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