Daniel (mav) wrote:
> We cannot control what others do, but we should not
> support any content fork of our own. However the fact
> that others are thinking about this in terms of needing
> a fork should get our attention that we need to create
> something in-house ASAP that is fast, open and scalable
> (see above).
>
> I think it is high time to re-look at Magnus' reader-
> controlled article rating software. We have gone far
> trusting editors with the ability to edit, I think we
> should see if we can trust readers with the ability to
> rate article versions.
I hate the idea of forking just as much as I hate
having to put up with vandalism, trolls, POV-pushing
and edit wars. I'll do whatever I can to prevent a
Robert Frost style fork:
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.
I do NOT want to take the other. I don't think it's
"just as fair" (i.e., attractive). I'm not convinced
it has "the better claim". At this point it seems
"really about the same."
If the foundation chooses MediaWiki software (as
opposed to just copying and pasting articles into
Microsoft Word, fer Pete's sake!), it will have to
hire programmers to set up their server, administer
their web site, and (most likely) customize
MediaWiki for their unique requirements. It should
be OBVIOUS that any changes to MediaWiki ought to be
shared with Wikipedia.
I don't have all the answers, but the first idea
that popped into my mind was:
* Let users (or a subset of them) "tag" an article
version.
* A tag (or "flag") could take on any assigned
meaning.
* My favorite tag idea: "Vandalism-patrolled by mav" (!)
* Here's another: "Selected for the print edition"
If the foundation chooses to cooperate with
Wikipedia as much as I hope, then I would expect to
have it identify particular VERSIONS of Wikipedia
articles which it has approved. I daresay some of
these might be the "current version" and even remain
as the current version.
Or if a Wikipedian makes a minor correction (like
spelling, punctuation, grammar; or an obviously
relevant internal link) to an article version tagged
by the foundation - then it would be GREAT if the
software would notify the foundation's editors. They
could quickly review the change and probably be GLAD
to endorse the current version. This would PREVENT
forking, or at least reduce it to a bare minimum.
Better yet, if a Wikipedian makes a SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENT to a foundation-tagged article version,
I'd think the foundation would be OVERJOYED to
endorse it. (I'm planning to educate them about
using the History and Diff functions.)
Ed Poor