On 3/30/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1) Do you have any suggestions as to how we implement
this?
Not entirely. The software aspects are not all that daunting; getting
community acceptance will be considerably harder. Although, actually,
I suspect that much of this can be done without actually changing the
way editors collaborate all that much, Kirill's protestations
notwithstanding.
2)a Is existing software adequate to achieving this?
Not by itself.
b Is the development effort to implementing this
realistic?
I think so. Most of it can be implemented with bots, with a few web
interfaces, perhaps at the toolserver.
3) How much of the process would be automated
(identification of SWGs
and those who should be in them) and would an infrastructure be
offered so that selected users could quickly and easily assume these
roles?
I think that particular process can be largely automated. It is
relatively easy to obtain a list of all articles a user has edited,
gather the categories of those articles, and identify likely SWGs that
a user might be interested in; this can be automated once a category
to SWG map exists. Someone (possibly Greg Maxwell) mentioned to me
that there is already a bot that can autocategorize articles
reasonably well, so it's possible that this could be almost nearly
automated.
4) Are you suggesting the articles which don't
meet the deadlines at
each stage be deleted in existing Wikipedia fashion or simply made
unviewable to readers?
Technically, deleting them is basically the same as making them
unavailable to readers. :)
5) How would non-essential editing (eg. expansion,
adding of media)
gel with this system?
I would assume that people interested in a topic will continue to
expand articles, add media, and so forth, whether or not they
participate in an SWG. I suppose people who take the SWG principle
seriously might spend less time doing "nonessential" editing.
Kelly