So, I would normally just edit the proposed policy - but that doesn't seem to be the requested action, so I will discuss here :-) ~~ MarkDilley
- Go ahead and edit it! I guess I'm still stuck in Wikipedia mode, where "discuss then edit" is slightly preferred over "edit then discuss", but I don't think we need to be that cautious here. I've added a bit about how people can edit the proposal directly. -kotra (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, this seems like a cool possibility. (And I'm honored by the link to my blog post!) Without having great wiki-troll experience, I have two speculations:
- The most highly motivated users are the ones most likely to troll. And they're also the ones who are going to take the time to figure out how to edit the main body of a wiki page.
- Maybe I don't see the grand vision clearly, but it seems to me that "facets" wouldn't be super-valuable to readers. I actually think Wikipedia is great at summarizing both sides of a given controversy, but that's because the "for" and "against" cases have both been honed to a sheen by multiple users. As a reader, I use wikis for quick reference; if I encounter a bunch of different "facets," I'm going to be overwhelmed by the options and probably not read any of them. Highly motivated trolls will know this instinctively, and will still be drawn into edit wars over the body of the story, where the eyeballs and the power are.
- Thanks for the great feedback! Actually I wasn't even thinking about trolls so much as well-meaning people who just want to give their opinions (people who far outnumber trolls, even on high-visibility wikis like Wikipedia). You're right that trolls will usually go after the most visible article, not the facets. I guess that issue would have to be taken care of as normal (by spotting it and removing it), and facets wouldn't help it much.
- You have a good point about facets not providing a quick way for people to understand the main perspectives. On the other hand, where Wikipedia usually sorts views into two camps (opposition and support), facets could allow infinite camps ("it's good in some ways, but bad in others", "conditional support", etc; as well as the "fringe" views that Wikipedia tends to ignore. This is not to say we couldn't also include a concise, summary "Support of X" or "Criticism of X" section in the main article, like Wikipedia does. Facets would just provide a way in which people could share their own views, especially when they don't match with those described in the main article, or when they're more personal/anecdotal ("my burger had spit in it", "the rooms in this hotel are beautiful"). I don't know, I'm open to the idea that it might not work, especially since I'll probably be the one setting it up ;) -kotra (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)