--- Ulrich Fuchs <mail(a)ulrich-fuchs.de> wrote:
A validation process can operate in two ways: either
there is some was of a
democratic voting sytem, which will lead to mediocre
article (science is not
democratic). Or there are some people which are more
trusted than others -
and that's the capitulation of the wiki principle.
Our problems is not validation. Our problem is that
the goals are not clear
(what goes in, or perhaps: what goes in in which
edition), and that editing
(which means: deleting a lot of things) is
considered bad habit.
Uli
Nod. But we could give different goals to products.
For example, the goal of wikireaders could be from now
on be much more defined.
It is already a different goal that wikipedia
* it offers limited information (it is an extract of
wikipedia)
* it tries to cover quite generally a whole topic (eg,
a wikireader on a country will covers its geography,
politics, economics, tourism etc...)
* it is meant to be read only (errors can't be fixed).
* it is meant to be sold (while wikipedia is free)
We could add to these different goals the fact the
information in it has been double checked, that it
undergone an *organised* peer-review (rather than a
quite anarchic one like on wikipedia).
no ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/