On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> 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.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to