<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Hi Sam<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
I have to say that I don't think forking is always based on<br>
oppositional detachment.</blockquote><div> </div><div>Of course not. There is obviously a whole spectrum of reasons for forking, but in this discussion we were focusing specifically on those oppositional instances.<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
Why would a wiki community want to encourage forking? And, doesn't<br>
this damage the original wiki community? The fact is that communities<br>
change over time, and encouraging fractility and "friendly" or<br>
amicable "forking" creates space for natural adaptation, growth, and<br>
innovation. Once the software creates a set of standards for<br>
interoperability between forks, then it really does not matter how<br>
many forks exist, nor how granular breakdowns become, since it is also<br>
possible to keep the repositories of data connected in ways that are<br>
meaningful and useful to the forked communities (combined recent<br>
changes, "near linking" of wiki words, "interwiki links" etc)<br>
<br>
This actually resonates with Nate's point above. When the cost for<br>
leaving is similar and bearable, as it is in the examples in wiki<br>
communities above, when friendly forking and systemic amicable<br>
fractility are encouraged and built into the software mediums, you see<br>
the emergence of more rapid innovation that is *still* usable by the<br>
majority of the community.</blockquote><div><br>Ok, I don't disagree with any of this. Although I think we need to be careful not let the language of web 2.0 - natural adaptation, innovation, community and so on - blind us to the genuine antagonistic, political moments in so-called open and collaborative projects. There are important parallels here, I think, with what Jodi Dean writes about democracy in the journal Parallax, as well as Chantal Mouffe's earlier work on the post-political drive of neo-liberalism. <br>
<br>Chris: the question of infrastructure is vital in all this and points to the material constraints of any so-called immaterial project. In short, scale and energy. I agree completely.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br></blockquote></div>Best<br><br>Nate<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Nate Tkacz <br><br>PhD Candidate<br>School of Culture and Communication<br>University of Melbourne<br><br>mail: <a href="mailto:tkaczn@unimelb.edu.au">tkaczn@unimelb.edu.au</a><br>
twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/__nate__">http://twitter.com/__nate__</a><br>new blog: <a href="http://thesimplearrow.wordpress.com/">http://thesimplearrow.wordpress.com/</a><br><br>