I did have
another idea for what to do in this case. Perhaps all
the links
to the old page could remain pointing to what is now an automated
disambiguation page. Readers (not necessarily editors) could be
prompted to
select the right link. Their choice is reflected by updating the
referring
page. Of course the link could be manually fixed later, if
something goes
wrong.
-- Tim Starling.
I understand what you are getting at here Tim, but I don't think
it is reasonable to push an editting task on a reader. Now, if
they show any editting interest in the page that is a different
matter. Then you could (perhaps) ask them to fix a few links
while they are there. You would have to give them a means to
chicken out though.
The optimum would go a little like this...
1. Reader clicks on some link
2. Oops, what am I doing at this disambig page
3. Correct destination is radio button 1, or 2, or 17
4. Wiki software fixes calling link AND...
5 Reader transparently moves to desired destination.
6. Gaz wins Lotto next day and retires ;-)
But then what do you do if THAT reader got it all wrong?
The reader doesn't think they're editing, the reader is just trying to get
to the information they're interested in. If a reader views [[Roman
mythology]] then [[Mercury]] then [[Mercury (mythology)]], we can surmise
that it's more likely than not [[Roman mythology]] should link to [[Mercury
(mythology)]]. If the user is distracted, suddenly realising how interesting
the element mercury is, the link will be set incorrectly. Readers following
the same path later click on the "other uses for the word 'mercury'"
header
in [[Mercury (element)]] (after a moment of confusion). Editors following
that link will fix it.
I don't know what the right way to do it is. I'm just contributing a couple
of ideas.
-- Tim Starling.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to