--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
The question is, where do we go from here? Larry
Sanger left the project
for a mix of reasons, but SOME of them made sense (at least to me). We
never resolved the tension between:
A) Anyone can edit any article, any time; and,
B) People can count on every article to be accurate and fair.
Nod.
Not enough people were interested in Larry's
"Sifter Project". I don't
know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software. Do we need to
fork?
Absolutely not. The online version needs to be accurate and fair just as much
as any version in any other medium. We need to work out a way to incorporate a
wiki way to do this (that is, fast, open and scalable).
I was approached by the director of a foundation (with
a multi-million
dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I
worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.
We cannot control what others do, but we should not support any content fork of
our own. However the fact that others are thinking about this in terms of
needing a fork should get our attention that we need to create something
in-house ASAP that is fast, open and scalable (see above).
I think it is high time to re-look at Magnus� reader-controlled article rating
software. We have gone far trusting editors with the ability to edit, I think
we should see if we can trust readers with the ability to rate article
versions.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com