Let the subscribers decide whats worthwhile _automatically_
Posted Dec 7, 2003 0:10 UTC (Sun) by
rhkramer (guest, #15212)
In reply to:
Let the subscribers decide whats worthwhile _automatically_ by ahoh
Parent article:
On comment abuse
I have a hamm^H^H^H^H wiki, so ...
I use wikis a lot, and can't help but add wiki to the discussion. I'm not
strongly advocating a wiki, but it may be something to think about. (In
general, I do advocate wikis over email discussion lists and similar "time
based" discussions, in a desire to turn them into "timeless" discussions
that are always useful.)
And, I'd point out that (some) wikis are very flexible, so the following
is only one potential way of using a wiki:
Start (reserve) a wiki page for each article. (With or without the text
of the article on that or a parent page of the wiki, maybe add the article
a week or two later to help the page be a "timeless" discussion of the
topic. An "unwritten rule" (should be written ;-) is to limit the
scope of the discussion to the scope of the original article (to avoid the
case where an article on SCO provokes a discussion on every possible
aspect of the SCO case or the countersuits).
For the first week, only subsribers are allowed to post. (TWiki, among
others (presumably), has means to limit who can edit a page.)
Encourage those posters to work in (one of) the wiki way(s), that is, to
perpetually leave the page in a "document mode" vs. "thread mode"
state. Perhaps minimize the attribution of comments — in TWiki all
comments are recorded in RCS with the author's name, so someone can
always track down the author. And/or, maintain a contributor's section at
the bottom of the page and anyone who contributes to the discussion adds
themselves to the list of contributors. In special cases (determined by
the contributor but vetted by subsequent contributors / editors) it might
be appropriate to show their comments in italics and add a less
conspicuous comment marker (usually their initials) near their
comments. (I am not sure under what circumstances this would be
appropriate, in my view it would be less to claim ownership of comments
than to denote controversial or uncertain comments that would be very
appropriate to refactor and to keep separate from any thought that it
constitutes part of a general consensus. As additional people edit the
page, it either gets vetted for correctness and incorporated
appropriately, or gets refactored into a pro or con section (see below).)
Aside: One other of the "wiki ways" is the approach to controversial
topics. Rather than have a wiki page slanted pro or con a particular
topic, a "master wiki refactorer" strives to maintain neutrality and
balance. One approach to that might be pro and con sections, with an
intro something like: "There is no consensus on this topic, people who
favor the topic (or better wording) make these points: <:a bulletted
list>, people opposed make these points <another bulleted list>."
Aside: TWiki also has a comment plugin. Perhaps non-subscribers wouild be
allowed only to make comments, but subscribers would have "full" TWiki
editing access.
There is also a voting plugin (that I've never tried).
Whether the text of the article is included on the page or not, the
published date of (and a link to) the original article is included at the
top of the page to somewhat "lock" the discussion in time. (So, I'm
talking out of both sides of my mouth, advocating both timeless and time
based discussions.)
Just some food for thought...
(
Log in to post comments)
