Re: [Foundation-l] Article validation (was WikiReader Free Software and Free Contents)

--- Ulrich Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote:
> A validation process can operate in two ways: either
> there is some was of a 
> democratic voting sytem, which will lead to mediocre
> article (science is not 
> democratic). Or there are some people which are more
> trusted than others - 
> and that's the capitulation of the wiki principle.
> 
> Our problems is not validation. Our problem is that
> the goals are not clear 
> (what goes in, or perhaps: what goes in in which
> edition), and that editing 
> (which means: deleting a lot of things) is
> considered bad habit. 
> 
> Uli

Nod. But we could give different goals to products.
For example, the goal of wikireaders could be from now
on be much more defined.

It is already a different goal that wikipedia
* it offers limited information (it is an extract of
wikipedia)
* it tries to cover quite generally a whole topic (eg,
a wikireader on a country will covers its geography,
politics, economics, tourism etc...)
* it is meant to be read only (errors can't be fixed).

* it is meant to be sold (while wikipedia is free)

We could add to these different goals the fact the
information in it has been double checked, that it
undergone an *organised* peer-review (rather than a
quite anarchic one like on wikipedia). 

no ?


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/