NotesTowardsARhetoricOfWikis > ComposingProcessesEvolveFromInside
A rhetoric of wiki illustrates principles by responding to situations.
A rhetoric of wiki will evolve to meet situations.
A rhetoric of wiki will be written into the wiki in NotesTowardsPagePatterns and NoteTowardsStyleGuides
This means
- wiki writers will become rhetoricians
- part the wiki addresses the rhetoric of the wiki.
The composing processes of moving from thread mode to document mode via refactoring developed from inside the wiki by wiki writers. As well, most wikis include /StyleAndPageGuides?, and pages on the process newcomers. But in addition, pages on process evolve as writers confront situations and seek to address and resolve them.
an example: double lines
Here's an example of the process evolving on a page [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SeparateThreadsFromContent SeparateThreadsFromContent?] on WardsWiki.Writers were encountering the problem how to sort signal from noise, the flip comment from the significant development on a page. Writers know it's not simple: noise can lead to signal, so the writers develop a way of laying out the page to help writers refactor:
There has been grief and lamentation over the recent dive in signal on wiki. Some fear the imminent EndOfWiki?. Some blame certain others for futzing it all up. Some believe this is one of the necessary reverberations of WikiMindWipe?. Some fear Ward will wade in and pull the plug. Many of the comments on most of the pages are flip throw-aways - natural conversations, but drivel to the reader looking for rational discussion.
Therefore,
Another way is to split each page into thesis and threads. This way no one needs to get worried about deleting other's snappy comebacks, and in fact large sections of text can be moved into the slushpile without tears. Yes, it still requires refactoring, but not a lot. This page demonstrates the form.
And the recommendation is followed by a set of double lines, like this -Therefore,
Another way is to split each page into thesis and threads. This way no one needs to get worried about deleting other's snappy comebacks, and in fact large sections of text can be moved into the slushpile without tears. Yes, it still requires refactoring, but not a lot. This page demonstrates the form.
The double lines help co-authors and contributers determine the state of knowledge on the page - and so can be used as a powerful heuristic, similar to drawing a line down the middle of a sheet of paper to create a dialogic notebook. The double lines can keep the state of knowledge on the wiki open and developing.
A principle
A rhetoric of wiki will address how to crack open what threatens to become static, dogmatic knowledge.
The double lines distinguish "payload" from "meta-data," or refactored material from content for further development and refactoring.- successfully refactored material / loose ends, discussion, suggested changes...
- stable / volatile content
I wouldn't want to suggest the split is one of completed above / still at work below. Writers can also use the double lines to suggest a rhetorical placement that invites and guides writers, suggesting where they might add to the text and what they might do next.
- opening statement / discussion
- generalization / specifics
- principle / examples
- thesis / support
- argument or structural pattern / discussion on pattern
Another Example: Refactoring below the DoubleLines?
Here's another example of how wiki rhetoric develops to situation. But it also illustrates how wiki writers, in the course of refactoring, open spaces for more development, and how the principle of the Wiki:DoubleLines operates heuristically, and to keep knowledge developing.Recently (Feb 04), wiki practitioners at WardsWiki? have collected [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RefactoringWikiPages strategies for refactoring wiki pages].
- The page starts with a list of pages with titles -
- RefactorByCondensingConversation?
- RefactorByCondensingQuestionAnswerPair?
- RefactorWhileRespectingSignatures?
- RefactorByExtractingToPage?
(and it's notable that the topic names are phrased in the imperative as advice. see /TopicNaming?)
Below the double lines is a list of more advice. As in the links, the advice is phrased in the imperative, but unlike the linked pages, the advice is brief, terse.
Write to the future reader : This site has 100 readers for every writer. Compose and organize thoughts for the reader's benefit.
Gentle backlink : When one page spawns another it is good practice to write a sentence or two of explanation at the beginning of the new page that cites the old. Use italics when the introduction is tangential to the page as a whole.
Remove inappropriate material : When you see something that clearly does not belong on Wiki just delete it. This is about as strong a statement as you can make on Wiki.
Gentle backlink : When one page spawns another it is good practice to write a sentence or two of explanation at the beginning of the new page that cites the old. Use italics when the introduction is tangential to the page as a whole.
Remove inappropriate material : When you see something that clearly does not belong on Wiki just delete it. This is about as strong a statement as you can make on Wiki.
seedlings As I read it, these are seedling pages: not long enough to become separate pages themselves but openings for other writers. Presumably, when or if the pages are developed, they would be moved above the double lines.
Another example of the process evolving on a page [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SeparateThreadsFromContent Separate Threads From Content] on WardsWiki?.
There is more commentary on use of the double lines on Wiki:DoubleLines. Wiki:WikiPageLayout discusses a general style guide of page layout for wiki, including use of double lines.
