Some ideas:
* Add topical forums to Wikipedia, by a rough count around eighty different topics. The encyclopedia article (primarily the one in the current global common language of American English) is the central document which contains the facts around any particular issue, and forums serve not just as a centralized discussion place around the article, but serve as more general discussion places and a way of coordinating article development. Currently discussion about article development tends to be spread out across too many talk pages and WikiProject pages tend to be too development oriented. * Integrate Wiktionary and Wikidata entries in Wikipedia searches. As a technical idea where the problem is one of "'this particular data belongs in an encyclopedia, while this other nuancedly-different set belongs in a dictionary." Specifically dealing with Wiktionary and Wiktionary because together with Wikipedia these should cover the whole Semantic Field.* Similar to above: Clicking on links is like doing a specific search.. deliver similar Wikidata and Wiktionary entries at top in addition to going to article. Clicking on links has that pidgeon-holing problem as well, of this topic (a link is basically a search entry already filled-out for you). Solution.. show a little related metadata at the top, and as a consequence.. continued:* Formalize the way disambiguation links are handled. An approach to developing Wikipedia is simply covering all possible topics. Including Wiktionary and Wikidata entries in Wikipedia searches is a technical idea that helps develop these other two projects and also lets them and their different handling help Wikipedia build and integrate articles, and Wikidata allows the idea of including.. continued:* Categorical language to cover the whole Semantic Field of ideas (building a dictionary of ideas, in term and phrase forms, which formalize "talking generally"): Talking about a thing might receive suppression (from either or both governments in the World) because talking about a thing along would (or in some legalistic arguments "might") reveal secrets about people. But news and history still have to be documented based on a reporting of events, and talking categorically is a way to say what's going on without being "defaming," because we aren't being specific. * Update opinion/policy regarding Machine translation-transformation and its implementation. The idea of each language getting its own wiki was the open ended approach, and was successful even though it has had some drawbacks the other is using the big languages to receive users into more and more assisted arenas, where machine translation (contract with Army/Google) is mature enough to integrate into the editing and discussion form. * Political: Fortify against the slippery slope that lets defamation arguments receive automatic or near-automatic legal suppression. The standard cartoon is where the lawyers argue that something a nation state does in the way of a crime has to be suppressed from news and history "because" its of a "defamation" to the unelected or elected leaders. The idea of "suppression" (was called "oversight," really..) as permissible gets to that issue much debated about what kind of world are we going to have.. does it have too much suppression in it, such that there are things which we are categorically forbidden from reporting, even though we in the United States and other non-monarchial regions do not live by an anti-democratic philosophy of government.
Steven Cooneyfrom 2002
