On 2/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem with any form of archiving is that it's the busiest
pages that need it, and the busiest pages tend to be controversial. So picking how to archive them is not so much a technical matter as politics. Date-based archiving is generally tolerable to most.
This doesnt replace date based Ordered archives. Im hoping that redundancy and plenty of cross linking between Topical archives (TA) and OA will keep people from disagreeing too much with the subjectivity that will go into forming readable TA.
-Stevertigo
stvrtg wrote:
On 2/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem with any form of archiving is that it's the busiest
pages that need it, and the busiest pages tend to be controversial. So picking how to archive them is not so much a technical matter as politics. Date-based archiving is generally tolerable to most.
This doesnt replace date based Ordered archives. Im hoping that redundancy and plenty of cross linking between Topical archives (TA) and OA will keep people from disagreeing too much with the subjectivity that will go into forming readable TA.
Refactoring was encouraged when Wikipedia was much smaller. I remember trying it on a few pages, and it was a time consuming job. No wonder it fell into disfavour. Is there a Google-like way in which every click to or from a particular section of a talk page, and the recency of its edits could be used as a measure of its importance. The topical archive could then be ordered automatically according to those measures, with the most important ones at the top. When an talk page exceeds a predetermined number of kilobytes the program would put the less important excess on archive page(s).
As long as this idea depends heavily on manpower input I can't see it going very far.
Ec