The Future of Purple: Distributed Transclusions

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

One of my main interests is collaborative tool interoperability. In that vein, I’ve participated in many conversations, but I’ve been actively involved in two initiatives: Purple Numbers and Identity Commons. On the surface, these two technologies solve different problems, but when you dig a bit deeper, you can actually combine the two to do some very interesting things.    (1N1)

Purple Numbers enable granular addressability, which enables you to attach metadata to finer-grained chunks of data. Instead of having an author of a document, you have authors for each paragraph of a document. This is an especially useful concept for collaborative authoring tools, such as Wikis (hence PurpleWiki).    (1N2)

If you can address granular chunks of data, you can also transclude them. This is generally more useful than transcluding an entire document. (You are more likely to want to quote a sentence from a paper than the entire paper.) So, one consequence of tools that support Purple Numbers is that they also support granular transclusions.    (1N3)

One of the limitations of Purple Numbers as currently implemented is that addresses are only unique in a local context. What we really want are globally unique, persistent Purple Numbers. That would allow me to transclude a paragraph from another blog into this one. If that paragraph moves, the transclusion should still work.    (1N4)

Guess what. XRIs are globally unique, persistent addresses. In fact, they were specifically designed to address data. (See the excellent whitepaper, “The Dataweb: An Introduction to XDI” for more on this.) In other words, we can use XRIs for Purple Numbers.    (1N5)

Even better, Identity Commons is developing schemas for link contracts that allow you to attach permissions with your data. While Identity Commons will use these link contracts for protecting profile data, they could certainly be used for other things as well, such as protecting purpled data.    (1N6)

Suppose Alice writes a paper, and she only wants Bob and Carl to see it. She could attach permissions to the entire paper that says as much. Now Bob wants to write a paper, and he wants to quote a paragraph from Alice’s paper via a transclusion. However, he also wants to make his paper available to the public. So, he transcludes Alice’s paragraph and makes his paper publically available. When most people view the paper, they’ll see everything except for Alice’s paragraph because the link contract associated with that paragraph denies them permission. However, when Bob or Carl view the paper, they see everything, including Alice’s paragraph, because they have permission to view that.    (1N7)

More thinking needs to be done. This originally started as a fancy, but a conversation with Gabe Wachob over IRC a few months helped convince me that using XRIs for Purple Numbers was not only possible, but a good application. Two issues are:    (1N8)

  • What should the Purple Numbers look like? It’s the age-old question. XRI e-numbers are definitely not pleasing to the eye.    (1N9)
  • What should the numbers do when you click on them? The way it works right now is that the addresses are named anchors. But this won’t work out-of-the-box with XRIs, because most XRIs are not valid XML IDs.    (1NA)

Chris Dent has mentioned handles on several occasions as another direction we could go. We need to examine this possibility as well.    (1NB)

Tim Bray on Purple Numbers

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

I’ve long been a fan of Tim Bray‘s work, and although we had never crossed paths before, I had always assumed it would be instigated by me making some comment about something he had done or written about. (A few months back, I emailed him about ballparks in the Bay Area, because we seem to share a love for the sport, but that doesn’t count.) So I was surprised and pleased to see that Tim had made first contact and had (temporarily, as it turned out) implemented Purple Numbers on his blog. Not surprisingly, this is starting to generate some talk in the blogosphere. In particular, see:    (1G9)

Chris has done an excellent job of quickly addressing many of these issues. I’ll just toss in a few thoughts and references here and will look forward to more feedback.    (1GE)

Stable, Immutable IDs    (1GF)

Several people have pointed out that the IDs need to be stable. In other words, as the paragraphs move around or as new ones are added or deleted, the IDs stick to their original paragraphs. This was a fundamental motivation for Engelbart’s statement identifiers (SIDs), which we have renamed node identifiers (NID).    (1GG)

Both Purple (which needs updating) and PurpleWiki handle this correctly. You’ll notice that the addresses are stable on my blog and on Chris’s, as well as on all of the PurpleWiki installations (e.g. Collab:HomePage, PurpleWiki:HomePage). It’s because we use plugins for our respective blog software that call PurpleWiki‘s parser, which manages NIDs for us.    (1GH)

By using PurpleWiki to handle the purpling, blog content has NIDs unique to both the blog and the Wiki, which allows us to do fun stuff like transclude between the two. We get a similar effect with perplog, the excellent IRC logger written by Paul Visscher and other members of The Canonical Hackers. For example, check out Planetwork:Main Page and the chat logs over there.    (1GI)

Mark Nottingham noted that even if the NIDs are stable in the sense that they are attached to certain paragraphs, the paragraphs themselves are not semantically stable. This is a point on which I’ve ruminated in the past, and we still don’t have a good solution to it.    (1GJ)

History and Other Worthy Projects    (1GK)

I’ve written up my own brief history of Purple Numbers, which fills in some holes in Chris’s account. In it, I mention Murray Altheim‘s plink. Plink is no longer available on the net, because it has been subsumed into his latest project, Ceryle. Everything that I’ve seen about Ceryle so far kicks butt, so if you’d like to see it too, please drop Murray an email and encourage him to hurry up and finish his thesis so that he can make Ceryle available! You can tell him I sent you, and you can forward him the link to this paragraph; he’ll understand.    (1GL)

Matt Schneider is the creator of the PurpleSlurple purple numbering proxy, which will add Purple Numbers to any (well, most) documents on the Web. PurpleSlurple deserves a lot of credit for spreading the meme.    (1GM)

Mike Mell implemented Purple Numbers in ZWiki for last year’s Planetwork Conference (see ZWiki:ZwikiAndPurpleNumbers), which in turn influenced the evolution of Purple Numbers in PurpleWiki. Mike and Matt have both experimented with JavaScript for making the numbers less intrusive.    (1GN)

The latest version of the Compendium Dialogue Mapping tool exports HTML maps with Purple Numbers.    (1GO)

In addition to Murray, Matt, and Mike, several other members of the Blue Oxen Associates Collaboration Collaboratory have contributed to the evolution of Purple Numbers, especially Peter Jones, Jack Park, and Bill Seitz. In addition to his contributions to the technical and philosophical discussions, Peter wrote the hilarious Hymn of the Church Of Purple and excerpts of the Book of the Church Of Purple.    (1GP)

Finally, many good folks in the blogosphere have helped spread the meme in many subtle ways, particularly those noted connectors Seb Paquet and Clay Shirky.    (1GQ)

Evangelism and The Big Picture    (1GR)

Okay, that last section was starting to sound like an award acceptance speech, and although none of us have won any awards, one thing is clear: The contributions of many have vastly improved this simple, but valuable tool. I’m hoping that momentum picks up even more with these recent perturbances. I’m especially heartened to see experiments for improving the look-and-feel.    (1GS)

I want to quibble with one thing that Chris Dent said in his most recent account. (When we have distributed Purple Numbers, I’ll be able to transclude it, but for now, you’ll just have to live with the cut-and-paste):    (1GT)

When he [Eugene] and I got together to do PurpleWiki, we were primarily shooting for granular addressability. Once we got that working, I started getting all jazzed about somehow, maybe, someday, being able to do Transclusion. Eugene was into the idea but I felt somehow that he didn’t quite get it. Since then we’ve implemented Transclusion and new people have come along with ideas of things to do that I’m sure I don’t quite get, but are probably a next step that will be great.    (1GU)

There are many things I don’t quite get, but Transclusions are not one of them, at least at the level we first implemented them. That’s okay, though. Ted Nelson felt the same way about my understanding of Transclusions as Chris did, although for different reasons. (And, I suspect that Ted would have had the same opinions of Chris.) I mention this here not so much because I want to correct the record, but because it gives me an excuse to tell some anecdotes and to reveal a bit about myself.    (1GV)

Anyone who knows Doug Engelbart knows that he complains a lot. The beauty of being an acknowledged pioneer and visionary is that people pay attention, even if they they don’t think much of those complaints. When I first began working with Doug in early 2000, I would occasionally write up small papers and put them on the Web. Doug would complain that they didn’t have Purple Numbers. At the time, I recognized the value of granular addresses, but didn’t think they were worth the trouble to add them to my documents. I also didn’t think they were the “right” solution. Nevertheless, because Doug was Doug, I decided to throw him a bone. So I spent a few hours writing Purple (most of which was spent learning XSLT), and started posting documents with Purple Numbers.    (1GW)

Then, a funny thing happened. I got used to them. I got so used to them, I wanted them everywhere.    (1GX)

A few people just get Purple Numbers right away. Murray was probably the first of those not originally in the Engelbart crowd to do so; Chris followed soon thereafter, as did Matt. The vast majority of folks get the concept, but don’t really find them important until they start using them. Then, like me, they want them everywhere. Getting people past that first step is crucial.    (1GY)

A few nights ago, I had a late night conversation with Gabe Wachob (chair of the OASIS XRI committee) on IRC. (This eventually led to a conversation between Chris and me, which led to Chris’s blog entry, which led to Tim discovering Purple Numbers, which led to this entry. Think Out Loud is an amazing thing.) Gabe knew what Purple Numbers were, but hadn’t thought twice about them. I had wanted to ask him some questions about using XRI addresses as identifiers, and in order to do so, I gave him a quick demonstration of Transclusions. The light bulb went off; all of a sudden, he really, truly got it.    (1GZ)

Richard Gabriel, one of our advisors, is well known for his Worse Is Better essays (among other things). I think Purple Numbers are an outstanding example of Worse Is Better. They fulfill an immediate need, and they cause us to think more deeply about some of the underlying issues. I’d like to see Purple Numbers all over the place, but I’d also like to see a group of deep thinkers and tinkerers consider and evolve the concept. It’s part of a larger philosophy that I like to call The Blue Oxen Way.    (1H0)

This last point is extremely important. Chris has thankfully been a much more enthusiastic evangelist of Purple Numbers than I have, and in the past he’s called me “ambivalent” about Purple Numbers. That’s not so far from the truth. It’s not that I’m any less enthusiastic about Purple Numbers themselves — I am a card-carrying member of the Church Of Purple, and the current attention and potential for wider usage thrill me. However, I’m cautious about evangelizing Purple Numbers, because I don’t want people to get too caught up in the tool itself and forget about the bigger picture. It’s the reason I didn’t mention Purple Numbers at all in my manifesto.    (1H1)

At the Planetwork forum two weeks ago, Fen Labalme, Victor Grey, and I gave the first public demo of a working Identity Commons Single Sign-On system. We were tickled pink by the demo, which to everyone else looked just like any other login system. The reason we were so excited was that we knew the system used an underlying infrastructure that would eventually enable much greater things. The demo itself, unfortunately, didn’t convey that to anyone who didn’t already understand this.    (1H2)

I’m probably a bit oversensitive about this sort of thing, and I’m constantly seeking better balance. But it’s always in the back of my mind. When I talk to people about Blue Oxen Associates, I usually spend more time talking about the sociological aspect of collaboration rather than the tools, even though I have plenty to say about the latter. Can Purple Numbers make the world a better place? I truly, honestly, believe that they can. (This is a topic for another day.) But when I see groups that excel in collaboration (or conversely, those that stink at it), Purple Numbers are usually the furthest thing from my mind. Much more important is the need to identify and understand these patterns of collaboration (of which tool usage is an important part).    (1H3)

Transclusions, Path-Based Addressing, and Version Control

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

The PurpleWiki community has been rumbling recently, thanks largely to the contributions of two members of the Canonical Hackers, Jason Cook and Matthew O’Connor. Jason wrote perplog, an IRC logger that supports Purple Numbers and Transclusions. Matthew hacked a PurpleWiki node manager, then started adding and fixing other stuff, including an XML-RPC interface. Additionally, John Sechrest developed an experimental email interface to PurpleWiki. Lots of great stuff. It’s forcing us to get off our butts and make some long-promised changes and explain some long-undocumented things. Open Source is a wonderful thing.    (117)

A lot of the excitement is because of PurpleWiki‘s support for Transclusions. We had Transclusions in mind when we architected PurpleWiki, but we (or I, at least) didn’t think Transclusions would actually be implemented until much later. However, exactly one year ago today, Chris Dent got the itch and started playing. A few months later, Chris committed some code, and suddenly, we had Transclusions. It was a total hack, but it worked, and it was unexpectedly cool.    (118)

It’s still a hack, and it needs to be cleaned up, but it’s suddenly become a higher priority. First, we have a pretty good idea of how to support Transclusions “correctly.” Second, having had the chance to use Transclusions regularly, we are starting to recognize their utility and want to take greater advantage of that. (See, for example, my early specs for Abelard.) Third, people are starting to get excited about them.    (119)

Transcluding Multiple Chunks    (11A)

Currently, we support Transclusions of individual nodes (paragraphs, headers, list items, etc.) via the following syntax:    (11B)

  [t nid]    (11C)

where nid is the ID of the node you want to transclude. This works fine when you want to transclude small chunks, but at times, it’s useful to be able to transclude multiple chunks on a page. Rather than specify a transclusion for each individual node, it would be nice to have a syntax for specifying a collection of nodes in a single transclusion.    (11D)

Chris proposed the following syntax:    (11E)

  [t nid,nid,nid,...]    (11F)

This is problematic. The current implementation suggests that the transclusion command be replaced by the content identified by the specified NID. This proposal suggests that the command be replaced by both the content and the structure of the content. If you had a document like:    (11G)

  = Plan for World Domination {nid 1} =    (11H)
  # Finish PurpleWiki. {nid 2}    (11I)

and you tried to transclude this content with:    (11J)

  * [t 1, 2]    (11K)

what is the parser supposed to translate this to?    (11L)

A proper solution must be treated as its own structural element within a PurpleWiki document. More importantly, the syntax should capture document-specific context. This contrasts with the current syntax, which ignores document context entirely.    (11M)

Why is document context important? Suppose you have the following task list:    (11N)

  = To Do {nid 3} =    (11O)
  * Buy milk. {nid 4}   * Feed iguana. {nid 5}   * Implement distributed Transclusions. {nid 6}   * Vote in primaries. {nid 7}   * Expose API to Backlinks. {nid 8}    (11P)

Suppose you want to start a PurpleWiki-specific task list, transcluding all of the list items relevant to PurpleWiki (in this case, nodes 6 and 8). The resulting document might look like:    (11Q)

  {title PurpleWikiToDo}    (11R)
  = PurpleWiki To Do {nid 9} =    (11S)
  * [t 6] {nid A}   * [t 8] {nid B}    (11T)

Now, suppose you want to replicate this task list on another page. You could transclude all of the items individually, just as you do on the PurpleWiki To Do page. In this case, a slight variation of Chris’s proposed syntax (a standalone structural element) would simplify that process. (It also raises an interesting question: Which NIDs do you use for the transclusions: 6 and 8, or A and B? Does it make a difference?)    (11U)

However, what I really want to do is say, “Transclude all of the list items on the ‘PurpleWiki To Do’ page.” For this, you want something like XPointer:    (11V)

  [transclude PurpleWikiToDo#xpointer(id("9")/li)]    (11W)

A few observations: First, the command should be on a line by itself, and it should be interpreted as an independent structural element that will be replaced by a set of structural elements and content. I used “transclude” instead of “t” to make the point that these are two different commands. Second, the Transclusion command specifies a range of nodes within a document, as opposed to a document-independent list of nodes. Third, this combines a path-based address with an ID-based address.    (11X)

Fourth (and this is an implementation detail), if we want to support such syntax, it would behoove us to use an XML data model rather than the home grown model we’re currently using. This way, we could easily plug in existing XPointer implementations to do the queries.    (11Y)

Version Control    (11Z)

The fact that Wiki pages are dynamic throws a kink into all of this. The syntax I propose above takes this into account for the most part. Barring major changes to the PurpleWiki To Do page, the transcluded content will include all of the PurpleWiki tasks, even if more items are added later. If you had to list a set of NIDs, then you would have to be diligent about updating that list manually every time the To Do page changed.    (120)

In addition to supporting path-based addressing, we also need to allow people to specify versions in the address. In other words, you may want to transclude a specific version of a node or a set of nodes from a specific version of a document.    (121)

This shouldn’t be too difficult, but there are some complications. The biggie is whether to transclude a node if the node no longer exists in any document. My instinct right now is telling me that yes, it should, but it should make it clear somehow that it’s an orphan node. (See my previous entry on link integrity for more on this.)    (122)

Blog Backlinks Enabled on PurpleWiki

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

If you view the Backlinks on any of my Wiki pages, it will now display Backlinks from both the Wiki and also this blog. For example, if you view the backlinks to “DougEngelbart”, you will see a list of all of my Wiki pages and blog entries that mention Doug.    (SG)

The beautiful thing about this feature is that it maintains context for all of the different concepts described on my Wiki. I list several Patterns on my Wiki, with some level of detail on each page. But when you look at the Backlinks to those Patterns, you see a list of all the stories where the Patterns are mentioned. I tell the stories as I have before, and the tool explicitly ties the concept to the stories that describe the context. That’s augmentation! As Chris Dent said, it “makes the universe bigger.”    (SH)

My essay, Wikis As Topic Maps, describes this phenomenon in further (and slightly more technical) detail.    (SI)

Open Source At Work    (SJ)

How this feature finally became implemented is a wonderful example of what makes Open Source so great. We’ve wanted it for a while, but didn’t have time to implement it. Last month, I started thinking more seriously about implementing the feature, because I wanted to demonstrate it to some potential clients. Unfortunately, I was swamped, and didn’t have time to do it myself.    (SK)

David Fannin to the rescue. David had installed PurpleWiki and the MovableType plugin, and liked it. However, he also wanted the Backlink feature. So, he wrote it, and contributed it back to us. Neither Chris nor I nor anyone else in the small PurpleWiki community knew David beforehand, but as you can imagine, we welcomed his contribution.    (SL)

David’s patch was just a hack. Chris had some ideas for refactoring the PurpleWiki code to better integrate this feature. So, he implemented them, and released a preview of the code. Chris’s refactoring made it very easy for me to write a similar plugin for blosxom. Suddenly, we had the feature I had been pining for.    (SM)

As an aside, I had grander plans for how to implement this feature, and those plans haven’t gone away. (See my notes on TPVortex for a preview.) The important thing is, David and Chris’s approach worked. It may not do all of the whiz bang things I eventually want it to do, but it does what I want it to do right now. More importantly, it may very well inspire others to implement some of the grander ideas. Release Early And Often is an extremely important pattern of Open Source development, because it enables collaboration, which accelerates the implementation and dissemination of ideas.    (SN)

Precedence    (SO)

Ours is not the first integrated Wiki and blog. Notable precedents include Kwiki and Bill Seitz‘s Wiki Log. These tools all had the integrated Backlinks feature before we did.    (SP)

The key difference between these tools and ours is that they require you to use a single tool. You have to use Kwiki as both your blogging tool and Wiki to get all of the features. Our approach integrates PurpleWiki with MovableType, blosxom, and conceivably any other blogging tool. This is consistent with our overall philosophy of improving interoperability between tools using Doug Engelbart‘s ideas as a unifying framework.    (SQ)

We’ve only taken baby steps so far. We plan bigger and better things. More importantly, we want to encourage other tool developers to adopt a similar approach, and to collaborate with each other to do so.    (SR)

Battling Group Think

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

Geoff Cohen asked:    (PM)

As we build different kinds of groupware/social software, what’s the role of consensus, and how powerful is it? Does software make reaching consensus easier or harder? For purely message-driven systems like email lists or USENET, consensus is much harder to reach than it would be in a real-life meeting. But once consensus is reached, breaking that consensus often brings down the flames of wrath. All of this is somehow invisibly coded in the interstices of the software architecture and human nature.    (PN)

…    (PO)

Could we architect social software that fought groupthink? Or does it just make the gravitational attraction of consensus, even flawed consensus, ever so much more irresistable?    (PP)

Seb Paquet responded:    (PQ)

I think the key to avoiding unhealthy levels of groupthink has to do with designing spaces that consistently exert pull upon outsiders (or social hackers or community straddlers), so as to keep the air fresh.    (PR)

…    (PS)

I think the blogosphere exhibits this kind of “outsider pull” much more than topic-focused forums.    (PT)

…    (PU)

But what about action? A diverse group has fewer blind spots, but on the other hand, agreement in such a group can be harder to establish, so there is a real possibility that the group will go nowhere beyond conversation. Is a core of agreed-upon ideas necessary for group action to take place? I think so. Does this mean that group action requires groupthink? Not necessarily, because some people are able to act upon ideas without believing in them so strongly they can no longer challenge them.    (PV)

Ross Mayfield added:    (PW)

He [Seb] is right that groupthink is avoided by a social network structure that allows a dynamic and diverse periphery to provide new ideas, but the core of the network needs to be tightly bound to be able to take action.    (PX)

That’s the main point of Building Sustainable Communities through Network Building by Valdis Krebs and June Holley.    (PY)

…    (PZ)

The ideal core/periphery structure affords a densely linked core and a dynamic periphery. One pattern for social software that supports this is an intimacy gradient (privacy/openness), to allow the core some privacy for backchanneling. But this requires ridiculously easy group forming, as the more hardened the space the more hard-nosed its occupants become.    (Q0)

Finally, Bill Seitz commented:    (Q1)

I think a shared mission is necessary. Whether that amounts to groupthink is a fair question.    (Q2)

There are a goldmine of ideas here, and the discussion is highly relevant to issues currently faced by the Collaboration Collaboratory. I’ll address them one at a time.    (Q3)

Group Think Versus Group Action    (Q4)

Bill’s comment points to the crux of the matter. What qualifies as Group Think or Group Action? We’ve discussed this question a lot at Blue Oxen Associates. In our upcoming research report, we draw a distinction between bounded and unbounded goals, and individual and collective goals. Generally, having shared unbounded goals is enough to constitute group alignment, but having shared bounded goals is required before you can call an effort “collaboration.”    (Q5)

The larger the group, the harder it is to define a shared, bounded goal that every group member will endorse. A good example of where this happens are elections. In the case of Howard Dean supporters, for example, the community is defined by a universally shared, bounded goal — voting Dean for president in 2004. As we’ve seen in the Dean case, having that universally shared, bounded goal was a galvanizing force for a previously unseen community of progressives in this country.    (Q6)

For large groups, I don’t think it’s necessary to have universally shared, bounded goals, although it’s nice when it happens. It’s enough to have small subgroups sharing different bounded goals, as long as they do not conflict with the unbounded goals, which must be universally shared.    (Q7)

The Intimacy Gradient Pattern    (Q8)

An aside on terminology: Intimacy Gradient is an excellent name for the phenomenon I first tried to describe in a previous blog entry, where I introduced the Think Out Loud and Whine In Private patterns. The problem I had in describing the Whine In Private pattern was that some spaces — blogs being the best example — felt like private forums, but were actually public. So people whining on their blogs are not actually Whining In Private; they just feel like they are.    (Q9)

Ross also used the term Backchannel, which I had also recently noted in my Wiki as a good name to describe this mostly private, but partially public space.    (QA)

Community Boundaries    (QB)

One of the founding principles of the Blue Oxen Collaboratories is that the products of the discussion and interaction should all be freely available to everyone. This is why the mailing list archives are publically available, even if participation is restricted to members.    (QC)

There is an Intimacy Gradient pattern involved here. There is a small barrier to entry to participate in tight-knit discussions, which makes the environment more conducive to parlor-style conversations. On the other hand, anyone can benefit from the resulting knowledge, which is our ultimate goal. Our hope is that the collaboratories act as a substrate for a much larger conversation.    (QD)

This has already begun to happen, and blogs play a key role. Bill Seitz, Chris Dent, Danny Ayers, and I have all blogged about discussions on the Collaboration Collaboratory, which expands the conversation to a larger group. The side effects include countering Group Think, as Seb suggests, and also attracting new members who want to participate more directly in the lower-level interactions. Similarly, we mention these blogs on the mailing lists, so the collaboratory members are aware of the larger conversation, thus completing the circle.    (QE)

Are there hidden costs to these Intimacy Gradients? Absolutely. Examples of blogs being read by the “wrong” audiences abound. Gregory Rawlins became a victim when he made some choice comments about another programmer’s software on a private, but publically archived list. (Sorry, Greg, but I always get a good laugh when I reread this.)    (QF)

Nevertheless, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides. I recently joined Howard Rheingold‘s Brainstorms community, and have wanted to link to some of the discussions there, but couldn’t. It’s unfortunate, because those linkages are lost, but it’s a tradeoff I understand. Finding the right balance is tricky.    (QG)

How Open Should Wikis Be?    (QH)

Our original intention with the Wikis on the Blue Oxen Collaboratories was to treat them the same as the mailing lists — restrict writing to members, but allow anyone to read the content. However, we did not configure our Wikis that way, mainly because we couldn’t — UseModWiki doesn’t have this feature — and it was low on list of things to hack. (See PurpleWiki:RoadMap.)    (QI)

Based on our experiences with this configuration and further examination of other Wikis, I’m reluctant to change this model now. One potential compromise is to require registration to write to the Wikis, but to make registration free. The difference between this and simply allowing anyone to click on “Edit This” is subtle, but significant. I’m still a bit undecided on this issue, although I seem to be leaning in favor of extreme openness. The reason for this is simply that we’ve had some interesting contributions and comments to the Wikis that probably would not have been made if there were even the slightest barriers to entry. Again, it’s a good safeguard against Group Think.    (QJ)

This issue recently cropped up again, because both the PurpleWiki and Collaboration Collaboratory Wikis were vandalized for the first time. Chris Dent discovered the act first and quickly fixed it, noting, “In a way this is sort of a good sign. Infamy is almost as good as fame….” My reaction was, “Good catch, by the way. A good sign of a healthy Wiki is how quickly the community fixes vandalism.” Notable in both of our reactions was that we simply fixed the problem and moved on, instead of rushing to implement access control.    (QK)

John Sechrest, however, suggested that access control was exactly what the Wikis needed, which led to some interesting philosophical debate about the openness of Wikis. My response to John wasn’t very deep, but it does sum up my feelings on the matter: “Wikis are successful because the cost to contribute are zero. There are downsides, but there are also upsides. Get rid of one, you also lose the other.”    (QL)