Over the last year, we have been using the virtual world of Second Life as a platform for conducting 'Wikitecture' experiments to work out the procedures and protocols necessary to harness a group’s collective intelligence in designing architecture.  We have already conducted two experiments within Second Life to explore this idea of 'open source architecture'. The videos of their final form can be found here: 1.0 & 2.0. The following gives a brief overview of the evolving functionality behind Wikitecture 1.0, 2.0, & 3.0.

1.0
Wikitecture 1.0 was not really a true Wiki in the sense that contributors could not modify or delete the contributions of others.  What resulted, although interesting in its own right, was an amalgamation of ‘stuff’ with not no overall coherency or unity - a result we expected. 

2.0
In the 2nd experiment, we asked contributing members to enable full-permissions on every object they added.  This new protocol enabled designers to add/modify/delete each other's designs.  In addition, we set up a Flickr Account that allowed contributors to upload descriptive snapshots of their designs and leave feedback as well.   With Wikitecture 2.0, we also introduced an archiving system, where members, through community consensus, were able to roll-back the 'live' design to previously saved iterations.   Although this system was still rudimentary, the resultant design was far more unified and coherent than Wikitecture 1.0.

3.0
For our 3rd experiment, however, we have continued to improve this underlying technology.  This time, we teamed up with i3D inc., experts in creating virtual applications that cross the 2D/3D divide, to help us develop both an in-world interface ('wiki-tree') and external website that continually communicate with each other.  From the in-world perspective, contributors are able to archive their particular design into an abstract 'leaf' within a 3-dimensional 'tree canopy'.   As this canopy grows, the branching network of 'leaves' communicates to other designers, how related all the different designs are to each other.   

In addition, to fully communicate their vision and rationale behind their designs, this interface will allow contributors to take snapshots of their designs and, combined with descriptive commentary, upload them to the external website.

Since there will be multiple designs iterations within the 'tree canopy' and only a limited amount of land, the 'wiki-tree' interface allows members to 'rez' out the designs one by one, onto the viewing parcel.  Once rezzed out, viewers are then able to immerse themselves in the design.  To augment the experience of actually occupying the space, the three screens in the viewing kiosk near the 'wiki-tree' will allow users to cycle through the snapshots and comments associated with the active design on the viewing parcel as well.  This viewing kiosk will become especially helpful for those who want to communicate their designs informally with a smaller group of individuals.

The 'wiki-tree' allows the community, in turn, to vote and comment on their fellow contributor's designs. 

Other than cycling and rezzing out the individual designs from the 'archiving leaves', the website component will allow users all the same functionality as the in-world interface.  In other words, through the website, members can vote and add comments, as well as upload images they would like to associate with their saved designs.

What if this collaboratively designed entry actually wins this OAN competition? How will the reward money actually be divvied up amongst the contributors?  If you worked on the last Wikitecture experiment, we will be using the same system whereby we ask all the contributors to assess what percentage they feel they have contributed to the design as well as what percentage they feel others have contributed. The general idea being, that when everyone's assessment of each other is averaged out, however subjective it may be, a pretty fair judgment is made to how much (compensation, ownership, IP rights, etc) should be dolled out to each contributor.  In the event that Studio Wikitecture's entry wins the competition, we will distribute the winnings in this manner.

Although this system of assessment is not perfect, we feel it’s a start. This is one component of the experiment we feel will need ongoing improvement as we go forward and would love your input to help improve it.  Throughout the next two months of designing and assessing, if you have an idea on how to improve either this contribution assessment procedure, or any other functionality for that matter, please let us know.  We have set up a forum for such discussion: Feedback & F.A.Q.  Although, this collaborative platform is light years beyond what was used for the 2nd experiment, please be aware that it's still very experimental in nature, and we will most likely encounter our fair share of bugs.