Insipiration - the raise and fall of wiki encyclopedia
First I saw wikipedia, I was surprised, I can immediately modify what I see. I was excited by this system, mostly through this immediacy of changes and discutable simplicity of structuring document. But now, what only stayed in my mind as wiki's main progress is [keyword|text] internal anchoring. Why? Yes it is because there is many people doing on it, and working as "wiki editors" and alas not only "one-sided experts and fans" working on themes from their real and only welfare, but competitive, "wiki educated" people, who noticeable interfere any object. Yes if they work as grammar and stylistic co-workers, noone may protest, but when the page is strictly patrolled by tons of wiki-soldiers, you can easy loose your thirst to participate on such a great goal as free-collective encyclopedy really is, and if not, you may loose your talent over your wiki-parts edited (as any artist in strict regime manipulating him). Simply there is many people, whos very good things can be destroyed by egocentric native society, and many who in order to be accepted fully, change their language abilities to shitty formal wiki jargon completely. So what is my new project, which may be dead in nearest months for my evident large area bussiness?
New system - blogopedia (work-name)
I would like to give people chance to have any content in any form in this encyclopedia. So for me, if there is Bill Gates's c.v. on page about homelessess, noone may protest. Only it is should be visible in which spirit it is written (which may be only thing administrated diktatively, or diktatively voted by public) so for example you will get some icon for ironyc article before this page's entrance. And how it works? Every keyword has bloggy page. Also authorships shown, and you can be for example contacted by someone who would collaborate on it with you. This also allows full thematic liberty under every keyword, so you can be as too short, as too specialised to some aspect of thema etc. And if you need to proof or to impeach some other article or its part, you may anchor this article with your own idea and proofs in yours. I think this solution may give us much higher peer 2 peer relation level (you musn't hate 'them', nor there is some 'them' with higher authority). It may also give us true collegiality (while working on projects in pairs glued together for same level of feeling and interest etc.). You are not working with someone behind your back - you are just something like journalist, working on your own or in team, not having your text interfered with authorities, rules, user levels, stupid people for you. I think this project may offer much more natural way to compete and co-work on encyklopedia. Maybe there may be best voted thema feeder having an special level to thema: having the page header section to write news about other articles, what is good, bad etc. This means just that best journalists are having front pages - nothing bad. You may not read it if you think he's sucker. Also implementing of this project may not be difficult.
28.7.2008
Let's say with some condonation this is The solution, and it's our free and smart goog.
Let's say with some condonation this is The solution, and it's our free and smart goog.
