There are at least two big questions about how this ought to work:
- How do we get new folks to dive in and
contribute? Having your improvements show up *immediately* is a big draw to the wikipedia experience.
Well, we could call it beta and stable if we wanted to and people could know that the beta version was more up-to-date than the stable version. A lot of people at Wikipedia are here just to read and they can keep doing that and others are here to write and I suggest we have a link on the bottom of each stable article that says, "Edit this article in Beta". I imagine all of us would still just watch the beta anyway. :)
- How does the review process work? If very few
people are interested in a topic, a new article or change might get completely ignored, and very good articles may never be seen; so limiting reviewing to certain trusted users would likely not be sufficient. On the other hand, it's child's play for organized vandals to set up secondary accounts to mod up their own work, as many discussion-oriented sites have discovered on establishing user-run comment moderation systems.
This is of course the hardest part. Let's form a Cabal! :) When there's enough positive reviews from enough experienced users (maybe those signed up for over 3 months) and *no* negative reviews (all negative reviews should have a reason why they voted negative) then the article makes it to stable. If someone is found abusing the system, they could be knocked back to standard user with a 3 month waiting period to get back.
This is only a suggestion! The values of course could be tweaked, but I think this could work. It needs to a) not cause ppl to try to do things to improve their possibilities of getting in the "Cabal" (um, reviewing committee), i.e. time works well for this and b) not easily subject to abuse and c) it needs to be simple!
We need to have a base idea to start a system like this, so I'm presenting one that we can discuss.
Chuck
===== Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo! http://amuzulo.babil.komputilo.org/ ==== Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias. Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
Chuck Smith wrote:
This is of course the hardest part. Let's form a Cabal! :)
Dude, don't even joke about that. :-) We don't need that war to break out again.
We need to have a base idea to start a system like this, so I'm presenting one that we can discuss.
Maybe we should better define the objectives and constraints of such a system.
The most important constraint, I think, is that anything we do must respect the purity of the wiki-nature. YOU can edit THIS page NOW. Wow.
--Jimbo
Hi Chuck!
There are at least two big questions about how this ought to work:
- How do we get new folks to dive in and
contribute? Having your improvements show up *immediately* is a big draw to the wikipedia experience.
Well, we could call it beta and stable if we wanted to and people could know that the beta version was more up-to-date than the stable version. A lot of people at Wikipedia are here just to read and they can keep doing that and others are here to write and I suggest we have a link on the bottom of each stable article that says, "Edit this article in Beta".
I really like the idea. The argument most people come up with in a discussion about WP (after the ones we all know ...) is, that they can't rely on the information they find, because too few people might have proofread it or someone might have changed the text 5 seconds before the accessed the page.
How about a debian-like scheme (as I understand it):
* unstable/sid (still in development) = beta = what we have now * testing = proofread by enough wikipedians in a process like the one Chuck suggested * stable = Nupedia (in a few years or so ;-)
I'm a bit sceptic about Nupedia and the authority idea behind it (but I admit that I don't know much about it), but I'm sure that it will attract many scholars.
How do we take articles out of testing or stable if a proven mistake is found? By voting in a short time period (3 days)? Or do we need elected maintainers?
And we will need to vote in every change that is made in the rules of the process. It'll get much (!) more complicated that WP, but the idea is very attracting!
I imagine all of us would still just watch the beta anyway. :)
Of course! :-)
Bye, Kurt
P.S.: A last association: * unstable/sid (still in development) = anarchy * testing = democracy * stable = meritocracy?
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org