you can use the tool to visualize how a contributor's contribution and writing style developed over time - it can display the entire writing session.
Just curious (being somewhat dense) ...beyond the "that's interesting" and scholarly aspect, what exactly does all that bring to the table? Most of what I've seen touted as the benefits of "collaborative" software is more the "just getting it done" and brainstorming
aspects rather than the granular tracking of where we've been
and who did what
In some respects, tracking that sort of thing seems (to me) to be to be counterproductive for the general free exchange of ideas and contributions since everything now becomes "for the record."
Since most of this grew out of version control and software authoring environments (where it is
absolutely necessary to have a full backtrack capability in order to aid in debugging and maneuver out of 'bad turns') I can see why it's been incorporated into other products. But I wonder how good (or even necessary) such a feature really is for the stated aim of collaboration. I'm sure some management types love it since it provides a certain Big Brother
capability to the mix. But again, from the participants end, is this really of any value beyond possibly settling "he said/she said" arguments or counting coup
for who thought of something first?
FWIW I've personally found most of what's marketed as 'collaboration' tools to be relatively limited in usefulness. Probably because most of what I need to interact with others in order to accomplish doesn't lend itself to the "free for all" approach due to budget and time constraints. Focused, carefully considered, and intense discussions are more how my world currently operates.
I've generally found a web accessible storage point used in conjunction with a modified Delphi method
approach (plus a previously negotiated "tight" schedule) seems to work best for my groupthink
projects. Email takes care of the rest.
But, as always, different tools for differing work environments - so YMMV.