Poor, Edmund W wrote:
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"
This is the right approach. All article versions need to have several slider flags associated with them in the database. Some of those flags, like confidence, need to be automatically set according to the software's judgement of the trustworthiness of the editor (based on some reputation model). Other flags need to have an interface radio button setting so readers/editors can rate the article versions on any number of aspects.
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.)
Right, Ed. There is absolutely no reason for a fork. All we need is some proactive, creative, and *bold* programming experimentation.
Long live Respectipedia.org!!
Tom Haws