On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote: > > a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a > > structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can > > build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request > the > > platform developers to build support for them (sometimes even without > > writing new software at all; new workflows can be designed and maintained > > purely through social convention). > > And yet, after over a decade of open-ended design through social > convention, the end result is... our current talk pages. Perhaps > another decade or two will be needed before that document-centric > architecture gives us a half-decent discussion system? > I don't see talk pages as not being a half-decent discussion system. They support a lot more functionality than simple threaded discussion, so forum-style or social media-style software won't work for them. They provide a flexible system that allows them to serve the purpose of hosting discussions as well as a significant number of other functions. > > Sorry if that sound snarky, but I have difficulty buying an argument > that the current system has the potential to suffice when it has > demonstrably already failed. You said demonstrably, so I'm going to ask you to demonstrate it. What basis do you have for saying it's failed? > It does no good to have the hypothetical > capacity for a good system if, in practice, it's unusable. > Sure, that statement is true, but it's irrelevant here given that a system used thousands upon thousands of times a day can hardly be called unusable. Todd _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
