Should the Historian be publicly editable? | ||||||||
| Line: 8 to 8 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Historian.Editorial admins that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklets (the current web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can: be locked from editing; or moved to a non-editable format (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit buttons etc); or remain a wiki, and evolve. What do I mean by evolve? In the section titled Loitering in Guildhall Square, Camarthen you'll see I've created an extenal reference to the Reform Act of 1832. If you click on the link within that document, you'll be taken to another website (wikipedia.org) that talks about the Reform Act. (I personally had never heard of the Reform Act, so found it useful to go and look it up. I thought that someone else might find the same information useful, so for convenience, I added it as a link within the document.) Now, there must be lots of situations like the one I've just described? Also, what about the situation where new evidence has come to light since the original publication? Wouldn't the Authors have wanted that kind of material included too? | |||||||
| > > |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure and designated Editors that have the right to block certain users from making changes. However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklets (the current web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can: be locked from editing; or moved to a non-editable format (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit buttons etc); or remain a wiki, and evolve. What do I mean by evolve? In the section titled Loitering in Guildhall Square, Camarthen you'll see I've created an extenal reference to the Reform Act of 1832. If you click on the link within that document, you'll be taken to another website (wikipedia.org) that talks about the Reform Act. (I personally had never heard of the Reform Act, so found it useful to go and look it up. I thought that someone else might find the same information useful, so for convenience, I added it as a link within the document.) Now, there must be lots of situations like the one I've just described? Also, what about the situation where new evidence has come to light since the original publication? Wouldn't the Authors have wanted that kind of material included too? | |||||||
| -- ChrisJones - 01 Sep 2005 | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < |
| |||||||
| > > |
| |||||||
Should the Historian be publicly editable?To add comments to this debate login as user TWikiGuest with password guest. | ||||||||
| Line: 16 to 16 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| --> | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > |
| |||||||
Should the Historian be publicly editable? | ||||||||
| Line: 8 to 8 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklets (the current web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can: be locked from editing; or moved to a non-editable format (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit buttons etc); or remain a wiki, and evolve. What do I mean by evolve? In the section titled Loitering in Guildhall Square, Camarthen you'll see I've created an extenal reference to the Reform Act of 1832. If you click on the link within that document, you'll be taken to another website (wikipedia.org) that talks about the Reform Act. (I personally had never heard of the Reform Act, so found it useful to go and look it up. I thought that someone else might find the same information useful, so for convenience, I added it as a link within the document.) Now, there must be lots of situations like the one I've just described? Also, what about the situation where new evidence has come to light since the original publication? Wouldn't the Authors have wanted that kind of material included too? | |||||||
| > > |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Historian.Editorial admins that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklets (the current web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can: be locked from editing; or moved to a non-editable format (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit buttons etc); or remain a wiki, and evolve. What do I mean by evolve? In the section titled Loitering in Guildhall Square, Camarthen you'll see I've created an extenal reference to the Reform Act of 1832. If you click on the link within that document, you'll be taken to another website (wikipedia.org) that talks about the Reform Act. (I personally had never heard of the Reform Act, so found it useful to go and look it up. I thought that someone else might find the same information useful, so for convenience, I added it as a link within the document.) Now, there must be lots of situations like the one I've just described? Also, what about the situation where new evidence has come to light since the original publication? Wouldn't the Authors have wanted that kind of material included too? | |||||||
| -- ChrisJones - 01 Sep 2005 | ||||||||
Should the Historian be publicly editable?To add comments to this debate login as user TWikiGuest with password guest. | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklets (the current web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can: be locked from editing; or moved to a non-editable format (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit buttons etc); or remain a wiki, and evolve. What do I mean by evolve? In the section titled Loitering in Guildhall Square, Camarthen you'll see I've created an extenal reference to the Reform Act of 1832. If you click on the link within that document, you'll be taken to another website (wikipedia.org) that talks about the Reform Act. (I personally had never heard of the Reform Act, so found it useful to go and look it up. I thought that someone else might find the same information useful, so for convenience, I added it as a link within the document.) Now, there must be lots of situations like the one I've just described? Also, what about the situation where new evidence has come to light since the original publication? Wouldn't the Authors have wanted that kind of material included too? | |||||||
| > > |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklets (the current web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can: be locked from editing; or moved to a non-editable format (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit buttons etc); or remain a wiki, and evolve. What do I mean by evolve? In the section titled Loitering in Guildhall Square, Camarthen you'll see I've created an extenal reference to the Reform Act of 1832. If you click on the link within that document, you'll be taken to another website (wikipedia.org) that talks about the Reform Act. (I personally had never heard of the Reform Act, so found it useful to go and look it up. I thought that someone else might find the same information useful, so for convenience, I added it as a link within the document.) Now, there must be lots of situations like the one I've just described? Also, what about the situation where new evidence has come to light since the original publication? Wouldn't the Authors have wanted that kind of material included too? | |||||||
| -- ChrisJones - 01 Sep 2005 | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > |
<!-- --> | |||||||
Should the Historian be publicly editable?To add comments to this debate login as user TWikiGuest with password guest. | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklet form (currently the web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can be either be locked from editing or moved to a format is not editable (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit button etc). Although, I've found making references to external references from within the Historian adds to experience of reading these documents (see Reform Act ref) - so maybe if the Historian is to evolve, wiki is the way to go? | |||||||
| > > |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklets (the current web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can: be locked from editing; or moved to a non-editable format (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit buttons etc); or remain a wiki, and evolve. What do I mean by evolve? In the section titled Loitering in Guildhall Square, Camarthen you'll see I've created an extenal reference to the Reform Act of 1832. If you click on the link within that document, you'll be taken to another website (wikipedia.org) that talks about the Reform Act. (I personally had never heard of the Reform Act, so found it useful to go and look it up. I thought that someone else might find the same information useful, so for convenience, I added it as a link within the document.) Now, there must be lots of situations like the one I've just described? Also, what about the situation where new evidence has come to light since the original publication? Wouldn't the Authors have wanted that kind of material included too? | |||||||
| -- ChrisJones - 01 Sep 2005 | ||||||||
Should the Historian be publicly editable?To add comments to this debate login as user TWikiGuest with password guest. | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins, that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklet form (currently has a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at this point I'm not sure it should stay on a wiki platform? Although, I've found hyper-linking references within Historian useful (TODO give an example) - so maybe if the Historian is to evolve, wiki is the way to go. | |||||||
| > > |
Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklet form (currently the web version has inherited a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at the point where most (if not all) errors have been removed then the pages can be either be locked from editing or moved to a format is not editable (so that it looks like a normal web site, without the edit button etc). Although, I've found making references to external references from within the Historian adds to experience of reading these documents (see Reform Act ref) - so maybe if the Historian is to evolve, wiki is the way to go? | |||||||
| -- ChrisJones - 01 Sep 2005 | ||||||||
Should the Historian be publicly editable? | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > |
To add comments to this debate login as user TWikiGuest with password guest. | |||||||
| Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins, that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklet form (currently has a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at this point I'm not sure it should stay on a wiki platform? Although, I've found hyper-linking references within Historian useful (TODO give an example) - so maybe if the Historian is to evolve, wiki is the way to go. -- ChrisJones - 01 Sep 2005 | ||||||||
| Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > |
Should the Historian be publicly editable?Anyone can edit wikipedia.org (the online encyclopedia). The system relies on peer pressure (and designated Editorial admins, that have the right to remove content, and block certain users from making changes). However, the idea behind using wiki for the Historian is different - I want wiki to be a collaboration vehicle allowing trusted members of the community to participate in getting the online version to a point where it's at least as good as the original booklet form (currently has a lot of scanning errors that need to be corrected). Once it's at this point I'm not sure it should stay on a wiki platform? Although, I've found hyper-linking references within Historian useful (TODO give an example) - so maybe if the Historian is to evolve, wiki is the way to go. -- ChrisJones - 01 Sep 2005 | |||||||