I think it could be replaced by a page building upon wikipedia. For example - same core-articles, but instead of just article+history versions +discussion page it would have more alternative versions of the same article. Maybe with some voting-system. And yeah - it would have to be inclusive - the amount of discussions and trouble caused by deletionists is just not worth it in a time of ever-increasing diskspace. Every single time I stumble upon a page recommended for deletion something in me dies a little.
And why must all the articles be central anyway? Only thing that needs to be central seems to be the index. And some common layout, semantic information and the ability to allow everyone to change pages.
Has anyone already tried building a de-central wikipedia which works by voting?
A clear plus would be ability to include more view points. A less subtle plus (but a big one) would be that with a voting system, it would elevate some credibility concerns.
Edit: In answering your question directly, there is Knol.google.com which is very similar to what you are suggesting.
Or how about a wikipedia mirror that doesn't propagate deletions? That way when an article on wikipedia is deleted, the mirror simply displays the last available version.
The writing is by experts but not for experts. So each reader is actually qualified to vote. And I think it would help experts to write better for their target audience.
Comments
I think it could be replaced by a page building upon wikipedia. For example - same core-articles, but instead of just article+history versions +discussion page it would have more alternative versions of the same article. Maybe with some voting-system. And yeah - it would have to be inclusive - the amount of discussions and trouble caused by deletionists is just not worth it in a time of ever-increasing diskspace. Every single time I stumble upon a page recommended for deletion something in me dies a little.
And why must all the articles be central anyway? Only thing that needs to be central seems to be the index. And some common layout, semantic information and the ability to allow everyone to change pages.
Has anyone already tried building a de-central wikipedia which works by voting?
My team and I are exploring that possibility right now.
We have come across a few interesting tidbits considering the model:
A concern is that without a way to direct your crowd sourcing (centralized articles) people will be all over the place and the knowledgebase suffers. (kind of along the lines of http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/internet/19unbo...)
A clear plus would be ability to include more view points. A less subtle plus (but a big one) would be that with a voting system, it would elevate some credibility concerns.
Edit: In answering your question directly, there is Knol.google.com which is very similar to what you are suggesting.
Or how about a wikipedia mirror that doesn't propagate deletions? That way when an article on wikipedia is deleted, the mirror simply displays the last available version.
Because experts are the type of people who can hang out all day voting?
The writing is by experts but not for experts. So each reader is actually qualified to vote. And I think it would help experts to write better for their target audience.