Jens Frank wrote:

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 01:27:56AM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:

...

On Monday 26 August 2002 12:20 pm, The Cunctator wrote:

...

Instead of a wikipedia slash, what we need to implement is something more like the Yahoo! Groups, where the mailing list has a straightforward bulletin board interface, which should be hooked into the Wikipedia user database.Then we'd start getting somewhere.

With so many posts to this list I think either your idea or mine would be better than the current situation. Each should be reviewed for their pros and cons (a big pro for Slashcode is that it is GPL and almost ready to go out of the box -- or so I've heard).

I oppose moving to a web based application. Those are so limited compared to a good mail reader with thread support, a kill file for "uninteresting" threads and an easy way to discover new articles. (No, Netscape Communicator does not qualify as a good mail user agent). All web based bulletin boards I've seen up to now can't provide the convenience of a good mail reader.

If I'm overruled and we are going to do it web based, than we should probably integrate it tightly into the wiki markup, making it possible to link to articles and to use bold and italic and the other things we are used to. But we should have a separate "Recent Changes" from the main one!

We already learned from using sourceforge's bug tracking tool that we should stick to one consistent user interface for everything.

Perhaps we should attempt to use meta to consolidate lengthy or persistent threads or topics.

We may need to learn some standard patterns for laying controversial topics in ways that present the top level consensus overviews and mainstream information while preserving the radical fringes ability to evolve their views anyway.

regards, Mike Irwin

Tom Parmenter wrote:

I wrote up a brief and sensible outline for presenting controversial topics a few weeks back, to precisely no reaction.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AList_of_controversial_issues

It probably wouldn't help with Helga, but even there . . . maybe and it would certainly work with more organized opponents.

This looks like a pretty good starting point to me. I once proposed something similar at Meta which was eventually endorsed by "24" but otherwise ignored. Probably because you were frequenting the alternate forum above while I had been diverted to Meta.

Essentially, I think we are still a small enough community that informal methods of discussing controversy are perceived as adequate. People who cannot handle informal give and take techniques well are eventually classified as isolated cranks and run off. Many others may leave before it reaches this level of conflict, many people avoid conflict if possible.

When we get larger such that a controversy around a larger topic such as abortion, the Middle East, Invasion of Iraq, etc. will suddenly attracts hundreds of participants (say 10% of whom are inflammatory and reinforcing each others views and behavior) in multiple factions then better methods may be needed. Alternatively we may fork or experience loss of extreme factions instead of isolated individuals. This will help us return to a "community" size where the current methods have stabized participation levels.

I think your approach could be an excellent foundation to from which to start improving formal methods suitable for larger participation levels.

I think it needs to be pre-established and perceived as routine in developing multi-faceted content. That way it will not be threatening when implemented and people will not get defensive instead of participating.

Perhaps, we could identify a potentially controversial subject where our content is currently thin, and prototype the method by developing the material.

regards, Mike Irwin