Looking forward to tomorrow’s session. I’ve been thinking about the “wiki war” piece, and finding it provocative, but also thinking about all the stones left unturned. Nancy’s post wonders whether anonymity might change the competitive, ad hominem spirit that Marlow encounters. That would be worth a try, though to me the central problem Marlow bumps up against is the institutional imperative to grade students as individuals, so anonymous students would still be anxious re: “looking good” to an instructor who (presumably) would know who they were and thus eager to preserve “their” work from getting edited or cut.
I found myself wondering why Marlow focuses solely on the collaborative editing of *one page*. It seems to me that the richness of the wiki environment is not just that many individuals can collaborate on one chunk of text, but that pages can be linked and nested to reveal relationships between them that are hard to convey in print. Perhaps I’m unfairly wishing she’d written a different article altogether, but I guess I wanted to hear more about the overarching structure she had in mind for the course’s wiki: what other kinds of pages, what guidelines to students, what strictures, if any, on who could create/edit/delete pages, etc.