Difference between revisions of "User talk:Brian"
(Why not to emulate Wikipedia) |
|||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
I think most people today think that all wikis must be encyclopedia, but we shouldn't let ourselves fall into that trap. -- [[User:Wonderist|Wonderist]] 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | I think most people today think that all wikis must be encyclopedia, but we shouldn't let ourselves fall into that trap. -- [[User:Wonderist|Wonderist]] 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | You're brilliant. XC added a lot of the wiki capabilities so let's still be sure to use them. I'd love to see what you could make an RRS page look like. I think I'd actually do a poor job of making a page like that. Are you suggesting no sourcing? --[[User:Brian|Brian]] 22:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:09, 29 October 2011
Hi Brian,
It would be okay to start from the Wikipedia stuff, I imagine, but ultimately, you should read the license agreement. It might require that any derived works also use the same open source license. If you want to use a different license, it could be a problem.
Why not to emulate Wikipedia
I would highly (highly highly) recommend not copying Wikipedia in terms of style and culture. They are restricted to being an encyclopedia, we should not restrict ourselves that way. Wikis are far more flexible than the rigid structure of Wikipedia. It works for them, because they want to be an encyclopedia. But we don't (or shouldn't). We should be a more collaborative and open form of Wiki.
One possibility would be to make a sub-wiki which keeps copies of wikipedia articles of interest (e.g. the Rational Responders page from wikipedia), and then we can have pages here (our own info about 'Rational Responders') which link to them for reference, but which we can also use as we see fit, without feeling like we have to be constrained to the Wikipedia format.
For example. On wikipedia, you have to keep a neutral POV, and you have to link to external links for any claims. But on our wiki, we should be able to make the RRS page represent whatever we want. It's like a community editable homepage for RRS. We could put up promotions, ask for feedback, link to articles, etc., without being stuck in an 'encyclopedia' format which says 'no no' to that kind of stuff.
I was a member of the original wiki (yes, the original first one ever) back in 1999-2001, and it was very much unlike Wikipedia. It was almost totally freeform, but the topics were focused on things related to software development, and the members were almost all professional software developers. And since it was the first wiki ever, we didn't quite yet know what it was, so we experimented with all sorts of ideas. Wikipedia took a few of those good ideas, but it left behind a whole bunch of other good ideas, and it imposed its own rules and restrictions on top of that, so that it could remain an encyclopedia.
I think most people today think that all wikis must be encyclopedia, but we shouldn't let ourselves fall into that trap. -- Wonderist 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You're brilliant. XC added a lot of the wiki capabilities so let's still be sure to use them. I'd love to see what you could make an RRS page look like. I think I'd actually do a poor job of making a page like that. Are you suggesting no sourcing? --Brian 22:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)