Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Design proposal

[Rob Scott]

If we start using something roughly sufficient now, by
the time its time to make important decisions we'll
all be bogged down in all the other crap and not be
able to see the whole situation from far out (man!).  
I think we'd end up using the system for far longer
than the 'temporary setup period' you intend it to be.


--- Bryce Harrington <address@hidden> wrote: > On
Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Bob Dodd wrote:
> > I know what you mean, but it's not usable for an
> encyclopedia in its
> > present form. For one thing, not only is there no
> editorial control,
> > there is now way of *really* knowing *who* has
> modified articles
> > (although you can tell that they have been). Being
> able to add your own
> > entries/subjects is fine, but you should not be
> able to modify other
> > articles without the author's permission e.g. I've
> added "[xxx]" to
> > your article, just to make the point (you're
> welcome to remove it).
> > 
> > There are also big problems in terms of
> organisation of information in
> > this sort of Wiki (e.g. properly handling
> synonyms). I'm not saying
> > these sort of tools don't provide a good reference
> model in many ways,
> > but they aren't even 20&% of what we need.
> > 
> 
> Switching to an appropriately configured TWiki would
> take care of two
> thirds of those needs.  Regarding the synonym
> organization thingee,
> you need to explain why that is an issue?  It
> strikes me as fairly minor
> and something that can be worked out as an
> implementational detail.
> 
> Also, this does not exist in a vacuum - do not
> forget that in parallel
> with this there is the more tightly editorially
> controlled Nupedia.  It
> appears to me to be an excellent way to balance
> freedom and ease of
> expression, with the vigor of having editors.
> 
> In any case, my point merely is, this system exists
> NOW, and is already
> set up for generating encyclopedia.  ALL of the
> other discussions I have
> heard so far are mired in controvery over
> requirements.  I cannot
> imagine that a system that satisfies ALL
> requirements can be completed
> within a year; probably several, if at all.  Even if
> you dislike some of
> the details of this system, rather than have us turn
> up our nose at it,
> we should use it, learn from it, and gain content in
> the process.
> 
> Trust me, having content being generated as our own
> software develops
> and matures is a Good Thing.  It will pull in new
> developer blood when
> most of this original crew grows bored and leaves. 
> It will encourage us
> to deliver a simple replacement earlier than we
> would if we lacked the
> pressure of seeing content getting used now.  And it
> will allow us to
> test out ideas as we go.
> 
> Net projects that start from ground zero, tool-wise,
> take a LOT longer
> to get rolling along well.  Most start from tools
> that do at least some
> part of what they need, even if they disagree
> strongly with some parts
> of it.  Just because we use Wiki for a few months
> does not mean we need
> to use it forever.  
> 
> I'm sorry, I fail to see how this is bad.  I fail to
> see why we should
> sit on our hands waiting for perfection when this is
> roughly sufficient
> now.  
> 
> Ugh, sorry for the rant.  
> 
> Bryce
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie