User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:That's stupid. Adding new wikis is obviously not the right way to vote or score or bet on things - and some such quantitative approach will ultimately be required to make such publication decisions fairly - see [[edits, votes and bets]]. Obviously there is an objective way to turn research into publication, probably by [[answer recommendation]] ([[approval voting]] on the various answer options) which doesn't even require [[faction]]s (although it's quite important to allow [[factionally defined]] scoring to let you just agree with someone else's view easily). | :That's stupid. Adding new wikis is obviously not the right way to vote or score or bet on things - and some such quantitative approach will ultimately be required to make such publication decisions fairly - see [[edits, votes and bets]]. Obviously there is an objective way to turn research into publication, probably by [[answer recommendation]] ([[approval voting]] on the various answer options) which doesn't even require [[faction]]s (although it's quite important to allow [[factionally defined]] scoring to let you just agree with someone else's view easily). | ||
: | :Perhaps, discipline all [[Publish Wiki]] talk to be in [[TIPAESA]] form or something, to make it easy to put forward an issue to be resolved, but don't create a separate wiki for it - that is like cancer. The point of wiki is to concentrate argument, not spread it all around to three different namespaces. One issue is one issue, period, and everything must be easily found based on the one name of the one issue. And only one place to put an argument for or against publishing a particular fact. | ||
---- | ---- | ||