issues with tiddlyspace cloning
chris...@gmail.com
When a tiddler in TiddlySpace is included from another space,
following the steps to edit that tiddler results in cloning that
tiddler to the current space.
I'm finding that somewhere more than 75% of the time what I want to
do is actually edit the tiddler and not make a clone. Usually this
is because I've spotted a typo and want, like a good WikiGnome[1], to
fix it.
To do that, as far as I can tell I have to navigate to the space the
tiddler is included from, locate it, and then edit it.
It may be that my position is rare (I'm one of the developers, I'm a
member of many of the documentation/faq/glossary spaces, I'm a bit of
a busybody) but I suspect a fair few people will find this situation
a lot as they:
* become members of many spaces
* pick up on the wiki ethic of gardening
There are two problems here:
1. The current interface doesn't really make it clear when you are
going to make a clone. If you don't pay attention to the provenance
of the tiddler it's easy to clone. This can result in many clones
which unintentionally mask the original[2].
2. If you know you are going to make a clone and don't want to, you
have to go through quite a process to edit the original tiddler.
Not sure what the solution is for this, any idea?
[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiGnome
[2] There are certainly times when you want to mask the original, of
course.
--
Chris Dent http://burningchrome.com/
[...]
PMario
> When a tiddler in TiddlySpace is included from another space,
> following the steps to edit that tiddler results in cloning that
> tiddler to the current space.
>
> I'm finding that somewhere more than 75% of the time what I want to
> do is actually edit the tiddler and not make a clone. Usually this
> is because I've spotted a typo and want, like a good WikiGnome[1], to
> fix it.
>
> To do that, as far as I can tell I have to navigate to the space the
> tiddler is included from, locate it, and then edit it.
>
> It may be that my position is rare (I'm one of the developers, I'm a
> member of many of the documentation/faq/glossary spaces, I'm a bit of
> a busybody) but I suspect a fair few people will find this situation
> a lot as they:
>
> * become members of many spaces
> * pick up on the wiki ethic of gardening
>
> There are two problems here:
>
> 1. The current interface doesn't really make it clear when you are
> going to make a clone. If you don't pay attention to the provenance
> of the tiddler it's easy to clone. This can result in many clones
> which unintentionally mask the original[2].
difference.
> 2. If you know you are going to make a clone and don't want to, you
> have to go through quite a process to edit the original tiddler.
>
> Not sure what the solution is for this, any idea?
original source space, and open as new tab" button inside the
concertina ;) This would be cool.
a new paramifyer for: http://asdf.tiddlyspace.com/#editTiddler:[title]
>[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiGnome
>[2] There are certainly times when you want to mask the original, of
> course.
And they should exactly behave like shaddow tiddlers at tw. Think
about StyleSheet tweaking. I wouldn't want, to accidentaly edit the
original one.
-m
rakugo
feature. I think an additional button in the toolbar could be
confusing for new users (I remember when we first introduced it left
me slightly confused in why it wasn't just an edit). Especially in
light of the fact that the GettingStarted tiddler which shows on
default is an included tiddler.
I could imagine such functionality could be brought in by an
additional space. This additional space might upgrade the editTiddler
button to show for included spaces that you are a member of. It would
probably also need to provide different icons for edit and clone
commands. Alternatively it might just hide the clone button and only
allow editing on the original copy. In the EditTemplate the privacy
roundel could show as the space and not allow the user to set the
privacy of the new tiddler.
Thinking of it in a slightly different way.. in git if I edit a plugin
I make edits locally and then ask for them to be pulled. A member of
the master copy in git then merges my copy. This is quite similar to
cloning and then picking up changes via a method such as the existing
following one.
Jon
Ben Gillies
When a tiddler in TiddlySpace is included from another space,
following the steps to edit that tiddler results in cloning that
tiddler to the current space.
I'm finding that somewhere more than 75% of the time what I want to do is actually edit the tiddler and not make a clone. Usually this
is because I've spotted a typo and want, like a good WikiGnome[1], to
fix it.
1. The current interface doesn't really make it clear when you are
going to make a clone. If you don't pay attention to the provenance
of the tiddler it's easy to clone. This can result in many clones
which unintentionally mask the original[2].
2. If you know you are going to make a clone and don't want to, you
have to go through quite a process to edit the original tiddler.
Not sure what the solution is for this, any idea?
[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiGnome
[2] There are certainly times when you want to mask the original, of
course.
--
Chris Dent http://burningchrome.com/
[...]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWeb" group.
To post to this group, send email to tidd...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlyweb+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlyweb?hl=en.
chris...@gmail.com
> I agree that this would be useful, however I see this as a power user
> feature. I think an additional button in the toolbar could be
> confusing for new users (I remember when we first introduced it left
> me slightly confused in why it wasn't just an edit). Especially in
> light of the fact that the GettingStarted tiddler which shows on
> default is an included tiddler.
Your comments don't really address the concern that impacts the
larger body of people: the accidental creation of clones. In my
comments below I try to lay out some of the issues associated with
this. I critique existing features in the hope of shaping their
evolution and creation of new features. That the features aren't
there yet is not a problem: we live a world with limited resources.
I think that rambles like what follows are critical to being able to
focus resources.
Solving the "edit the actual one, not create a clone" is a matter of
putting the right pieces together in the UI. Dealing with accidental
creation of clones is more tricky as it puts into debate what clones
are, what they are for, how they impact the usefulness of
tiddlyspace in its various identities and what those identities of
tiddlyspace are.
The advent of wikipedia has meant that recent aspirants to the wiki
way have a sense that a wiki is a reference, an information resource,
which has evolved out of the concerted effort of many editors.
That's a great thing, but it's not a wiki.
A wiki is a synthesis engine. A tool in a community. It allows an
individual or group (usually smallish) to discover the gaps and
connections in their understandings and then through exploration of the
network and comparison of the nodes, fill in meaning. This means that the
most important features in a wiki, for learning, are: LinkAsYouThink,
BackLinks, RecentChanges, and whatever you want to call what
TiddlyWiki reifies as "Missing".
So the question is: Is TiddlySpace a wiki? Is it a synthesis engine?
If it is, then the proliferation of clones of narrative tiddlers (as
opposed to plugin tiddlers[1]) works against community-based
synthesis _unless_ the mechanism for tracking clones is present and
powerful. It's not at the moment.
Take an example: If I have included the glossary space into my own space
and then notice a typo in the TiddlyWeb tiddler the act of editing it
will result in a TiddlyWeb tiddler in my space (whether I'm a member
in glossary or not). How does the "management" of the glossary space
know about the improvement to their information network? If by some
confluence of the stars they happen to be following me, the number
in the bubble on tiddlers called TiddlyWeb will increase. If they've
been paying strict attention to that number they might notice, but
probably will not. If they do notice then they might click the
bubble and they'll see a list of tiddlers with insufficient metadata
to know that my changes happened recently. If I make yet another
change, the number in the bubble won't change, there will be no
indication that anything will happen. If the management wants to
keep up with all the (potentially) clones in other spaces, they need
to regularly and manually review all the tiddlers that show up in
the following concertina.
If the management is not following me, then my improvements are only
available to me and other members or includers of my space.
Furthermore, and this is critical, any improvements the original
tiddler gets are lost to my space. I won't know about them. Unless,
of course, I follow the original space. But the same caveats from
above about lack of metadata apply.
All this suggests one path to improvement: having a clone result in a
semi-automatic follow of the original space. This could be a good thing
but it also implies that the following presentation needs to be _far_
more informative. It might also make sense for there to be something
like a follow in the opposite direction, but as following is
currently user follows spaces, not space follows spaces, a different
mechanism would be required.
Related stuff in the publisher thread in a while.
[1] I think there is a lot of conversation that could be had about
the difference between forking a converation and forking code. In
large part is has to do with the behavior and motivation of the
participants, but suffice it to say that it is _much_ different.
chris...@gmail.com
>> [2] There are certainly times when you want to mask the original, of
>> course.
> For default users i think included spaces should be shaddow spaces.
> And they should exactly behave like shaddow tiddlers at tw. Think
> about StyleSheet tweaking. I wouldn't want, to accidentaly edit the
> original one.
I think this is where the difficulty arises. For people who are
actively developing TiddlyWiki/TiddlySpace the focus is often on
what broadly fits under the umbrella of code: things which impact
the behavior or look of the tiddlywiki. Plugins, stylesheets, etc.
For those things the usual desire is to clone because you want to
fork, to experiment, to modify, and then perhaps later tell (out of
band) the upstream author that you've made some changes they might
like to incorporate if they like the behavior.
Whereas with narrative text the inclinations and behaviors are quite
different.
Where we run into trouble is that the people are designing
TiddlySpace features are also the people who are developing _in_
TiddlySpace and it is only natural they will make the features that
support the needs which stand out for them.
However, are the developers of TiddlySpace the primary audience of
TiddlySpace? Since the system is being developed with an eye to
supporting tens of thousands of spaces and tens of thousands of
users and there are only tens of TiddlySpace developers, I think
not.
Therefore, we need to spend some fairly significant mental energy
trying to put ourselves in the shoes of people who:
* Have never seen TiddlyWiki before.
* Don't care about creating plugins or themes (just want to use
them).
* Just want to manage some information.
OR we need to do more to turn more people into haxors.
Jeremy Ruston
> opposed to plugin tiddlers[1]) works against community-based
> synthesis _unless_ the mechanism for tracking clones is present and
> powerful. It's not at the moment.
Great stuff (and apologies for snipping it).
As Chris suggests there are two potential paths I can follow if I come
across content in another space that needs correcting/updating:
- I can visit the originating space and, if I am a member, edit the
content directly
- If I am not a member of the space, I can publish my own modified
clone. In this case, publishing the clone might trigger the original
author to update, but equally, the original author may choose to
completely ignore my contribution.
In arriving at the TiddlySpace design I was more interested in the
second case, because such a system might scale well, and we already
know that the first scenario does not scale well.
As you note, for the original author to incorporate changes submitted
in this way, they've got to be looking out for them. I've found that
people who write in digital media do just that reflexively,
obsessively tracking references to their work, their names and their
sites.
Cheers
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jer...@osmosoft.com
http://www.tiddlywiki.com
PMario
>I'm finding that somewhere more than 75% of the time what I want to
>do is actually edit the tiddler and not make a clone. Usually this
>is because I've spotted a typo and want, like a good WikiGnome[1], to
>fix it.
I think it also needs the same mechanism, if you are _not_ a member of
the space. As a user, I don't want to take care, if it is a plugin, or
a text tiddler, that I want to change/report an error. And I think I
shouldn't.
What's wrong with a direct open tiddler in edit edit mode link? (may
be at concertina, may be toolbar, may be sidebar). If you have write
access you can fix and save. close the space. reload your own space.
that's it.
If you don't have write access. Hopefully there is a comment plugin
installed, that lets you post your findings. If not, the newly opened
space, is the place to search for contact information.
=====
On Sep 15, 12:31 pm, chris.d...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
> the difference between forking a converation and forking code. In
> large part is has to do with the behavior and motivation of the
> participants, but suffice it to say that it is _much_ different.
An other usecase:
a) SThemes: There is one person which is allowed to setup plugins.
named ADMIN
b) SContent000-999: There are two persons which are allowed to setup
default content spaces. named EDITOR
c) STraining: There are several persons who use spaces SThemes and
SContent. named TRAINER
There may be many different training spaces. Each including different
SThemes and SContent spaces.
c)
Since TRAINER is no member of a) or b), there is no problem for
TRAINER, to accidentally edit something, s/he is not supposed to edit.
New or cloned tiddlers are private, and can be used for custom
training. They can be set to public, so everyone can see them.
b)
EDITOR is member of b) and c). Now let's say EDITOR works as TRAINER.
While the training is held, it turns out that the order for the next
day should be topic1, topic3, topic2. He changes it. Since he is
member of b, it affects all other trainers without notification. (I
tell you, they will have much fun)
a)
ADMIN really has to take care, what he is doing. But since ADMIN is
aware of this, ADMIN doesn't make mistakes :)
At the moment, tiddlySpace takes care about this, without any recipe
ROLE definitions.
have fun!
mario
rakugo
Say I clone a tiddler from the tiddlyspace space. Imagine hitting
clone autotagged the tiddler with @tiddlyspace.
Now imagine a plugin similar to the activity stream which runs
automatically on booting up a space and looks for tiddlers tagged with
@tiddlyspace. It could then provide a link to the edited tiddler. As
long as I can diff this edited tiddler with the one in my space I can
now decide whether to merge the changes or ignore them.
This is better than just directly editing as it gives me a chance to
be sanity checked by another member (obviously not so useful for minor
edits but certainly for big edits)
Note it could be similar to Twitter's direct messaging facility in
that I only get notified of people with @tiddlyspace tiddlers that
tiddlyspace/I follow. That way someone has to get my attention/respect
to be followed and noticed.
[1] http://groups.google.co.uk/group/tiddlyweb/t/a31dc3943a70abd5