Brian wrote:
On Wed 29 Apr 2020 at 12:20:37 -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
...
The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to
check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions.
Reverts are much easier to do than edits ;)
How about tentative or provisional edits--changes that perhaps show up
before being approved/confirmed by owners/experts/approvers, but are
rendered as unconfirmed edits, so readers know their status?
(That way, new information can get to readers quickly (before confirmation),
and in case the new information is wrong, readers were alerted to that
possibility (its higher probability).)
How about users creating pages or altering existing ones to reflect
what they consider to be in the best interests of the wiki?
By itself? What one random user considers to be in the best interest of the
wiki might be wrong and might be something that a regular editor/approver of
the page could catch and fix or delete.
Combined with what I suggested? Yes, that would be fine, but then isn't
that what I just suggested? What are you counter-suggesting or objecting
to?
I'm buggered
if I will await the contribution of some approver, who could, presumably,
could have improved the page with or without my intervention.
What awaiting are you talking about? In my proposal, the only awaiting
would be for being able to see the changed text without the special
rendering/marking (indicating that it's a not-yet-vetted user-made change)
rather then seeing the changed text rendered normally.
Daniel
