NickAndCriki is vaporware a wiki-inspired collaboration project that Nick and Chris frequently debate. As of now, few details have been released to the public, but it is distinguished by the very latest in Nelsonian design and an extremely clever name.

Some Issues to Resolve
Ideally, the platform should provide intelligent support for both discussions, where process (i.e., the temporal history of the thing) is critical, and articles/static-pages/whatever, where the final product is critial.
Now Wikis typically will divide each wiki page into two logical components: the “pagemode” part (the “article” part) and the “threadmode” part (the “discussion” part). Nick says he’ll be experimenting with if it’s better to have these as two separate web pages (a la Wikipedia), as two concatnated half-pages (a la ZWiki), or what.
Chris, in Wiki matters an even crazier visionary than Nick, is not convinced that there should be an exact one-one-two correspondence between “articles”, on one hand, and “discussions”, on the other. Yes, “discussions” are useful to help craft “articles”; but they might also be useful in their own right. Why should a “discussion” need to culminate in an “article”? Can’t a (perhaps revised) conversation be not merely a means to an end but also an end in itself?
Dog say: Yes, there is a not-necessarily-sense-making bias in the Wiki world, and particularly in Wikipedia, toward viewing articles as not merely the outcome but the telos of discussions-i.e., thinking that the product is necessarily more important than the process. I agree that this is imbalanced; but I would frame it this way: articles need discussions because discussion is a process by which articles are produced, and (wikified) discussion needs articles because it draws on (is informed by, links to, and (perhaps eventually) transcludes) existing articles. This is perhaps related to the cyclical distinction Rorty draws between two kinds of philosophy (I forget their names), one of which operates by constructing systems, and the other by parasitically attaching itself to them-though it in turn leads to the foundation of new systems.
Another possibility is of course using our concept of multi-view/thread/filter/annotation-set/whatever pages to create article-discussion hybrids in which we begin by seeing the one but are not limited thus—for example, if Wikipedia articles were set up so that the discussion was contained within or anchored to the article page section by section, so that you could click something to open up (either inline or in a second window) the discussion relating to the article section you’re reading. Or, conversely, a discussion in which you could click on a word (say, “democracy”) and have an article-style definition appear. This gets back to the ZigZagLike informational structure we’ve previously discussed, not to mention the GraphicalBrowsingWiki, or whatever we want to call it.
h2. On linking different conversations together
Nick has said, “I think I’d like something that, proximally, allowed us to link conversations together in different ways…” But what does this mean? What kind of links are required? Do we need to link to particular messages in other conversations, or only to other-conversations-as-wholes?
One way of the “different ways” might be non-linear or multi-linear threading of conversations—i.e., I might begin by reading a chain of communications that was linear and then find myself transitioning to a more “horizontal” threading process by clicking on a link (say, one of us quotes Nietzsche, and I follow the Nietzsche link and then from there jump to backlinks and scroll through all the other Nietzsche-related pages) and then another link, and another link, etc. Or I double back on myself and follow an intersecting linear-temporal thread because I know that a message replies to more than one other message…
Do we need one project to support both of us in our Wiki-entirities? Or do we each have our own personal wiki-projects, while NickAndCriki serves as where we collaborate only?
Nick has said, “The idea of having a tripartite system (you, me, us) is appealing
because it allows flexibility (and added possibility for silliness),
and if we have interwiki links it can work potentially quite
Conversations should be revisable!
Yes, but what do we mean? Essentially, that if I post a comment that includes both important bits and unimportant (or worse, stupid) bits, I should be able to go back later and remove the unimportant bits or correct errors, or rephrase, etc.; normal message-based systems (email, usenet) don’t allow this. This gets back to the question of what, if any, is the basic unit of the conversation—is it the message, the conversation, something more, something less?