Large Scale Collaborative Editing 218
An anonymous reader writes "3D17.org is a website designed to allow large-scale collaborative document editing. Unlike tools like Wiki, any changes made to a 3D17 document must go-through a moderation-like voting process to see which should be applied to the document. Possible applications include allowing a large community to draft letters, emails, and faxes in a way that everyone can contribute. 3D17 even eats its own dogfood - its FAQ can be user-modified just like any other document."
Re:boring (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll take a wiki with revision history over a voting process any day.
Re:boring (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine this would be used for documents on a much larger timescale than what we're used to. For instance, slashdot is an instant medium. But there are certainly comments that are out of place, wrong, or that the author wishes could be taken back. I see this at the far other end of the scale. No one will use this for quick communication on a large scale. But important, long standing but fluid documents would be a perfect match.
On a smaller scale, it would be useful for a 10 member board to create a fax rather quickly without too much molasses slowing them down like a multi-thousand member group.
I think it has a lot of good applications.
Re:3D17? (Score:5, Interesting)
D = D
1 = I
7 = T
Tried it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Something more like CVS would be useful, where you can have different edits on different areas going at the same time, and the vote process could merge them together. Then again, perhaps for text that isn't as useful as code. But without such a feature, it's hard to call this "massive" collaborative documents, as the pending change list could easily spiral out of control.
Re:A serious question... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the only way for a better document to be created by a group is to have an exceptional moderator/coordinator at the helm, who values the solution that is in the middle of the table, rather from one of the involved parties, including himself.
Very rare indeed.
Question: structured documents with collective inp (Score:2, Interesting)
Wiki's seem good, but they miss one important aspect, structure to the documents. Details about plants neetly fall in to a number of catagories Latin/Botanical name, Common name, growing habit, etc. What I'd like to do is take wiki type concept but add more structure to the data. This could help with searching. Also some fields such as height have numeric values and it would be great to search for plants with a specific height.
Anyone come across such ideas or software which could do such a thing?
BTW I'm suprised how down most slashdotters are on colaborative documents. There are some really good colaborative encyclopedia around wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Planet Math [planetmath.org]. So whats wrong with OpenContent!
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:3D17? (Score:3, Interesting)