In order to have many articles on the same topic, you must have a way so that the readers have those articles ranked. This way, the reader would instantly see the article he most trusts, no more effort for the reader.
I dont know whether trust is required to be formalized for a small group of developers working for a project, but it is necessary for a project like Wikipedia where there are thousands of contributors. Google found a trust metric to rank the internet. He ranked pages by having sites trust sites(links). We need to study and formalize a trust metric (with people trusting people ) for that kind of revolution of a distributed Wikipedia to take place. *None of the previous proposals tried to cooperate with someone that is working on trust metrics.* I think that the best way to go forward is to create a distributed wikipedia and let it be a test bed for a few trust metrics. I am not a developer but I recently started working on creating such a trust metric <http://opensociety.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page>. Here is another more mature effort on the study of trust metrics. http://www.trustlet.org/wiki 2011/7/2 David Gerard <[email protected]> > On 1 July 2011 09:27, Alec Conroy <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Nikola Smolenski <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 07/01/2011 09:15 AM, David Gerard wrote: > > >>> Per HaeB's link, this is a perennial proposal. People like the idea, > >>> but in eighteen years - back as far as the Interpedia proposal, before > >>> wikis existed - no-one has made one that works. Why not? What's > >>> failing to go on here? > > >> Per HaeB's link, IMO no proposal was specific enough, and no proposal > >> was actually done. > > > I don't know why it took so long, but here's my guess. It hasn't > > worked for the past 18 years because prior to wikipedia, nobody ever > > got anything like this to work. It took a Jimmy to look at patent > > absurdity of 'anyone can edit' encyclopedias and somehow see that it > > was working in an amazing and world-changing way. > > > The fact that Github's git-backed wikis haven't been seized upon > suggests to me that there's no demand for a distributed wiki system > amongst the *readers*. > > It's like the perennial proposal for multiple article versions on > Wikipedia for each point of view. This solves a problem for the > *writers*, but makes one for the *readers*. They seem to want one > source with one article on a topic, else they'd just hit the top ten > links in Google instead of going to Wikipedia. (Wikinfo has tried > implementing this. Its readership is negligible compared to Wikipedia, > but its writers enjoy it.) > > Why do people want ten Wikipedias to look up instead of one? They > observably don't - they want a source they can quickly look up > something in that they can reasonably trust to be useful. They only go > to multiple sources if that one starts sucking. > > A distributed wiki proposal needs to clearly solve a problem the readers > have. > > There are several such perennial proposals that are ignored because > they are actually about solving problems for the writers, and not > solving problems for the readers. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
