I also had a good look at FlexWiki and Perspective and a brief look at Open Collective.
I found FlexWiki very ugly and difficult to use. Perspective had potential but didn't store it's data in a database. Open Collective required too much extra software.
OpenWikiNG pros:
OpenWikiNG cons:
I made a small modification so user's couldn't change their "username" in their user params (simple XLST hack).
I should also note that it had to be IIS based and I wasn't interested in a PHP or mySQL solution. Our developer base is VB and SQL.
Typically I'll write about something. This is filled with opinion, fact and crud. Sometimes I'll write something in quotes, "like this you see, this bit of text is in quotes". Depending on the context, that isn't always an exact quote. I hope it's context makes it obvious. For example...
... THEN he said something like, "Hey monkey, come here, I want to hit you."...
In that context the "something like" should be a hint that the bit about the monkey wasn't exactly what was said. Just an approximate, or maybe something just made up.
On the other hand, I, like many bloggers, will sometimes quote an article exactly, through the magic of copy-paste. I'll do this using the
element in HTML. I should prefix the copy-pasted quote with a link to the page I'm quoting. If I don't I'm evil.For example, here is a quote from this post:
On the other hand, I, like many bloggers, will sometimes quote an article exactly, through the magic of copy-paste.If I feel like being an editor and I miss something out or I insert a word for clarity, I'll use square brackets. If I miss out a slab of text I'll put an ellipses in square brakets.
Like this:
Typically I'll write about something [in my blog]. [...] Sometimes I'll write something in quotes [...]. Depending on the context, that isn't always an exact quote. I hope it's context makes it obvious.I will not on the otherhand ever use (sic). It's sick. I might also add I overuse ellipses (ellipsi?) at the end of paragraphs. Sorry...
If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.
BANG! And...
The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
Scripting News Dave came to a similar conclusion I did today:
Imho, the obvious answer is that your page, on your site, edited only by you, should be linked to from the equivalent Wikipedia page, in a consistent and prominent way.
The only real "solution" to a wrong biography is to write an autobiography. It's no different to the back and forth struggle of printed bio/autobios, only a lot quicker. Should everyone popular enough to have a Wikipedia biography ensure they have an autobiography post on their blog. Probably. It's your only right of reply. Should we all write an autobiography just in case? Surely any autobiography will be full of holes. Stinky holes. With wrong inside. Mine would be.
Madness... Not to mention the identity theft you're just asking for by having any more than your birthday published in such an accessible way.
Any new article in Wikipedia should really be pure fact. Every word justified with a linked refereces. Boring.
No one knows how to write pure fact anymore. We did a day of work in English while at school on writing a newspaper article. I wrote the facts. I was told I had to make it interesting, that's the reporters job. I said that's bullshit. A reporter who reported any more than the facts was failing in their job. I got a C.
So unless we all start learning to restructure our language to avoid any infered bias to anyone reading it, Wikipedia is pretty screwed.
My ultimate conclusion is that Wikipedia should probably become a peer reviewed list of links and mirrored articles / quotes from articles. Each topic should be a summary, then a list of links or quotes from non-internet sources. You could argue Wikipedia's best place is one of a research pasting ground. A peer organised Google cache.
Someone looking up "The Sharp", or anything else with a common English name, on Google isn't going to have much fun. While on Wikipedia, you're fairly likely to at least find a stub with a link. And if you don't you can add one.
As a central, editable "starting point" to the web, it's hard to beat.
Maybe someone should.
There is renewed hope for similar changes to Australian law [The Age], although it seems unlikely with today's governments.
On another note, traditionally the partner of a "Sir" is a "Lady". Will David Furnish now be "Lady David Furnish", or should a male partner version be created? Such as "Sirloin"? ;p