ConversationMode can be seen as a

• ThreadMode in the style of literary drama/play, with the name of the speaker before his text. For an example look at the section "Conversation" below. ConversationMode is an alternative to traditional signed contributions. This is not wiki tradition but may offer advantages in some situations.

• WikiNomics mode that integrates
  • synchronizing the work of open collaboration partners, inviting more to give a helping hand (BarnRaising)
  • poor man's payable publicity for their Open Business (HoofSmith, CluetrainManifesto)

Variations:

• a date or timestamp can be added in parentheses after the name of the speaker.
• the name of the speaker may be abbreviated when it comes repeatedly.
• the conversation can be distributed over several wikis, bilinked and connected by ConceptMaps, Google:DebateGraphs (for public, transparent conflict resolutions) and SocialAnnotations.
• ..

Pros:

• it may be more intuitive to newcomers. (it is the notation of drama/plays/filmscripts)
• technically, one can read the text linearly (without eyes jumping forward and backward), and always know who is speaking/writing
• it may feel more colloquial, because it suggests that the text is spoken, not written.
• it is one character less to write (colon instead of "--")
• it can be developed into a superior Twitter alternative, due to its more expressive CommunityWiki:LinkLanguage, harnessing the power of wiki itself
• ..

Cons:

• it not in the wiki tradition.
• it is slightly more work to go to DocumentMode starting with ConversationMode than if you start with DiscussionMode (normal ThreadMode).
• it seems not very humble, to put ones name in front.
• ...

Conversation

HelmutLeitner: I think FridemarPache introduced this form of ThreadMode to the meatball wiki. You put your name and a colon in front of your contribution. It's uncommon for many wikizens who are used to signing their contributions at the end. But, it is very intuitive for people that have little or no experience with the internet, IT or the history of mail systems. Remember that wiki signing just follows the standard of signing mails, displaying this in standard wiki rendering: the "-- " line and the name line are joined to the preceding paragraph. This is pretty freaky. I wouldn't suggest to through over wiki traditions in general, or to use this as a new standard, but I think it could be used where those involved prefer it. Note that this is the standard notation of dramas/plays. In addition: on a wiki that I created for a group of 20 non-technical people, this notation formed spontaneously as a group standard (they even add the date in parantheses after the name). I take this as an indicator that this notation is intuitive.

FridemarPache: Helmut, thank you for showing appreciation of this notion as intuitive. Actually the credit for this format goes to the CommunityWiki, where I learned to appreciate it. The TechnologySolution of signed contributions puts the author's portrait, their signature and timestamp to the left, giving it a natural feeling. In the real world, if persons start a conversation with each other, they first see each other before the talk begins or as well, when new utterances start, signaled by some body sign language.

Lion, if I remember right, you extensively reflected on this style and showed it as superiour to ThreadMode, could you please give a link.

LionKimbro: CommunityWiki is a very particular case, because we made a whole different AlexSchroeder coded a [new::YourNameHere] system that puts your picture on the left, and alternates background colors to accent difference of contributions. Also, we have a very strong doctrine favoring turn-based conversation to interrupted conversation. See: CommunityWiki:TurnBasedVsInterruptedThreadMode. This may be the argument you are thinking of?

FridemarPache: Thank you for the link and your friendly unobtrusive reformulation in your part, that helped me to improve my wording and let me add the 'real world' part argument.

LionKimbro: Personally, on wiki without features like that -- I have no real preference for "sign before" or "sign after." Sign before does seem to me to be clearer, because you see the name of who's talking, and you have a clear marker of where one person's expression begins. (Sometimes, looking through these threads, I have to scan the ends of paragraphs, which can be situated anywhere horizontally on the page, in order to find the name, and then do again for the paragraph before, in order to isolate the beginning of a particular expression.) But then again, I can usually tell anyway just by what's being said, and the signature serves as a clarification if necessary. I do favor some form of signing over no signing, which I find inevitably confuses me, at one point or another.

FridemarPache: Lion, as I've been reading a lot of wiki stuff, I can confirm, that I made the same experience with scanning for names. (Yesterday, when I did some housekeeping on my Wiki homepage, refactoring into prefix signatures, I detected, that I had missed to give a thank you to somebody's favor. Another argument, supporting MarkDilley, is given on WikiNomics). Besides that, refactoring a signature prefixed conversation (<-> Wiki:RefactorWhileRespectingSignatures) is much easier, if the conversation-partners don't leave the burden to housekeepers. WikiPageCarers. At hindsight, I now can appreciate this concept, for which CommunityWiki has found an appealing name, can you help me to put it here?

LionKimbro: Are you referencing the CommunityWiki:PageMaintainer concept? A solution to the CommunityWiki:SocialReworkingDilemma?

FridemarPache: Thanks Lion yes, it's a pleasure to have you as a conversation partner.

..:..