Talk:Knowledge assembly Platform
Add topicFeedback
[edit]I am puzzled as to where feedback is supposed to go.
If this is a proposal for a grant or other support, this is not mentioned.
Other wikis do similar jobs. I see no reason why a wiki could not be set up as a trial, but this need have nothing to do with Wikimedia.
The document is confusing. The context/business case is too abstract to give an understanding of what this would look like or how it would be desirable as a new innovation. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]The proposal is still in the 'idea' phase so no grant or other support is asked for. I just wanted to get feedback to the idea.--Sguenter (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikihow
[edit]- I believe this already exists: http://www.wikihow.com
- Not necessarily a bad idea though.
EdSaperia (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]- The WikiHow is actually very close considering the content of the articles. The main difference to the proposed Platform is how the articles are managed (the article has "owners" - you could also call them "main contributors", see also next section) and how the arcticles are searched for (ranking includes the number of 'likes') --Sguenter (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Not a Wikimedia project
[edit]There is a widespread and firm belief in the Wikimedia community that volunteers should not be paid for contributing content, at least not directly. Anyway, sentences like "From the start the creator is the owner of the article", "Each article also has an optional corresponding forum which is moderated by the owner", "Owners can grant users contributor rights which allow them to modify the article with some limitations (defined by the owners)", "Users may provide modification requests to owner which the owner can apply or not apply" definitely do not fit into our movement. There are no "owners" on Wikimedia and never will be. --Ricordisamoa 17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]The term "owner" is perhaps misleading; maybe a better term would be "main contributor". The function that the main contributor is paid is not essential and could omitted. In addition there is no limit to the number of main contributors. The community of main contributors of an article may choose to give main contributor privilege to everybody who asked for it. I agree that the possibility to restrict the contributors is not in agreement with some principles of Wikimedia. One essential point of the proposal is that the content of the article is managed in a similar way as in open source software projects (which are often very successful to create high quality software).--Sguenter (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)