Should we be trying to use domain-specific information? One user may be trusted when editing on cryptography but not on animal welfare, say. Can we synthesize domains from the information available about what links to what and who is editing it? Can we capture in our trust information that people who know about crypto trust X but not people who know about animal welfare, and use that to fine-tune our trust decisions depending on the subject area of the article we're assessing it in reference to? Can we do so without anyone having to explicity identify domains?
i would disagree on this.
Right now, I edit on Freemasonry and Wicca, predominantly. This does not preclude me from learning from primary and secondary sources, information about other topics, allowing me to update with "What I Know Is" . . .
Jimbo is the only user with the highest level of privilege on Wikipedia; he can grant or remove any priv to any user, while no-one else can do the same to him. Jimbo personally appoints ArbCom. This isn't just a matter of the settings of a few flags; it's official policy on Wikipedia that Jimbo is the ultimate arbiter.
I have to resist going ~~~~ at the end of this :-)
I guess I'm just thinking of the current hubbub about userboxes, and how it has been pointed out that not every little whim of Jimbo's is law . . . or that that is at least one major understanding held.
Yeah I'd totally love to see this. This and similar things for wiki have been discussed a few times but as far as I can tell, no one has ever had time to code an implementation.
It seems to me that the first major change along these lines is making pages forkable. I feel that in order to do this, one may as well just switch to a version-control repository backend; and while we're at it, modularize everything else to so as to have a CommunityWiki:ModularWiki. A ModularWiki will help with the next step, too, that is, creating a separate ratings database (a WikiFeatures:RatedChangeCollector module) and hooking it into the wiki
( ... )
Comments 8
i would disagree on this.
Right now, I edit on Freemasonry and Wicca, predominantly. This does not preclude me from learning from primary and secondary sources, information about other topics, allowing me to update with "What I Know Is" . . .
Also, Jimbo doesn't OWN wiki.
Reply
I have to resist going ~~~~ at the end of this :-)
Reply
or that that is at least one major understanding held.
Reply
* 1 Anarchy
* 2 Precedent
* 3 Despotism
* 4 Democracy
* 5 Republic
* 6 Meritocracy
* 7 Plutocracy
* 8 Technocracy
not an easy balance but surely an interesting "ecological" challenge ...
paolo ( http://moloko.itc.it/paoloblog/ )
Reply
Would you be interested in re-posting your journal entry on WikiFeatures or CommunityWiki?
It seems to me that the first major change along these lines is making pages forkable. I feel that in order to do this, one may as well just switch to a version-control repository backend; and while we're at it, modularize everything else to so as to have a CommunityWiki:ModularWiki. A ModularWiki will help with the next step, too, that is, creating a separate ratings database (a WikiFeatures:RatedChangeCollector module) and hooking it into the wiki ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment