User talk:Team Shocker: Difference between revisions
Team Shocker (talk | contribs) m →New engine design improvements: reword |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Such an engine is possible with modern technology. It would be considerably more robust than the Wiki engine and require much more programming. Given that it would be a complete rebuild, I feel that the new engine should be programmed without any Wiki technology and outside of the GFDL. The charter for the engine would include that unlimited licenses could be given to non-profit organizations like Wikipedia without charge, but corporate use would carry a nominal fee. In this way, programmers could receive just compensation for their work without any licensing fees becoming a drain on the encyclopedia resource that uses the engine. |
Such an engine is possible with modern technology. It would be considerably more robust than the Wiki engine and require much more programming. Given that it would be a complete rebuild, I feel that the new engine should be programmed without any Wiki technology and outside of the GFDL. The charter for the engine would include that unlimited licenses could be given to non-profit organizations like Wikipedia without charge, but corporate use would carry a nominal fee. In this way, programmers could receive just compensation for their work without any licensing fees becoming a drain on the encyclopedia resource that uses the engine. |
||
:I concur that the licensing scheme now is clearly anti-Objectivist. Wouldn't the best plan be to start a secret wikipedia in some hidden part of the american southwest? If so, what do you recommend we do to prevent looter governments from locating us? (feel free to move this somewhere else on the talk page if you want) [[User:Yesterdog|Yesterdog]] 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==New engine design improvements== |
==New engine design improvements== |
||
Revision as of 03:03, 10 May 2006
Given:
- that the Wiki engine was designed upon objectivist philosophy
- that the initial success of Wikipedia was due to the Wiki engine
- that the Wiki engine has limitations that are overcome by dictatorial rulings
- that a superior engine would more fully realize objectivist philosophy and reduce or eliminate the need for dictatorial rulings
- that Wikipedia (or a data-fork of Wikipedia) would be able continue to build more productively using a superior engine
It is proposed that we design a new engine for the purposes of:
- reducing or eliminating vandalism
- achieving a higher standard of consensus
- reducing or eliminating the need for dictatorial rulings
- increasing the relative amount of time writers are involved in main-space editing
- reducing liability
- creating an environment where combined heroic boldness results in improvement rather than conflict
Such an engine is possible with modern technology. It would be considerably more robust than the Wiki engine and require much more programming. Given that it would be a complete rebuild, I feel that the new engine should be programmed without any Wiki technology and outside of the GFDL. The charter for the engine would include that unlimited licenses could be given to non-profit organizations like Wikipedia without charge, but corporate use would carry a nominal fee. In this way, programmers could receive just compensation for their work without any licensing fees becoming a drain on the encyclopedia resource that uses the engine.
- I concur that the licensing scheme now is clearly anti-Objectivist. Wouldn't the best plan be to start a secret wikipedia in some hidden part of the american southwest? If so, what do you recommend we do to prevent looter governments from locating us? (feel free to move this somewhere else on the talk page if you want) Yesterdog 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
New engine design improvements
The following are proposed conceptual design improvements over the Wiki engine. The engine is the database storage and processing that goes on behind the scenes. The ultimate goal of our new engine is to input points of view from multiple sources and output a consensus of all who use the resource. Please contribute to one of the following or propose your own design improvement.
Separate Alternate versions from History
The Wiki engine stores old versions and supported alternate versions of an article together in one history table. This has major drawbacks: the revision history of the article must be kept forever in order to retain supported alternate versions, one cannot tell how much support the displayed version has except through confrontation, and an editor feels that he must stay ever-vigilant in support of his contributions or they will be lost in the edit history.
I propose that the new engine instead keep a version of an article for each person who edits it. By default, their last contribution would be that person's supported version of the article, but the editor would also have an option of changing his support to a different version, or of automatically supporting any changes of specified editors. This would allow the interface to graphically display how much relative support is associated with each change or revert. It would also enable users to easily find alternate supported versions without reinventing the wheel or digging through mountains of old edits. I strongly feel that this will also lead to an assumption of good faith and increased collaboration between editors.
- Agree --Team Shocker 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)