Please add here or as a separate article a list of all companies that have created more than 1 project collaboratively with more than 1 person. Start with the classics: Crank Inc and Gray Bear Productions. (-Andres)
- Ooh! I'd love to, but I don't know that many... ^^
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of citations, but the ones we have here all seem to reference random posts. For example when Ace said foo on http://scratch.mit.edu/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=314986#p314986 we can't really use him for support because it is just one user's perspective. I don't know what kind of other foot notes we should get, I was just giving my two cents Demosthenes 02:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I was taking a look at the Collaborations article, the example collaborations were older and one of them wasn't successful. I think, we should replace the collaboration examples with newer, successful versions.
SpaceKid11 (talk | contribs) 17:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, am trying to collect some data on the activity of the collaboration section and about the lifecycle of a collaboration. If anyone is interested in helping, please say! Thanks
Co49 (talk | contribs) 17:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this article?
I just edited the article to remove some parts didn't fit the Wiki style nor talked objectively about the collaborations alluded. But that's far from the only problem in this article. Some I can think about (and as others already pointed out) are:
- The collaboration examples are ancient, with their last activity in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2017.
- Some of those experiences weren't successful, e.g. they didn't ever release the project they wanted to make.
- An article about collaborations will naturally receive edits with advertising purposes. (In fact my recent edit was an attempt to revert some of this, especially in section Frozen Coco since I'm more familiar with our history and the objective sources that could back up such a Wiki edit.)
- As a long-time consequence of the previous two points, the examples aren't illustrative -- they don't show the width and breadth of existing collaborations, nor the long-time impact they could potentially have.
- Sections Common Structures of Collaborations and Elections and Voting Systems feel out of place since they read like a "tutorial" amidst an article that instead aims to provide an overview of what collabs are and their various forms.
- I believe Common Structures of Collaborations is misleading as well: it seems to assume that all collaborations work under the "company" format that was popularized in 2010 and stands until now, when in reality a collab is just a bunch of Scratchers joining to make a project, at the most basic level.
Scratch has promoted collaboration since the very first days of the community website -- it's why remixing has always been a thing. Obviously it has taken many different and ever more intricate forms since then, but my point is that it's an important part of the community's spirit and as such, it deserves a much better and more informative article. This is why I ask: what is the purpose of this article? What should it achieve? What can we do to improve it?
Technoguyx (talk | contribs) 22:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wrote Common Structures of Collaborations and Elections and Voting Systems just over four years ago. I agree that it feels out of place, especially the detail about voting systems. I am going to completely rewrite these two sections to feel less prescriptive. I also agree with your other concerns.
Co49 (talk | contribs) 11:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)