Multiplicity

Over the last weekend I played around with an interesting service called Editorially. It’s essentially a stripped down, online text editor, with support for Markdown formatting. However, it’s most attractive feature is its support for multiple versions, collaboration and editing. It’s an interesting project and it just added WordPress and Dropbox export (I wrote the first draft of this post in it and then exported to WordPress). Like many such services, I’d rather use a text editor and git to get the same effect. However, more than the service itself what interests me is something I read on their blog post announcing their export features:

On the web today, a single article may be published on the writer’s personal blog, collected in an ebook, syndicated on several magazine or news sites, and reblogged across different platforms and communities.

This notion of having the same piece of work shared in multiple places is not new, but is becoming increasingly popular, especially with the rise of of group blogs (often with guest authors), online curation, and services like Medium. Craig Mod, whom I find to be one of the most insightful writers on the intersection of technology and publishing, started one of his recent pieces with this not-quite-disclaimer:

This was originally published in Hiut Denim’s yearbook. I’ve republished it here, over on Hi and over at Medium because, well, the beauty of the web is multiplicity. More on that later.

Multiplicity. I like that word. And yes, there is something to admire in just how easy it is to copy and share on this, the modern Web. But is it a thing of beauty? I’m much less certain than Mr. Mod, especially since this form of multiplicity is heavily dependent on third-party, often proprietary services with motives that are unclear at best and
questionable at worst.

What Mr. Mod dubs “multiplicity” and call beautiful can be explained in older, cruder terms: copy-and-paste. In many ways, the current web does us a disservice — we have been taught to accept and we settled for multiplicity when what we really wanted was transclusion, first described by an early pioneer of applied computation — Ted Nelson.

Whereas multiplicity on the web takes the form of copy-and-paste, transclusion would take the form of reference. Instead of taking the literal text (and perhaps the styling and images) of a document and replicating it for each copy, we have a single canonical copy of a document (and by document I mean any information object) that can be referenced and transcluded from other places. For example, Mr. Mod could have published the original piece on his website and Hi and Medium would simply transclude it in their own versions. When someone visited the Hi or Medium pages, they would reach out and embed the original post’s content within their contexts.

Transclusion offers many advantage over copy-and-paste. For one, any changes to the original are automatically reflected wherever it is transcluded. Second, attribution becomes much easier. Instead of carefully maintaining references to where you found a particular piece of information or text, the transclusion machinery can manage it for you. In fact, such a system needs to keep proper source information to work properly. Transclusion also makes the job easier for automated systems like search engines. Instead of coming across multiple versions of the same text in different places, a crawler would simply follow back the transclusion links and be able to index the original authoritative copy.

Copy-and-paste certainly has a place, even in a hypothetical transclusion-enabled Web. One major application is of course backup and archival, which would be impossible if there was only ever a single copy. That being said, personally I would rather have transclusion than not. For one thing it would make navigating the current morass of social media and publication startups easier.

Today, if I write something (say this blog post) and want to put it online, I have to decide where to put it. I could put it on my own website, hosted on my own server, accessible at my own domain name, where I retain full control. However, maybe I want the attention generated by publishing on a platform like Medium or Tumblr. Maybe I also want to post a link and excerpt to Facebook and Twitter and Google+. Once people read it, they might want to make posts about it on their blogs and reference it. It might get picked up discussed on random forums and message boards, discussion sites and Q&A sites.

To do that today requires a lot of manual intervention and thought. First I’d have to copy and paste the text into all the different services. Then I’d have to copy-and-paste a link into the various social media services. If I wanted to add an excerpt, I’d have to do more copy-pasting and editing. If there was discussion on other places, there’s no guarantee I’d find out about it. I’d have to keep a close eye on all the discussion sites, and hope that any individuals talking about it on their own sites send me an email (or some other kind of notification) about their posts.

In a world where transclusion is the default, things become much simpler. As we’ve already discussed, the various other publishing platforms would simply transclude the content of my post. Social media services would transclude particular paragraphs (or even particular sentences). Similarly, discussion sites and other people’s blogs would transclude the particular parts of the post they want to discuss. This has a secondary benefit: I can look up the transcluders and automatically be aware of who’s talking about my post (and what parts in particular). In summary, transclusion would make sharing and discussion on the web a whole lot easier, smoother and interactive.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that we’ll achieve transclusion any time soon. In particular, I would say most publishing and social media services have incentives to prevent transclusion — they want a unique piece of your work. Deferring to a canonical copy elsewhere that others can transclude as well is the last thing they want. That being said, we can still dream, can’t we? Perhaps, with the continuing popularity of ebooks and DIY publishing we might even start having some limited forms of transclusion. And maybe, just maybe, people like Mr. Mod and services like Editorially will start pushing for a transclusion-capable world.

About these ads

One thought on “Multiplicity

  1. I think we already have an infrastructure for translcusion (at least for blogs and other periodical publishing platforms), but the industry as a whole is trying to distance itself from it at a worrying pace. It’s called RSS and it was designed for syndication of same content all across the web, while at the same linking back to the original canonical copy. Consumers of an RSS feed can and will cache the contents for their purposes – so it works like copying and pasting into all kinds of services but it’s automated and transparent.

    The problem with RSS is that while it is great for the web, you can’t monetize it easily. Google briefly flirted with injecting adds into RSS streams but when that failed they dropped RSS like it was hot, including suttering of Reader. Twitter used to have RSS but they got rid of it because it allowed people to consume their service without signing up and that was bad for business. Tumblr still uses it though most stock themes don’t expose it or link to it. Medium never had, and probably never will support it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s