I wonder if there are ways besides simultaneous editing to achieve healthy wiki growth -- that is, unlike Google Docs, wikis were not designed (on our site or in general) for simultaneous collaboration. Not that there aren't advantages to simultaneous editing -- such as the good shared energy of doing something with a group of other people -- but are there also ways we can get better at encouraging periodic iterative improvement, which is what wiki technology was developed for?

Perhaps we could also think about:

• the "edit here" feature seen on the common water contaminants page
• "resolvable" comments like in Google Docs that allow people to comment and critique inline in the margins

Can you get free kits by wiki gardening?

I'm not sure about reward-based incentives, here -- it'd be wonderful if people improved the wiki as an expression of their growing expertise and desire to help others. I think those desires are there -- we just need to create openings for participation.

writers are a breed apart, I dunno.

what makes people post so much to facebook?

People post to facebook to get feedback. Facebook posts are not generally intended to help others. Editing a Public Lab wiki does not typically lead to feedback for the editor so there is little social reward. Is there a way to acknowledge good wiki editors? The reward does not have to be tangible.

Writing is a solo activity for me. I crave feedback when I am done, but writing by committee is beyond my ability.

This comment thread has veered away from the original idea that I had and discussed with Mathew of collaborative social events that produce documentation, which is fine. So let's consider how to support solo writing and "encourage periodic iterative improvement" as @warren says. Should we inaugurate something like "Edit Fridays" as a regular calendar event that encourages individuals to push their progress into the knowledge base?