In a message dated 4/22/2009 12:43:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 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. 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.>>
Chatopedia Discussopedia Jabberpedia
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.
I noticed somewhere that Google was giving preferential treatment to Knol articles on some content collector, but then later they stopped doing that. So apparently they felt that was a bit unfair. There's no reason I can see why a Wiki project couldn't be setup to display a Wikipedia article, a few articles from Knol on the same subject, and allow a reader comments section as well.
Will Johnson
************** Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433404x1201394533/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk)
2009/4/22 WJhonson@aol.com:
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.
Wikinews now has a "comment on this article" tab on every article.
- d.
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
2009/4/24 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
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.
It varies. In the case of low controversy or just plain obscure stuff it may be helpful. In the case of articles like [[Barack Obama]] or [[Loose Change (film)]] it is unlikely to be.
In practice this is how it tends to be.