WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
ragesoss+wikipedia(a)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