Participate in other people's projects in Scrapbox

2021-05-22

I've been "thinking about but denying" giving someone else write permissions for this project, but I'm starting to feel like I was wrong to deny it.

[Attacking the unfamiliar without looking at it properly.

Why did I think it was a bad idea -> experience it and actually

Aversion to mixing up sentences and not knowing who they belong to.

→At least commenting with icon notation has a tree board feel to it, not a mixed feeling.

When there is a dominant author, other authors will feel like "I'm interrupting" and leave a comment with an icon.

If X, the person who invited you to write, doesn't write anyway, why do you think X would cooperate in creating the work of another person Y. If X wants to write something, he can write it for X's project and not have to write it for Y's project.

In fact, when I want to write a "coherent page", I create a blank page for my project and output my thoughts on it.

There are units of information smaller than "one coherent page."

Seeing a page and leaving a comment on it is just "not enough information to make a coherent page."

This is, after all, just like the debate about whether or not to open the comments section in the days of blogs.

I wonder if there is an article about that time.

I can't find it.

Without writing a particular article or anything, I'm starting to feel like I'm closing it quickly, thinking, "I somehow thought it was a bad thing to refuse comments, but Yuki-san does it too, and if you think about it, opening up the comment section is just giving it an additional benefit, not taking anything away from it by closing it."

I'm not comfortable with exposing this Scrapbox editing privileges to an unspecified number of people.

>Maybe it's okay to give editing privileges to a limited number of people who have interacted offline.

I don't see any incentive for readers to give feedback just because you gave them editorial authority in the first place.

Maybe you don't read other people's projects in the first place.

This, in fact, I don't read.

This "don't read" means "don't read every page" or "don't read every day".

Human beings are not machines, so it is natural

If you're in a state of readability, there are times when you'll read in bursts for some reason.

I read it anyway as soon as I entered, including searching for it by my ID, but this was a "dead, sinking fish" and didn't elicit any commentary.

I can't explain what exactly happened, it's like my understanding gradually built up as I read.

When another co-editing Scrapbox started up, I thought "wouldn't it be interesting to call it here".

[2021 Unexplored Junior

I've put together a timeline of what happened.

This may be unnecessarily long, but the first step is to output.

https://gyazo.com/a61addc7591475bf88718004af5da3cf

1 First some person A is doing a public project.

2 Another person B sees it and mentions it in some articles

3 A notices the mention and recognizes Project B and mentions it in some articles

So far, this has happened between many projects before.

4 B begins experimenting with inviting others to invite others into his project

By this time A and B recognized each other.

I attended with the expectation that something interesting would happen from this moment on, but not so much as A's subjective view.

5 A needed to create a joint editorial project C for another matter and thought about how to make it more crowded there.

6 A has an epiphany: "It would be beneficial to both C and B if we invite B here.

I've sorted it out, but so what happened?

https://gyazo.com/75c5babae0173a191dcf0cf9e655eec9

C's content was chewed once by B, converted and output without being quoted directly due to the fact that C is under NDA.

This content was also interesting for A, who was looking at the big original project C, so while he frequently looked at Scrapbox in his work for C, he was also looking at B as well as C

Maybe it's also that in the process of working on C, I've come to understand how good Stream is.

What is the generalization?

When some external trigger starts to generate a high frequency of content of interest to multiple people in a collaborative editing project, a chemical reaction occurs.

Positive feedback occurs: content triggers action, which generates new content, which in turn triggers

Just having it co-edited is not enough of a catalyst.

[Scrapbox may be a lens that aggregates the interests of multiple people

An abrupt metaphor

One person's writing brings the page to the top of the list.

When another person opens the top page, they can see exactly what they are thinking and writing about right now.

Faster than thought chat

Even the chat doesn't get shared until you write a line and hit enter.

Close to voice conversation

Response can be immediate.

In voice, you have to wait until the other person finishes speaking.

Scrapbox can tell that you are trying to return a response the moment you hit Ctrl+i.

This is an example of a highly real-time exchange, but "attracting the attention of others to it" by having "recently written or rewritten things of interest come up" even if they are far apart in time.

On the other hand, no restraints.

Opposing views

---