Yes. Additionally, for every successful web service or social network or whatever network-based application there is, there are also a hundred very similar ones that failed, regardless of any public vs. private default mode of contents addition. Of course, those haven't been brought to the table since no one actually knows those cases because, well... they were a failure. No matter if they were public, or private, or whatever by default.
Try to sell Wave to an enterprise, telling them that every time they want a wave not be out on the wild internet, they'll have to manually specify it. That's not to say that public-default doesn't have its use cases. But the public vs private setting is independent from Wave Protocol. It must be up to the client to do that. If you use Wave Protocol to build a facebook-like, or a twitter-like wave client, then fine, use public waving by default. But people who use Wave Protocol for keeping track of personal notes, or personal documents, or emailing the family or friends, or doing some internal project management, will want a client that default to private waves. So, I think it's clear this discussion should not be about Wave, but about certain Wave client. Specifically, being on the mailing list we are, the WiaB default web client. Starting from there, we can discuss whether we want WiaB Client to create public waves by default or not. And in that case, I personally think that WiaB Client should have public waves by default, because i think it'll allow to "get the word out" faster than with private default. But an easy way to toggle it should be provided, probably defined per-user, so that people like me can still use Wave as a private wiki for personal notes, or whatever :-) On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 21:49, Gamer_Z. <[email protected]> wrote: > Except wave is not a social network or micro-blogging site (although > it could be integrated into one). It is also used for e-mail-type > conversations IM-type conversations, and document creation. Imagine > if every time you created a document in Gdocs, MS Word, Pages, or > OpenOffice it was public. What about if every Gtalk or AIM > conversation were public? What about if every single e-mail you sent > or received were public. See the problem there? And even in your > example, Facebook and Twitter posts remain private until you click the > "Share" or "Tweet" button. It is much better for every wave to start > and remain private until the user wants to add participants or make it > public. > > On Dec 2, 3:19 pm, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hmm, let's imagine that Twitter would be "private" by default, i.e. >> every twit would be private so only people that you explicitly >> specified would see the contents of the twit - do you think that would >> be help it to become something like it is now? Or if Facebook would be >> private by default... Wave is the collaboration platform where things >> are shared openly. Of course if someone wants to change the settings - >> it should be supported. >> >> On Dec 2, 7:33 pm, Bertine van Hövell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I prefer to keep private as the default. If you accidentally keep >> > confidential content private, the only loss is to you. If you >> > accidentally leave confidential content public, you'll have a much >> > larger problem at hand. >> >> > To give an example. I use google docs often, but in my main list I >> > often see a few documents popping up of which I'm sure the person >> > didn't mean to share it with *everyone*, and that's even in a medium >> > when you have to choose to share. Imagine what would happen if gdocs >> > would be public by default. >> >> > Seeing as Wave is a safe way to be able to share private information >> > (and in some cases is the reason why people continue to use it until >> > now), I prefer to keep 'private' as default. >> >> > On Dec 2, 12:10 pm, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > The current default wave mode is "private", i.e. whenever a new wave >> > > is created, it can be accessed only by the owner and then by >> > > participants added by owner. >> > > I think that this concept is not something that is obvious. It seems >> > > to me that it evolved this way since originally, Wave was created as >> > > email replacement. However, as we see, Wave is a lot more. It is a >> > > platform for collaboration, and as such it should embrace its users to >> > > share the content, not to hide it. Off course, if someone wants to >> > > create private wave, or change the default settings - it should be >> > > supported. >> > > The official reason for Google Wave development discontinuation was >> > > "lack of traction". I think the main reason for this - there's was >> > > very little public content. Because in Google Wave everything is >> > > private/limited until stated otherwise. Why not change it? Why not >> > > make everything public until stated otherwise? >> > > It may be a small change that makes a lot of difference. >> > > For example, I guess everybody knows the Flckr service. The company >> > > allowed users to upload images to its servers and share it. It wasn't >> > > the only one at the time, however it was the first to make the images >> > > public by default and it resulted in huge success. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Wave Protocol" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- Saludos, Bruno González _______________________________________________ Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com http://www.stenyak.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
