An experiment in mass collaboration
Wil McCarthy
the round robin and the shared world. Round robins always turn into an
exercise in writing the next guy into a corner, which can be funny but
rarely makes for good fiction. Shared worlds are usually more
interesting, but they're also kaleidoscopic by nature, lacking a single
unified storyline. In the absence of a firm editorial hand, it's also
still possible for one writer to box the others in.
So, I'm trying something different.
A wiki interface has the potential to eliminate the problems of other
mass collaborations by allowing everyone to edit what anyone else has
done, including rolling the whole thing back to an earlier version. This
may turn out to be a terrible idea, but there doesn't seem to be much to
lose by experimenting with it.
If anyone is interested, check out:
< http://sciencewiktion.wikidot.com/ >
The text is all publicly readable, but to edit you need to join the wiki
as a member. There is also a link from the front page of my website.
--
Wil McCarthy < http://www.wilmccarthy.com >
Engineer, Columnist, Author, etc.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -- Francis Bacon
Zeborah
> There are really only two kinds of story-by-committee that I'm aware of:
> the round robin and the shared world. Round robins always turn into an
> exercise in writing the next guy into a corner, which can be funny but
> rarely makes for good fiction.
Not always; the only one I've participated in worked out just fine. The
styles came out a bit hodgepodge, but that could have been editable if
we'd cared to.
(Oh, wait, I participated in another one that never got finished, but
that was due to Real Life interfering, not people being written into a
corner. We managed the style issue in that one with each of us three
authors taking a different point of view character.)
I presume you're restricting 'by committee' to 3+ writers; there are
many more ways that 2 writers can manage it. One I've used with my
sister is to sit down on the couch, get in a really silly mood, and...
well, it involves someone tossing out sentences and someone rephrasing
them and both agreeing and one typing, but it's a seamless enough
process that if one may count verbal communication as telepathy that
it's almost a hivemind approach.
Doing that with 3+ people would require some very compatible people, but
it ought to be possible.
<snip>
> So, I'm trying something different.
>
> A wiki interface has the potential to eliminate the problems of other
> mass collaborations by allowing everyone to edit what anyone else has
> done, including rolling the whole thing back to an earlier version. This
> may turn out to be a terrible idea, but there doesn't seem to be much to
> lose by experimenting with it.
>
> If anyone is interested, check out:
>
> < http://sciencewiktion.wikidot.com/ >
>
> The text is all publicly readable, but to edit you need to join the wiki
> as a member. There is also a link from the front page of my website.
I'd consider participating if it were Creative Commons or similar, but
if I'm giving up my work for free there'd have to be something really
special about it for me to be willing to give my copyright over to
someone in particular.
Also, "providing only your best work" is offputting to me. I wouldn't
consider going in and writing "aslfjaskldf;" -- and I'm happy with
registration in order to prevent people doing that sort of thing -- but
just as in brainstorming groups are told "No idea is too stupid to put
out there," so I think wikis work best with no restrictions: even if
you're adding crap, it can be fixed later (by you or someone else), and
even if the best way to fix it turns out to be to delete it, that crap
might fertilise someone else's brilliant idea. --This is aside from the
fact that the instant I've got "providing only my best work" in my mind
I can't write a word of anything.
Good luck with it though; hopefully you'll find enough people suited to
the way you want to run things to make it a worthwhile experiment.
(And if anyone on rasfc wants to try some kind of creative commons wiki
or instant messaging thing, count me in. But IME such things have
worked best -- experience and product both -- when it's utter
whacktastic "I Had My Homicidal Ex-Girlfriend's Lovechild" fun.)
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Irina Rempt
> (And if anyone on rasfc wants to try some kind of creative commons wiki
> or instant messaging thing, count me in. But IME such things have
> worked best -- experience and product both -- when it's utter
> whacktastic "I Had My Homicidal Ex-Girlfriend's Lovechild" fun.)
I'd gladly contribute Linda and Marty to have Continuing Adventures, but I
first have to get them out of this zoo they're stuck in with a model
called Bambi!
Irina
--
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean that it is not real?" --Albus Dumbledore
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 31-Dec-2007
Purplish Cooking Pages http://www.valdyas.org/irina/purplishcookingpages/
Wil McCarthy
> I'd consider participating if it were Creative Commons or similar, but
> if I'm giving up my work for free there'd have to be something really
> special about it for me to be willing to give my copyright over to
> someone in particular.
The "for free" part is inaccurate; as I say in the introduction, in the
unlikely event that any revenues are generated, they'll be shared among
the participants.
I'm a big fan of Creative Commons, but traditional publishers won't
touch it. Similarly, on a personal level I'd be very happy to split the
copyright among everyone who participates at any level. But again, that
kind of arrangement would send publishers screaming for the bomb
shelter. Still, I'm curious: is it possible to crowdsource something
that's actually publishable, in both artistic and licensing terms, while
also rewarding the contributors in a rational way? Hence this experiment.
<shrug>
No harm done if it doesn't work, but it seems worth a try.
< http://sciencewiktion.wikidot.com >
Andrew Stephenson
wmcc...@sff.net "Wil McCarthy" writes:
> I'm a big fan of Creative Commons, but traditional publishers won't
> touch it. Similarly, on a personal level I'd be very happy to split the
> copyright among everyone who participates at any level. But again, that
> kind of arrangement would send publishers screaming for the bomb
> shelter. Still, I'm curious: is it possible to crowdsource something
> that's actually publishable, in both artistic and licensing terms, while
> also rewarding the contributors in a rational way? Hence this experiment.
My instinct says to organise it as a kind of anthology: it has an
"editor" (it probably will anyhow) who is the publisher's contact
point with the project; this legal entity (who could be more than
one person, in fact) signs an agreement with the contributors who
work through him/her/it/them, as with an anthology; and meanwhile
the publisher can use its standard anthology mechanisms, although
appropriate credits should be specified in its agreement with the
editor -- I suspect there'd also be a preface which discussed the
project's genesis and execution.
--
Andrew Stephenson