Dear M,
Neither of the scenarios you suggest is likely to occur with me, or with any of the dozens of others whose work I've come to repect.
If I see the "hidden changes exist" flag, then of course I will either: * read the current version, or * use the "History" and "Diff" links to see what you call the wild changes, before editing.
But if a shortcut to 'edit the version currently displayed' would cause more harm than good, I have no objection to its being omitted. When I need to revert vandalism, I can just use the "History" link as always.
Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing?
Ed Poor
I really like elian's idea of user-added star ratings to articles. I don't have it handy, but it was like
* pathetic stub ***** Britannica grade
Then you could set your wikiviewer to show any rating, one-star if you were looking for work, five-star if you were looking for information, etc. No bureacracy, no cabal, no weird standards for hiding information. Much more, as elian said, the wiki way.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com |Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:09:15 -0500 | |Dear M, | |Neither of the scenarios you suggest is likely to occur with me, or with any of the dozens of others whose work I've come to repect. | |If I see the "hidden changes exist" flag, then of course I will either: |* read the current version, or |* use the "History" and "Diff" links |to see what you call the wild changes, before editing. | |But if a shortcut to 'edit the version currently displayed' would cause more harm than good, I have no objection to its being omitted. When I need to revert vandalism, I can just use the "History" link as always. | |Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing? | |Ed Poor |_______________________________________________ |Wikipedia-l mailing list |Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Parmenter" tompar@world.std.com To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Cc: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature Proposal: Certification
I really like elian's idea of user-added star ratings to articles. I don't have it handy, but it was like
pathetic stub***** Britannica grade
Then you could set your wikiviewer to show any rating, one-star if you were looking for work, five-star if you were looking for information, etc. No bureacracy, no cabal, no weird standards for hiding information. Much more, as elian said, the wiki way.
Yes, this has been the best suggestion so far.
Cheers
Derek
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:09:15PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Neither of the scenarios you suggest is likely to occur with me, or with any of the dozens of others whose work I've come to repect.
If I see the "hidden changes exist" flag, then of course I will either:
- read the current version, or
- use the "History" and "Diff" links
to see what you call the wild changes, before editing.
'Before editing' just that article? What about edits to talk pages? The potential for confusion during discussion is immense, if different participants are seeing different views of the Wikipedia.
What about edits to related articles? You would be in danger of duplicating information which had been placed on other pages, but which you had hidden from yourself. Or worse, erroneously omitting information because you believed it to be covered elsewhere.
Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing?
Not bad per se, just not appropriate to Wikipedia. I still recommend you fork if you wish to try this experiment.
-M-
Ed Poor wrote:
Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing?
*Fundamentally* *bad*? No -- even if *I* might not do it.
But I'm starting to think that this would be an idea for some other site that sits on top of Wikipedia, taking Wikipedia as a source of some of its input, but not outputing directly onto Wikipedia (although it could direct potential editors to Wikipedia). Of course, there's no reason that this new web site couldn't be supported by Bomis, Inc., or a Wikipedia Foundation.
Larry has already suggested that Nupedia might act like this; well, we could have a site that covers Team Nupedia and a bunch of other certification teams too, if there's interest.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org