fork

Forking is a strange word, a funny word. I consider it probably one of the most important political concepts of the 20th century. Let's take a look at what it means.

Everything you wanted to know about forking. What is a fork? Why do you need to know? And why is it so beautiful?

A 'like' is a way of sharing attention with a new work and its author. We consider how federated wiki's 'fork' improves on the 'like' mechanism.

In Shirky's 2003 post "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", he intuits that one solution to having social software that scales is "soft-forking groups": groups with fuzzy edges, centered around individual relations.

Previously we have contemplated the need for complementary notice on fork. Here, I start to think through how such a mechanism might work. I draw inspiration from Webmention .

In politics there is little understanding of the importance and relevance of the concept of "forking" that originates in the world of software development.

When I write with you and fork you page, you may take the time (if notified) to find me and fork my changes back, or otherwise follow what I write by linking to me.

Fork is the new like. When an author forks a page this is a direct citation. When she modifies it and makes it her own, even completely rewriting the page - this is a Creative Commons Citation.

Klint Finley has written about Ward Cunningham's work on a federated wiki, linking ideas around Fedwiki to Github, whose strapline is "Build software better, together". html

Fork symmetry is the idea that when a person forks a page, both parties should be aware of the action. Currently only the person forking a page "knows" what they have done. The advantage of the fork/forked unification is that the neighborhood expands in a very generous way.

A fork action, would be the recording of the act of forking in such a way that that information could be used by other parites - such as to notify people.

An author may be very interested for a range of reasons in who has forked there work, or they may not. Both scenarios are important and should be respected. Authors should be in control and not the software.

The Fork Button is used to copy a page to the Origin site.

Here I will list pages that I would really like to work on with other people. Will be great if you fork this page and add pages you want me (or other people to fork).

This is the title of a paper I started to write for #32C3. The proposal is essentially to start a social process of forking Wikipedia Content.

Find all pages whose Journal contians a Fork.

Find all pages from another place. This search markup looks for the fork actions that mention all or part of another site's domain name.

Does 'forking' from local, or even a locally hosted private wiki, make sense?

So what should happen when two pages that have diverged are merged?

For any given page there a children (instances of pages that people have forked to their sites, and parents (go figure). As we iterate over these relationships, up and down as we may say, we create a tree.

Commons writing is the process of enabling collaborative writing and research between groups that lays down over time an archive of readily forkable content of use to the cooperative economy.

The client could tell a remote server when it forks a page. I've resisted this because I don't want strangers to write on any site (they will find a way to spam). However, a complementary notice could be ignored, counted or recorded. All are useful options at various states of growth.

We're irrecoverably deleting parts of pages when we fork an earlier revision from history. If we go all the way back to creation then that should mean delete the whole page.

Previously we have contemplated the need for complementary notice on fork. Here, I start to think through how such a mechanism might work. I draw inspiration from Webmention .

Writing in the presence of rampant forking calls into question What it Means to Write and how to do it well.