[Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts

[Chris Chiasson]

Agreed. I was merely speaking to the hypothetical situation where we
might be using a forum/thread model vs a wiki model.

On 7/6/06, Tom Purl <tom at tompurl.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>


-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/