Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Design proposal

[Bryce Harrington]

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