Dear all,
Inspired by the article about Wikipedia in Nature, I have recently made some
contributions to Wikipedia in my field of expertise. Based on this
experience with Wikipedia, I would like to suggest a change to the structure
of Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether my suggestion has been discussed
previously. I have scanned e-mails in the list from the last months and
couldn't find anything related, but apologize if I simply reiterate an older
discussion.
Here's my suggestion: Allow multiple entries for one topic.
Why? In my opinion, there is no such thing as THE perfect entry about a
topic or, as a matter of fact, the TRUTH about a topic. So, why adopt one of
the shortcomings of printed encyclopedias? Why not allow users to read
different entries (and opinions!) about one topic?
An important complement of my suggestion is the introduction of a rating
system. How could this work? I would suggest a rating system consisting of
three parts. After reading an article, you can:
1. rate the quality of the entry on a, say, 6-point rating scale
2. rate yourself as an expert, amateur, or layperson in the field the entry
belongs to
3. enter strengths or weaknesses of this entry in a comment textbox (not
obligatory)
When you access an entry, you would then first get a list of existing
entries with their respective ratings separately for expert, amateur, and
layperson ratings. Based on these ratings, you then choose the article you
want to read.
Open questions: Is there a danger of too many articles for one topic? Should
there be a limit of parallel articles? If yes, how do you get in new
articles if this limit is reached? (Possible solution: You can write a new
article and "challenge" the worst existing article. If your article gets
higher ratings in the next, say, 4 weeks, your article replaces the older
one.)
Best,
Troas
--
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie