3 ms·
This needs an actual fix. I've often thought it should be acceptable to fork articles. Thus, there's the official "Battle of the Bulge" or "History of the Atari
by mynameishere 18y ago
This needs an actual fix. I've often thought it should be acceptable to fork articles. Thus, there's the official "Battle of the Bulge" or "History of the Atari 2600" link (or whatever), and then there are 0..n others written by different historians or amateurs who have a divergent, possibly incorrect or extreme view.
- william42 18y agoThat would be a horrible idea. It would no longer be Wikipedia. It would become more like 4chan for encyclopedia articles. Stopping spammers and vandals would become exponentially harder with that, and to be honest I think that's a bigger problem than Wikipedia editors deleting some guy's webcomic article.
- mynameishere 18y agoWell, it's sort of a variation on google's Knol. The "forked" articles would in a sense be no more significant than the text currently hidden behind the "discussion" button, but it would allow dissenting people a more formal platform.
- netcan 18y agoTough Call. But on the whole I think a bad idea.
- flipbrad 18y agouse your own site/publishing space for your own unique takes on a story
- thwarted 18y agoI remember when the majority of information on the Internet was on individual pages/sites; a fanpage on geocities was the appropriate place for a list of the things McGyver built. At the rate of growth it has seen, eventually Wikipedia will contain more information than the Internet (and Facebook will have more users than the Internet does).