On 07/19/04 14:22, Magnus Manske wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Sj wrote:
Please remember that we '''do not need developer effort''' to move towards Wikipedia 1.0.
Ohhh yes we do. I've been researching this 1.0 question. Mostly that there's been *over a year* of wibbling on the mailing list to no end. Hence my use of the present Subject: line.
I'm really extremely interested in pushing the 1.0 thing and making a workable plan the cats will herd to, letting the wiki do the work and harnessing the power of dilettantism as admirably as we do. The work needed for a 1.0 will be stuff that will only help the live wiki version as well.
Yeah I've heard that before. Coding features is vastly easier than organising Wikipedians. If someone puts some pretty buttons on Wikipedia saying things like "review this article" and "mark for concise version", then people will start clicking them. Policies will emerge out of the chaos that ensues, and everything will come together. If someone wrote the feature 6 months ago, we'd be ready to print by now.
I'm on it, I'm on it! :-)
w00t!
Do we have a consensus on what things we want people to rate (accuracy, coverage, good writing, grammar/spelling?) what scale (yes/no, 0-4, 0-10?) and whether it's per version?
(I think there should be a bit of discussion before adding the feature about possible ill effects of the per-version thing. It may make people reluctant to polish minor problems in an otherwise high-rating version. I may be completely wrong, of course. But I worry that this one, a feature for 1.0, may have ill effects upon the live wiki.)
- d.