortunately, on my (so far) private TWiki, the template is much simpler, and if I add a second headline to the beginning of the body it would look very redundant -- maybe I can significantly de-emphasize the TopicName when I redo the templates for the 20011201 release.)

In general, I think I agree with everything you said, although I should reread this in a few days "with a clear head".

I also like the idea of a "Page maintained by" "credit" -- something that someone could sort of sign up for in advance, saying, in essence that he/she will (attempt to) maintain the page. It may be that some original authors start a page intending to maintain it, and others start a page without such an intention (or with a realization that they likely won't maintain it, even given good intentions). Perhaps a "credit block" something like:

• Original topic -- <name and date>
• Topic maintainer -- <name (and date)>
• Contributors:
  • <name (and date)>
  • <name (and date)>
  • <blank line for next contributor>

If someone creates a page and leaves the "Topic maintainer" blank, it is an implicit indication that he does not intend to maintain the page, or at least is looking for someone else to volunteer. (And, if we go this far, we may have to deal with a succession of "Topic Maintainers".)

It's an approach I will consider for Wikilearn.

-- RandyKramer - 03 Jan 2002

Randy: That's great! I first replied as an "exercise", while thinking about TopicsThatDie and whether there is T/Wiki collab magic. Here was an active Feature request that stalled - could I think of anything worthwhile to post, to help move it forward? But as I wrote that long answer to your question, the only way I could think of replying, I had to wonder... But now, at least in this case, it seems to've worked, because, IMO (as always), real relevant ideas seem to've popped.

• in-topic headline: Way back, without much thought, I made the topic title just big enough to dominate the top of the page as an ID, and put, first, much larger TOPICs in the body, then started spacing them, even expanding or rewriting. It seems natural - based on this layout. Easier to read, on screen and printed - title is clear, in "right" place; easier to select and copy off the display; long titles don't mess up the layout; and the topics that really don't work as headlines get fixed (expanded, rewritten, as long as they still clearly relate to the TOPIC). And it's not redundant, with the size and readability diffa.
  • It would be fine to have a plain space version of SPACEDTOPIC, most pages, that's what I mostly do manually.

• Page Maintainer: Your implementation idea could be...fundamental! I wasn't thinking that far, to how it might work. I don't think making the default blank on page creation - kinda creates the idea of responsibility, and then an immediate way out. Maybe a RetainOriginalAuthor-like function could automatically make the creator the maintainer, just not lock it. And this is somehow a fit with DevelopmentAreaByPersonInterested - maybe that could be have a sub-section for ...And Up For Maintaining. More opinion: keep one editor per page, but post all relevant pages as a list on DevelopmentAreaByPersonInterested. The editor is a "credit", but it's only as good as the page, and there are no special powers, like a BBS moderator. Seems Wiki-spirited - as in, open.
  • OR, the flipside: As an alternative, or a better way, a MaintainerGroup, with rename/move/trash access, and no single page maintainer, instead a last edited field with date, or name/date - it's more a copyedit function: typos, format and link fixes, stuff like that as the basic, with bigger stuff - REFACTORING, perhaps - handled by those who are willing and able... So, a little more structure, but less impact on the Wiki itself, minimal extra hierarchy, that sorta thing. Still tied in with DevelopmentAreaByPersonInterested.

• Credit block: I'd make Original Author optional (or do away with it). In Codev, if the first person to post signs, it's noted. If the page gets heavily altered, merged, whatever, it's a whole big deal of figuring out "credits"??? And many pages are carryovers of other ideas - they're not all distinct units of thought started by the page creator. That probably also does away with RetainOriginalAuthor feature as proposed...

This all makes me think - variation on the collab theme - Where's the line between TWiki functions (applied features0, and functions that can easily be created with TWiki? Most or all of the above can be done with existing tools, no programming. So can hundreds of other things. Which to include? The answer seems to be, stuff that assists this collaboration/synergy thing, which is essentially, as far as I can tell, right now just rules and suggestions. Which makes me wonder: Do most "people" (like, in Codev?) believe that T/Wiki can significantly increase the chance of extraordinary collaboration, or is it simply the best platform for elite leaders and teams who would get it together as a team regardless?

-- MikeMannix - 05 Jan 2002