Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I don't have all the answers, but the first idea
that popped into my mind was:
* Let users (or a subset of them) "tag" an article
version.
* A tag (or "flag") could take on any assigned
meaning.
* My favorite tag idea: "Vandalism-patrolled by mav" (!)
* Here's another: "Selected for the print edition"
This is the right approach. All article versions need to have several
slider flags associated with them in the database. Some of those flags,
like confidence, need to be automatically set according to the
software's judgement of the trustworthiness of the editor (based on some
reputation model). Other flags need to have an interface radio button
setting so readers/editors can rate the article versions on any number
of aspects.
Or if a Wikipedian makes a minor correction (like
spelling, punctuation, grammar; or an obviously
relevant internal link) to an article version tagged
by the foundation - then it would be GREAT if the
software would notify the foundation's editors. They
could quickly review the change and probably be GLAD
to endorse the current version. This would PREVENT
forking, or at least reduce it to a bare minimum.
Better yet, if a Wikipedian makes a SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENT to a foundation-tagged article version,
I'd think the foundation would be OVERJOYED to
endorse it. (I'm planning to educate them about
using the History and Diff functions.)
Right, Ed. There is absolutely no reason for a fork. All we need is
some proactive, creative, and *bold* programming experimentation.
Long live
Respectipedia.org!!
Tom Haws