Talk:Massively distributed collaboration

message: Happy to talk about any part of the article, here. I've been looking, for some time, for a term and a concept which might cover what Wikipedia and econferences are developing, in terms of archival and useful information as well as discussion, and I now figure that "massively distributed collaboration" on content creation is it.
Anybody more hypertext-inclined than I am might rail that such a blanket term is not needed. But some of us are hierarchically-inclined, too -- DOS users -- and need a blanket. So that's my own motivation, in posting this. I'd like to see how the term scales up as Wikipedia & the rest do, too.
--Kessler 00:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

message: I removed some categories per Wikipedia:Categorization, and that most articles have at most half the number of categories, and some of the categories very clearly didn't fit.  Explanation for some of them are given below:
*:Category:Automation — while anything written in software could be considered to be automated, automation defines it more as "replacing human operators", especially in an industrial setting.  This article doesn't seem to fit with those.
*:Category:Manufacturing, :Category:Law, :Category:International relations, :Category:War, :Category:Economics — things that could be discussed on a wiki/blog/website/etc, but aren't integral to the definition of massively distributed collaboration.
*:Category:Computer science — again, wikis/blogs/etc are written in software, but the category deals with a narrower range of things (algorithms, data structures, etc)
*:Category:Internet terminology — this category seems to deal more with dictionary/glossary definitions, and not  larger things like blogs or wikis
--Interiot 04:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some categories 

message: Just added in some "See also": finding interesting-sounding examples of mdc/massively distributed collaboration, also tools for same -- some of it old wine in new bottle, but the point of the mdc label I think is to see the pre-existing work in a new way. I'm not sure about the "democracy" of all of this, for instance, so it seems testing examples is the best way to try that out.
--Kessler 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also additions 

message: The article List of largest wikis was listed for deletion about a week ago.  It has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace.  I've replaced the wikilink with an external link so that mirrored copies of this article will still link correctly. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:List of largest wikis]]

message: I'm copying this note, which appeared on the main article page, and made no sense to me:
Note: The point of an "encyclopedic" article, here, is both to develop a definition which will clarify what is going on -- in wikis, and international science publication and collaboration, and Globalization business, and transnational NGO etc. resistance to (or promotion of) same, and the rest, with examples and links — and to develop an overall understanding of the new "collaborative" content-creation processes now emerging online... all of them... changing that understanding as the tools and applications change... Not just a definition, or a list of tools and applications, but an article attempting to generalize from that and describe this new and very promising sort of resource, one increasingly provided by the Nets.
Anyone want to fix the problem? 129.98.212.58 01:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See this "note" (?)

message: Some very disordered thinking has gone into this.  And what's with all the ellipses?
The style of this article is far too conversational; in fact, it reads as if it were a "talk" page. Notability guidelines appear to be breached, too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article makes no sense.