Wikipedia:Issues/Threaded discussions

This is a Wikipedia community issue page. This page is just getting started. The first goals when starting an issue page are:

Analyzing the problem
Researching the history of the problem
Cross linking the page to discussions about the problem
Defining the problem with concise open-ended language
Creating a list of criteria or community concerns that any solution should meet
Generating community consensus on the definition of the problem

Discussions about the writing and editing of this page should happen on the talk page. This is not the forum to discuss the issue itself, rather this is the place to document and summarize discussions that are happening in other venues such as Wikipedia:Issues/Long-term discussions/Forum

Wikis have historically operated in two "modes" that are not much separated from each other: docmode and threadmode. On older wikis with other software, it's common to have the documentation (i.e., the article) and the discussion (i.e., the talk page) on the same page. There is no distinction between them, although threaded discussion tends to be below the documentation.

Mediawiki takes the distinction one step further by separating these into different areas. However, they both operate the same way, making the distinction largely cosmetic. In other words, you discuss the same way you write an article. There is no software or formatting difference, though certain standards are enforced (e.g., you don't write an article in discussion, and vice-versa; you don't sign your name on the article).

A typical problem with this, particularly where discussion is lively, is a large amount of edit conflicts and formatting issues that break up the flow of the discussion. Compound on top of that the problem where two discussions are happening on the same page -- even under the same header -- and it can truthfully be a nightmare to read and keep track of what is being said. For instance, it is often that editors will not indent their comments, creating threads that look like this:

I have an issue with X, so I'm proposing Y. --User A
:Yes, but the problem with Y is Z. --User B
::Sure, but it gets us closer to consensus U. --User C
I don't agree with User B's assumption that Z is better than Y. --User A
:::(edit conflict) I agree with User C that as long as we're getting near consensus, we're doing a good job --User B.
:Am I talking to user A or user B? --User C

So the software does not enforce threading. Neither do users typically enforce it, either, perhaps because many editors have gotten used to discussions that look like the example above. It's considered bad form to change someone elses formatting, as well; and given the situation above, it's perhaps obvious why: Changing the position of a comment within a thread can change the context entirely. For example, if User C decided before the edit conflict to move their comment above User B's, it would appear that User B was replying to User C... which is the case anyway, but now it's entirely obfuscated, because C's comment was in reply to B's earlier comment, not the one he had just made.

Another typical issue is when folks outdent (that is, not indent their thread at all), and discussion gets separated:

:Lively discussion
::More lively discussion
:::Even more lively discussion
(outdent) Even MORE lively discussion

...which can separate points being discussed, as when this happens:

:Lively discussion
::More lively discussion
:::Even more lively discussion
::::Obscenely lively discussion
(outdent) Even MORE lively discussion
:Discussion about the even MORE lively discussion

Consider that the editor with the bottom comment might have something to say about comments up above that were broken by the outdent. It's very easy for discussions to get "forked" in this manner.