Talk:Collaborative real-time editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Some pointers

  • Making the article into a real article instead of a list is good. Very much the best way forward.
  • Please don't bold the links. It's ugly, and it's non-standard.
  • Please don't link to external sites for the insignificant software. Especially if it's in alpha. Most especially then. WP:NOT a way of building brand, market share, promoting a product etc. If a product is not significant enough for an article, but has some unique feature which demands discussion, discuss it in prose as an emergent feature.
  • The industry press has been speculating on whether MS's market stranglehold will be broken since forever. Keep it neutral and WP:CITE sources for anythign which might otherwise look like editorialising. Or better still stick strictly to the verifiable facts (verifiable, that is, from reliable sources) and avoid editorialising at all

One last thing: if next time I look at the article it's got all those redlinks and weblinks back I will have to start throwing my weight around. Please don't make me start whacking the article with my wikimop. Just zis Guy you know? 20:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a linkfarm tag at the top of the article. Seems like the article has expanded since, and looks like a linkfarm now. I propose removing all external links to software website main pages as a start to cleaning up this article which is currently almost entirely unsourced. --Ronz 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following commented out text from the article which was added first (as far as I can tell) with this edit [1]: --Ronz 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:NOT 'There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia'. Therefore please link to internal articles where they exist.

[edit] Thesis research

Hello,

My name is Riad Djemili. I'm a computer science student at the Freie Universität Berlin in Germany. I'm working on a graduation thesis, which aims at examining distributed pair programming.

For this I've compiled a short questionnaire, which I would like to get as much as programmers as possible to answer. The survey is completely academic and has no commercial aims. This questionnaire is mainly aimed at programmers that have already worked with pair programming, ideally even distributed pair programming. It takes about 10 minutes to complete it. The URL is as following:

  http://survey.mi.fu-berlin.de/dpp

Since collaborative editors are a very interesting medium for distributed pair programming, I would be very interested in your experiences. You would help me in understanding in which ways distributed pair programming is currently used and therefore help me to research how distributed pair programming tools could be improved in general.

If you're interested in further information about the results of my work, you'll be able to leave your e-Mail after answering the questionnaire. Your e-mail won't be used for any other reason then this and will be deleted as soon as you've been contacted on the results of the survey.

This survey will be up until the 17st of July 2006. Please feel free to notify other potentially interested participants of this survey.

If you have any comments on this announcement, on the questions or on the topic in general, please don't hesitate to contact me at my e-mail address:

  djemili@inf.fu-berlin.de

Many thanks in advance, Riad Djemili --88.73.119.67 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of editors

There is already a list of collaborative editors in the List of text editors article. However, not all editors from this article are mentioned there. I suggest someone adds them to that list and removes the list in this article. A link to the list article can be added here. I'll commit these changes if I find some time.--Bernard François 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the contents of that section to this article, and added a {{main}} notice on that section. --Waldir 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I suggest moving the article from Collaborative editor to Collaborative real-time editor, which currently redirects here. I already contacted the user who moved it from there to here, explaining my reasons, and if nobody expresses oposition I'll do it in a few days. Waldir 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

After the user's reply, and with no opposition here after a week, I marked the redirect for speedy delete to make room for this article to be moved back to that title.

[edit] Google Sites

I hear Google Sites is based on JotSpot. Does this mean that Google Sites is real-time collaborative editing? CortlandKlein (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name of article

The proper name for this article is 'real-time collaborative editor', not 'collaborative real-time editor'. In the phrasing, 'collaborative real-time editor', the adjective 'real-time' modifies 'editor', meaning the editor is a real-time editor. However, every editor is a real-time editor, so this says very little. The adjective 'collaborative' then modifies the notion of a real-time editor, which means the phrase ends up referring to an editor that permits collaboration (whether or not that collaboration is in real-time).

The proper phrase is, 'real-time collaborative editor', where the adjective 'real-time' modifies 'collaborative', to signify the collaboration takes place in real-time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John A. De Goes (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi John. First of all, congratulations on your excellent work in this article. It looks much more readable now. As to your suggestion, I'd fully support a rename, based on the pertinent points you've made. I suppose that in case there is no opposition within a few days, you can safely make the move yourself. I can do that, if you prefer. Waldir talk 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)