Slashdot Mirror
Large Scale Collaborative Editing
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."
Wow, what a 31337 name.
/sarcasm
A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
Could this be used on /. to fix spelling mistakes and other obvious errors? :)
-- duh
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.
NASA System
Diracian
Has anyone tried the open-source collaborative editing/annotation tool called AnnotateIT?
Scroogle
A wiki with Workflow and authentication wrapped around it.
The only thing missing is WebDAV support. With WebDAV support people could collaboratively edit the documents (spreadsheet etc) attached to the webpages.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
If the documents ever actually get written! The only thing more boring than documents written by committee is the process of writing a document by committee.
I'll take a wiki with revision history over a voting process any day.
But if the spammer makes several accounts on the system they could approve their own changes. Then again they would have to have a few different email addresses to pull this off, and they probabily don't know how to set that up.
LIVE, Love, die
A perfect tool for producing ediocre text.
The owls are not what they seem
Yeah, but those documents will be so boring to read that the letter from any 'large community' will have no effect on the recipient.
I imagine this would be used for documents on a much larger timescale than what we're used to. For instance, slashdot is an instant medium. But there are certainly comments that are out of place, wrong, or that the author wishes could be taken back. I see this at the far other end of the scale. No one will use this for quick communication on a large scale. But important, long standing but fluid documents would be a perfect match.
On a smaller scale, it would be useful for a 10 member board to create a fax rather quickly without too much molasses slowing them down like a multi-thousand member group.
I think it has a lot of good applications.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
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
Why should I trust a "user-modified" FAW?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
howabout linux?
;-P
you did say "computerized collaboration systems"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
While I admit is is an early version, it appears pretty clunky. All proposed edits are simply placed in a vote list... this means that votes have to be taken quickly to prevent different useful edits from being unable to merge.
Something more like CVS would be useful, where you can have different edits on different areas going at the same time, and the vote process could merge them together. Then again, perhaps for text that isn't as useful as code. But without such a feature, it's hard to call this "massive" collaborative documents, as the pending change list could easily spiral out of control.
Sig under construction since 1998.
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
The Art of Unix Programming
Specifically, rcs systems provide the same functionality, and several allready exist. So why not spend your devlopment time on an interface for Joe Six-pack, rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Especially since we'll probably find out this wheel has a remarkably squarish shape...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
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
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
Obviously you've never actually tried to use Slashdot's search feature to find anything...
You can be fairly certain that whatever it returns is not what you are actually seeking.
There's nothing quick about searching Slashdot.
Blockwars: a free, multiplayer head to head game.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Drupal.
Well it happened. I clicked on the link for the FAQ and BAM! There was that damned Goatse picture on the page. So here's your warning. Don't go to the FAQ!
Ok, this could very easily backfire when exposed to "Concentrated" (for lack of a better word) groups like slashdot. No longer would you need mirrors because the article is unavailable, you would now need mirrors because the article in unrecognisable in its current form.
It's title is now: "In Soviet Russia your new slashdot overlords welcome YOU!"
and its body reads
Woot! first paragraph! 1: Slashdot article
2. ????
3. Profit
There i've gotten all the jokes out of my system, and still posted something at least vaugely insightful! go me!
!110
p.s. does using "woot" make me sound old and dated like my parents trying to sound "hip" or does it still have some life left?
There are two types of people: those that can fill in the blanks,
Danger, danger, pot attacking kettle!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Wiki's seem good, but they miss one important aspect, structure to the documents. Details about plants neetly fall in to a number of catagories Latin/Botanical name, Common name, growing habit, etc. What I'd like to do is take wiki type concept but add more structure to the data. This could help with searching. Also some fields such as height have numeric values and it would be great to search for plants with a specific height.
Anyone come across such ideas or software which could do such a thing?
BTW I'm suprised how down most slashdotters are on colaborative documents. There are some really good colaborative encyclopedia around wikipedia Planet Math. So whats wrong with OpenContent!
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
dang, my ironymeter must be busted
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Drupal has had a book module in the core distribution for atleast a year. In drupal terms, this allows you to author any node (blog entry, forum post, image , story etc.) and attach it in relation to the book. (based on taxonomy). Each of these pages has revision control and can optionally go into the submission queue. It is possible to set it up even more extensively ... whereby you can use the groups module to give certain users different rights depending on which topic they are editing etc.
Some Examples :
Drupal is an incredibly well thought out content management framework that aims to be as extensible as possible. I use drupal to run several of my personal sites , and have been using drupal for more than a year now. The deanspace campaign makes use of it, aswell as several large websites such as kerneltrap and debianplanet
Morals.. isn't that some fancy kind of mushroom