This is a proposal for a BranchingWiki that would allow independent groups of people to participate in overlapping domains.
Each group could define an AuthorizedCopy of any page, create their own micro-sites, and control their membership.
Proposed Praxis
"... the technical branch-and-merge is not the problem, it's the embedding of more complex technology into a social practise that you have to invent and foster ..." -- HelmutLeitner
According to WikiWay, "The single and total goal of the Wiki Way is the cohesion, coherence, preservation, and advancement of the wiki itself." When the WikiProject is to collaborate around a thematic focus, or encyclopaedic-knowledge, then a simpler WikiEngine will be more appropriate than AutonomiWiki.
The extra complexity of AutonomiWiki will become appropriate when the WikiMission is to form independent CommunitiesOfPractice, where it is most important to serve the needs of the community members, and advance their process of learning; the preservation of any institutions is incidental, so the WikiIsIncidental. Rather than IncidentalCollaboration, it is often useful to have formal membership (especially in MeatSpace groups with limited physical resources). For example, a network of WikiPedia:Housing_association""s or WikiPedia:Intentional_communities may want to provide wikis that are shared by their residents. They will rarely aim to expand their own membership, but often want to collectively publish information about themselves in a creative way that is inspiring to others, but perhaps cannot commit to continuously maintain it on their own. Similarly, in political AffinityGroups, the aims are often to keep membership low, maximise participation within the group, maintain independence, and form networks of trust.
AutonomiWiki could be put into practice by initially replacing static websites (or ContentManagementSystems) that are currently used by small groups. It could replace the use of unified wikis for political networks that are made up of AffinityGroups. AutonomiWiki has the benefit that its HardSecurity can be disabled by group members, and in practice we should persuade all groups to voluntarily do this at times when their community has sufficiently large membership, or friendly outside support, with the time and energy to keep the information maintained (to standards that their members have defined).
Proposed features
The special features of AutonomiWiki include:
- Branching and merging page versions or forking an entire wiki;
- Forking a wiki onto a different web host;
- The ability to create ConsensusGroups, which control their own membership; and
- The ability to create a Protected Branch of any page, which is only editable with the consent of a specific group
Branching, merging, or forking wiki pages are already discussed in VersionHistory. AutonomiWiki will take full advantage of versioning by making it highly visible, and adding the benefit of Protected Branches.
Highly visible versioning
The version history will not be hidden away; instead there will be obvious ways to create and navigate between parallel versions. This will promote diversity, and avoid giving visitors the impression that there is any 'official' Trunk or Mainline version. We could display a visualisation of the branches, or include prominent statistics and links to other versions.
ConsensusGroups
In AutonomiWiki people can form groups and agree their own rules or collective policy. If they choose, they can set membership conditions, agree the duties and responsibilities for CommunityMembers, and admit or exclude people as they see fit. People can also fork information from an existing group, and modify it to fit their needs.
To make their identities visible, each group could define a logo or distinctive graphical style that would be applied to their Protected Branches.
Protected Branches
New branches of a wiki page could (optionally or temporarily) be protected by one of the ConsensusGroups, so that only group members can edit it. This will enable a group to keep control over a stream of page versions, and these could be linked together to create a protected PageCluster stream.
While the specific branches are protected, the pages are not, so non-members can create additional branches to include their changes, or to incorporate the text into their own groups.
How does AutonomiWiki compare to TeaTime?
The motivations and intended audiences differ. AutonomiWiki does appear to be technically very similar to TeaTime (including some of the early proposed features -- see the off-the-cuff thoughts mentioned in http://virtualteatime.blogspot.com/2009/02/wikipedia.html). A crucial difference is that TeaTime uses a copyright mechanism similar to Meatball's, so that copies of text are made only by the on-going (default allowed) permission of the authors, while in AutonomiWiki, the required permission is granted in advance by the copyright license notice.
How does AutonomiWiki compare to ViewPoint?
The premise of ViewPoint is that writing should be refined by a privileged group of editors in order to be sufficiently interesting to attract readers. The writers' submissions are made into a public domain 'slush pile' and are merged and presented by an individual editor, who is supposed to gain recognition from visitors, eventually providing an 'authoritative channel' for other peoples' writing.
In contrast, AutonomiWiki assumes its private groups are CommunitiesOfPractice that will actually be interesting in themselves (for example, they might be radical AffinityGroups). In their private branches, the groups can present information about their organisation and communicate about their activity -- perhaps this is what's meant by OrganizationalKnowledge? If they choose to control their group membership, and share responsibility to collectively control their own page versions, then the Protected Branches can become a definitive source of information about the group itself.
How does AutonomiWiki compare to a ReviewedWiki?
ReviewedWiki is much simpler, because there are only two versions: the authoritative 'reviewed' one, and the editable draft. There is a problem though (from the perspective of SocialAutonomy) because there is a binary HierArchy between the "review authority" and the "regular or new users".
Actually the AutonomiWiki is an adaption of a ReviewedWiki, but it effectively has multiple review authorities (defined by the private groups), and it eliminates the hierarchy by giving all branches equal status -- There is no MAIN version.
Why not use a separate wiki for each group?
New wikis need a critical mass of users, so are difficult for groups with low- or intermittent-activity to maintain. To reduce maintenance, their wiki could be created in a managed WikiFarm, but the group will likely get locked-in unless they have the ability to export the data and host their own wiki, in which case they typically need a WebMaster or administrators to configure it. So the group either becomes dependent on a single host, or they concentrate SysOp responsibility on a few members. These are not ideal for SocialAutonomy.
AutonomiWiki will try to solve this with a minimum-configuration WikiEngine that can be trivially installed, backed up, and 'forked between hosts'. RecentChanges could be federated to allow a group to move to a new location, while still interacting with other groups on the previous host.
Appropriate Uses for AutonomiWiki
It might be appropriate to create groups and private branches when:
- The short-term accuracy of communication from (and within) an autonomous group is more important than gradual improvement of the information.
- It is more important to have shared responsibility for the information (within the group) than to encourage wider PeerReview.
- The private communities have a culture of commitment to group interests, but might be less concerned about 'high-quality' online publication (CommunityOverContent).
- The community members have limited web access, or do not regularly have time online to maintain quality and revert spam.
- A RealWorld community that uses collective organisation, and consensus decision-making, wants to give every member equal privileges when they are online too.
- The group are happy to see forking and diversification of information, rather than unifying development.
- The group publish radical opinions, or creative expression, with no intention of having online arguments with visitors, and don't pretend to present a NeutralPointOfView.
- Some specific group- or project-related information is presented, rather than creating a WikiForum or sharing information with a broad theme.
Weaknesses
- The VersionHistory may become complex and confusing; it might be hard to design a sufficiently intuitive interface.
- If there is a proliferation of separate communities, it may reduce the coherence of their practice.
- In weak CommunitiesOfPractice, closed group membership could inhibit entry and participation.
- Valuable information may become buried in the revision tree.
- The ability to create 'alternate versions' may not be as satisfying as editing a page directly, and could reduce contributors' SenseOfEfficacy.
- It is less possible to ForgiveAndForgetInSoftware when groups can make protected branches of each others' pages.
Buzzwords
AutonomiWiki is a BranchingWiki with specialised HardSecurity that is supposed to protect visitors' autonomy, rather than protect the knowledge-base. It is intended for CommunitiesOfPractice and based on an ideal of SocialAutonomy, so might be best for AntiAuthoritarian groups. The AutonomiWiki will try to DevolvePower, limit the PoliceForce, not define formal positions to DelegateResponsibility for decision-making. It will enable people to make their own GatedCommunities, but it won't define any formal group leaders or representatives. It will protect the RightToFork (for everyone equally) so it will require RadicalTransparency and a copyright license that allows derivative works.