My theory is that with such a FreeLink model (which you'll see on the
SocialText wiki, for example), there will be much less re-use of
WikiWords - e.g. each page will have fewer BackLinks than in a wiki
using SmashedTogetherWords. Reduced intertwingularity. Because I think
the FreeLink approach makes the focus "I want to generate a page off of
this page..." without adding the "... which other people will be able to
link to without thinking about it much". (01)
SmashedTogetherWords place more of a mental barrier on the
creation/naming of new pages, but by doing so increase the odds of
re-use. (I believe.) (02)
Pretty hard to do a controlled experiment. Once there are lots of wikis
out there, perhaps some statistical approach might add weight. (03)
Peter P. Jones wrote: (04)
>On 14 May 2003 at 8:52, John Sechrest wrote:
>
>I agree with everything you've written, John, except for the one
>point below.
>
>
>>I think that WikiWords vs [Wiki Words] is just syntactical sugar
>>and really are not at issue.
>>
>>
>I wonder, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question.
>Since people typing into wikis have to use extra syntax for
>formatting, why not add a bit of extra syntax to pick out link
>phrases in the parser (expanded wiki words with spaces included like,
>"Something Interesting to Look at") e.g. %%Hot Topic%%, and then see
>if it alters the way they play with the wiki?
>(I would do that myself but I don't have a server and test subjects.)
>
>I'm also on a mission from the Plain English Commission, as you might
>have guessed. ;)
>
>
>
>
> (05)
--
This message is archived at: (06)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=3EC3D816.3050705@fluxent.com (07)
|