WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com writes
This is a wonderful idea! It could even make sense to have Metapedia as a Wikimedia project...an explicitly curatorial project that attempts to sort different kinds of content and evaluate strengths and weaknesses.
Having this hosted by Wikimedia would be a great opportunity to reinvent past mistakes.
It could also serve as a place to have general discussions about certain topics, without the necessity (as on Wikipedia talk pages, nominally) of focusing on content improvement; that's something that there's a need for, and something that causes specific projects to suffer because of the tendency of readers to try to start general discussions.>>
I've noticed the appalling trend to apply restrictions to content improvement on talk pages. Wide ranging discussions on talk pages are important to the better understanding of many articles.
I've noticed a number of news outlets allowing posts at the bottom of articles. You can't actually change the article itself yet, but why the heck not? They could easily set-up moderated changes. Better than some reporter slogging through 500 posts to find the one that complains about a spelling error.
Moderated changes need to be accompanied by article histories to prevent truth as flavor of the day.
Ec