Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
mNo edit summary |
(This requires for the "unified" login scheme to be reworked to adjust to the new situation where there is no one-to-one connection with Research Wikis and Publish Wikis) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm going for [[Noise Wiki]] since '''who is eligible for the status of researcher''' will likely be [[faction]]ally contested | I'm going for [[Noise Wiki]] since '''who is eligible for the status of researcher''' will likely be [[faction]]ally contested, thus this is a bad name for a wiki | ||
:Um, though, aren't we trying to encourage stuff to be refined to the point where SOMEONE considers it "research"? [[Wikipedia]] articles are usually not good enough to be in an encyclopedia, but it's at least possible to say "that's not good enough to be here". One could ditch things from a [[Research Wiki]] for "not being researched", it's damn hard to ditch things that are just "noise". That name properly belongs to [[Development Wiki]] where everything is truly noise until it becomes code. | |||
:How about [[Code Wiki]] or [[Develop Wiki]] (this one you're reading), [[Research Wiki]] (the one full of articles of various levels of merit), and [[Publish Wiki]] (the one that actually goes to print, and has the status of "published material" either ads or editorial? Maybe [[Signal Wiki]] is just a bit too abstract, especially if the [[Consumerium buying signal]] is going to be more commonly "published" as a book or database downloaded into some [[worn device]] or [[checkout counter]]? | |||
There will be only one research wiki and lots of [[Publish Wiki]]s in many languages some more coherent with current research and some less. | |||
This requires for the "unified" login scheme to be reworked to adjust to the new situation where there is no one-to-one connection with [[Research Wiki]]s and [[Publish Wiki]]s |