Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > Right, I think we’re agreeing. We need infrastructure to support those > curatorial efforts, but my point is that that infrastructure is completely > different from the infrastructure needed to support discussions, and so > replacing our discussion infrastructure isn’t the right place to start. >
Hm, GG is good for ephemeral discussions. But because the discussions here are really about very technical problems in using the software, they often contain snips that would make sense to save, as evidenced by e.g Mohammads work. But the very manual curation such efforts demand is the big problem. We do need some infrastructure for e.g plugins but we would *also* benefit from a knowledge base more comparable to e.g Wikipedia (including it's article discussions) where the whole community can gradually add to from the discussions in a semi-automatic way. The ideal might be if the discussion software featured a way to mark out (tag?) posts/segments so they become part of a curated body (that can be fine edited "later"). Tagging and quality-rating is almost painless. This would be overkill for most software discussions but for a multi faceted animal like TW where people have totally varied needs and knowledge levels, I think it would make sense. <:-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/2e0dcfaf-29a1-4e83-b65d-c8e45000edaa%40googlegroups.com.
