On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:20:58PM -0400, Sj wrote:
Good point.
Chad Perrin wrote"
even when the "regulars" aren't involved, what's going on is actually carefully composed edits by individuals who, though a chaotic sort of collaboration, are building something as a team. These are not insects contributing intelligence to a central thinking process that produces good works...
< It's easy to lose sight of the individual contributions
Hmm. I regularly see "regulars" making careless edits, or tossing up new pages in swarming fashion. I do it myself sometimes... other editors in a different mindset inevitably come by, and start to fit the contribution into an appropriate category, style template, etc.
The canonical "swarm" edit is a very individual contribution. Someone who uploads an entire unwikified essay, or a set of references, or a two-paragraph stub about a minor historical figure.
So now individualistic behavior is evidence of communal "swarm" behavior? When defined thusly, it's no wonder you see "swarm" behavior everywhere: apparently, anything that involves the action of large numbers of individuals constitutes a "swarm" if it isn't specifically inwardly contentious. I don't think such a broad definition of "swarm" behavior is particularly valuable, however, so I don't use it.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]