Like wiki, except instead of editing being amendment, editing would mean proposing a new version. Registered users would vote on which version should be "official".
- Avoids wiki's fundamental problem that a page is only as good as the last person to have edited it. Not just vandalism - that's obvious, and therefore easily dealt with. Subtly wrong is much worse...
- This is even more important where the users are members of an organisation which the wiki is intended to represent.
- Deletion doesn't need any ad-hockery; it'd be handled by having "non-existent" as one of the candidates.
- Should reduce the need for locked pages.
- Voting would probably be some variant of Beatpath; that way:
- people who don't care about particular pages can just ignore those votes;
- newly-proposed alternatives would simply have no votes, while the old alternatives would continue as they are; and
- as in all variants of Condorcet, compromises tend to do well.
From the users' point of view, it's just preferential voting (1,2,3,...).
- Pages with have alternatives which haven't reached quorum would be so marked (and collected on a vote-needing page).
- The vote-needing page is personalised - it doesn't list pages you've already voted on (or, at least, lists them separately).
- Pages where no alternative has reached quorum would be marked Tentative, but the currently-winning alternative would nevertheless be displayed. If spamming is a problem, tentative pages might be labelled noindex, too.
- In case of ties, older page wins (probably; otherwise duplicating an alternative would help it...). Non-existent loses any ties.
- Need a better name than "voted wiki".
- Disadvantages (compared with a wiki):
- loss of immediacy
- much more important to register (anonymous contributors can't give pages even one vote...)
- Other problems:
- related pages might wind up with contradictory votes
- Voting, Quorum - probably copy off the Debian project. Whether quorum should correspond to their K or 3Q is an interesting question... though perhaps not so important given the ongoing nature of the voting.
- Possibly make the quorum relative to the number of votes for other alternatives - that way uncontroversial pages would be easy to change while those that need it would be protected.
- Perhaps mark pages which win with a quorum of K but not 3Q with something like there is a proposal to change this page.
⇦ Freedom in Digital Age | ⇨ The Analog Hole - killing creativity |
