This question is inspired by [an answer of Tim Porter](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/40005/generalizing-a-problem-to-make-it-easier/40010#40010).  
  

Ronnie Brown pioneered a framework for homotopy theory in which one may consider multiple basepoints. These ideas are accessibly presented in his book Topology and Groupoids. The idea of the fundamental groupoid, put forward as a multi-basepoint alternative to the fundamental group, is the highlight of the theory. The headline result seems to be that the van-Kampen Theorem looks more natural in the groupoid context.  

I don't know whether I find this headline result compelling- the extra baggage of groupoids and pushouts makes me question whether the payoff is worth the effort, all the more so because I am a geometric topology person, rather than a homotopy theorist.



> 
> Do you have examples in geometric topology (3-manifolds, 4-manifolds, tangles, braids, knots and links...) where the concept of the fundamental groupoid has been useful, in the sense that it has led to new theorems or to substantially simplified treatment of known topics?
> 


One place that I can imagine (but, for lack of evidence, only imagine) that fundamental groupoids might be useful (at least to simplify exposition) is in knot theory, where we're constantly switching between (at least) three different "natural" choices of basepoint- on the knot itself, on the boundary of a tubular neighbourhood, and in the knot complement. This change-of-basepoint adds a nasty bit of technical complexity which I have struggled with when writing papers. A recent proof (Proposition 8 of [my paper with Kricker](http://www.msp.warwick.ac.uk/agt/2009/09-03/p049.xhtml)) which would have been a few lines if we hadn't had to worry about basepoints, became 3 pages. In another direction, what about fundamental groupoids of braids?  

Have the ideas of fundamental groupoids been explored in geometric topological contexts? Conversely, if not, then why not? 



Compelling evidence that two basepoints are better than one
Here is an interesting example where groupoids are useful. The mapping class group $\Gamma\_{g,n}$ is the group of isotopy classes of orientation preserving diffeomorphisms of a surface of genus $g$ with $n$ distinct marked points (labelled 1 through n). The classifying space $B\Gamma\_{g,n}$ is rational homology equivalent to the (coarse) moduli space $\mathcal{M}\_{g,n}$ of complex curves of genus $g$ with $n$ marked points (and if you are willing to talk about the moduli orbifold or stack, then it is actually a homotopy equivalence)


The symmetric group $\Sigma\_n$ acts on $\mathcal{M}\_{g,n}$ by permuting the labels of the marked points.


**Question:** How do we describe the corresponding action of the symmetric group on the classifying space $B\Gamma\_{g,n}$?


It is possible to see $\Sigma\_n$ as acting by outer automorphisms on the mapping class group. I suppose that one could probably build an action on the classifying space directly from this, but here is a much nicer way to handle the problem.


The group $\Gamma\_{g,n}$ can be identified with the orbifold fundamental group of the moduli space. Let's replace it with a fundamental groupoid. Fix a surface $S$ with $n$ distinguished points, and take the groupoid where objects are labellings of the distinguished points by 1 through n, and morphisms are isotopy classes of diffeomorphisms that respect the labellings (i.e., sending the point labelled $i$ in the first labelling to the point labelled $i$ in the second labelling). 


Clearly this groupoid is equivalent to the original mapping class group, so its classifying space is homotopy equivalent. But now we have an honest action of the symmetric group by permuting the labels on the distinguished points of $S$.


