Some info

Some questions:

Social Wiki[edit]

Unified/Distributed InterWiki NameSpace[edit]

  • A Place to store universal templates, gadgets, login, preferences and user information.
  • Language resolution system using a common convention.
  • Per wiki definitions sections will also be possible.

Example store user data in a XML page. Measure merit across projects.

  • Should Unified user space provide privacy options?
  • Encourage users to provide a profile detailing their background (perhaps based on challenges) e.g. instead of a language level template one wold have to pass a test to qualify for a template, this would than be indicated.
  • Encourage people to state their agenda
  • so that they will have a set of goals.
  • so they could be clustered accordingly.
  • so they could better collaborate.
  • so they can be used with collaborative filter technology.
  • Personal Blog pages within wiki sphere.
  • (Privacy Options)

Global WatchList[edit]

Agregate changes from different wikis in one place.

  • shared watch list as per german Wikipedia.
  • follow peers ,watch pages, watch diffs etc


A long-term approach to voting.

Wiki Lawyer[edit]

The role of an experienced wikipedians who is a recognised authority at drafting policy documents based on communal brainstorming. NPOV

NNPOV AKA The Minority Report[edit]

One of the core values of Wikipedia is writing in a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. In practice this is not always possible or even desired.

Some pages cover subject has two prevailing points of view and any view which tries to reconcile them is even less desirable. In other cases one point of view belongs to a majority while another represents a minority.

Over time such pages polarizing editors into camps and lead to revert wars and other antisocial activities. My suggestion would be to say we agree to disagree.

Since MediaWiki alow merging why not allow forking of a document section.

Allow two (or more) point of view to co-exist within a wiki document. Goal to maximise the consensus while allowing for a minority point of view to be heard. This could be done with a template.

neutral point of view explaining the differences between Other Point of View.
<OPOV>One other point of view.</OPOV>
<OPOV>Another Point of view.</OPOV>

the ranking should indicate:

  • the minority point of view.
  • the majority point of view.