[Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts

[Tom Purl]

You also have to remember that this is a wiki, not a blog, so there are
no "posts" or anything else similarly atomic to moderate.  When you
contribute to a wiki, you're changing an actual page.  I don't even know
how you would moderate something like that.

For example, if I delete one sentence from a paragraph, replace it with
something more accurate, and then add another paragraph, how do you
"hide" or "promote" my contribution without butchering the new version
of the wiki page?  You could revert the page to previous version, but
what does that mean for the next guy or gal who comes along and adds
some really valuable content?  Moderating by reversion is really only
useful for combating spam and vandalism.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, using current wiki tools, groups
of users can't really "moderate" contributions so that the "cream"
automatically rises to the top.  You can do that in a blog (such as
Slashdot), but wikis are *very different* from blogs.  The best you can
do is have a small group of people who monitor changes to a page and
make edits as necessary (merging new content, restructuring, deleting
false content, etc.).

> Grandstanding and platitudes may be commonplace on forums such as digg,
> and
> slashdot, but I think that mostly has to do with the type of people who
> contribute. A more conventional forum for wiki users would probably not
> only
> work better for communication, but be easier to use. Perhaps I'm just new
> the wikis though.
>
> And how much moderation is user registration? It's really not hard to
> register a wiki account and then post away. The real moderation should be
> at
> the post level.
>
> -gm
>
> On 7/6/06, Chris Chiasson <chris at chiasson.name> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. Forum posts, even with moderation, encourage grandstanding
>> and platitudes because those sound cool/smart/funny and constitute an
>> easy way to collect moderation points. It is much harder (and better?)
>> to achieve the consensus on a wiki page. Of course, an individual
>> controversial opinion can be more valuable than a consensus opinion,
>> but my guess is that usually only happens if that individual is
>> well-informed on the topic at hand.
>>
>> For a wiki with login requirements, I guess one could say that the
>> people are moderated while the "posts" aren't.
>>
>> On 7/6/06, George Murray <george.murray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Angela,
>> >
>> > I am new to contributing to Wikis and am interested in participating
>> in
>> > campaigns.wikia.com. I agree with the comment made about Wikis
>> probably
>> not
>> > having the best functionality for debate. Forums certainly do have
>> wikis
>> > beat on that. However, forums come in a wide range of functions. For
>> the
>> > campaigns wikia I would suggest a forum kind of like digg.com's
>> comments
>> > section. Where fellow wiki contributors can rate a post on its value,
>> and
>> > posts of high value can rise and eventually be added to a wikia page
>> with
>> > the most valuable information skimmed from the forum discussion.
>> >
>> > For instance you could have a forum "thread" tied to the debate of
>> global
>> > warming. Posts can have a thread heirarchy for organization. Poor
>> posts
>> can
>> > be voted down and out. A post rating history is kept to make sure no
>> one
>> is
>> > just rating down their opponents viewpoints. Wiki contributors cannot
>> > re-write each others posts, but they can re-organize posts to create a
>> more
>> > distilled discussion. The highest level of talking points can be the
>> wiki
>> > page.
>> >
>> > I am new to contributing to wikis so forgive me if my lingo is not on
>> > target, but I hope that I have gotten my point across. The merging of
>> a
>> > flowing participatory forum functionality with the opening of wikis
>> can
>> > distill topics and present the basics for visitors.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > gmurray
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/6/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On 7/7/06, bruce boston <bboston at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > I wonder if we couldn't use a set of forums that went along with
>> the
>> > Wiki.
>> > >
>> > > We do have a wiki-based forum at
>> > > http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Soapbox - the
>> > idea is
>> > > combine the advantages of a forum with those of a wiki. I'd be
>> > > interested to know what everyone thinks of it, especially those
>> people
>> > > new to wikis. Is it much harder to use than the forums you're used
>> to?
>> > >
>> > > Angela.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Angela Beesley
>> > > Wikia.com
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Campaigns-l mailing list
>> > > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> > > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Campaigns-l mailing list
>> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://chris.chiasson.name/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Campaigns-l mailing list
>> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>