Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Large Scale Collaborative Editing

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the now-this-is-gettign-interesting dept.

An anonymous reader writes "3D17.org is a website designed to allow large-scale collaborative document editing. Unlike tools like Wiki, any changes made to a 3D17 document must go-through a moderation-like voting process to see which should be applied to the document. Possible applications include allowing a large community to draft letters, emails, and faxes in a way that everyone can contribute. 3D17 even eats its own dogfood - its FAQ can be user-modified just like any other document."

6 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Low Abusability by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This ought to be much more useful than wiki and similar systems.

    There is neverending abuse of new technology, mainly spammers who innovate to ruin the next up and coming trend (usenet,google,blogs). The one thing these spoilers can't outsmart is people. As long as there is a dedicated community behind these projects, this strategy should not only provide documents everyone can agree on, but trim down the abuse as well.

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
  2. A serious question... by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A serious question (as opposed to a modest proposal): has anyone ever seen a document emerge from a collaboration / groupware system better than one produced by a single knowledgable person?

    I have seen a lot of computerized collaboration systems tried over the last 25 years, and I have never seen them produce a better (or even usable) product. Typically the single dedicated person with a quill pen does a better job than 50 people with $$$ of computers. Anyone else have a different experience?

    sPh

  3. People Lie... by reallocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why should I trust a "user-modified" FAW?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  4. Re:boring by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A focus group that does its own editing in a peer reviewed manner.

    This might be a useful concept for businesses and publicly accessable reference materials such as web based encyclopedias, but all the documents it's going to produce are going to read like corporate brouchures and encyclopedias.

    Unless of course the document is a work of literary art. Then it will read like the script for a really bad generic TV show written to please focus groups because this is the exact process used to produce such scripts, only this is done. . .

    on the web!

    Quick Ian. File a patent.

    KFG

  5. You're looking at a prime example! by Wills · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't the document being formed on Slashdot in this very discussion a prime example of the benefits of combining the thoughts of many people on an issue? Yes, there may be useless comments in any group discussion, but the sum total of all comments almost always includes some real gems of insight.

    --
    Scroogle
  6. to the UN and beyound by headGasket · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone send the URL to the UN! A new world order is born! Anyone could submit amendments to laws!

    Seriously, though, other that losing time and getting in endless arguments, my experience tells me that after a certain size, group production of text turns into a mess. Remember those reports that had to be produced in group in high school? One or two individuals ended up doing all the work, while being unncessarly bothered by the rest of the group.

    Now, if this 37D-24-36 (oops wrong thread) would incorporate a notion of Karma, maybe we would be closer to a Meritocracy. Per field Karma, to prevent people knowledgeable in one field to pollute another one? Anyone has suggestions?

    --
    6E8C 8721 B3D9 5269 5A9B 1122 00C3 C03D 99A7 1CFC