4 ms·

I think the whole idea of editing blog posts leads to a rehash of wikipedia. Why would I want to meaningfully edit someone else's opinions (pg's corrections asi

by xzx 18y ago

I think the whole idea of editing blog posts leads to a rehash of wikipedia. Why would I want to meaningfully edit someone else's opinions (pg's corrections aside) ? And if the person is stating facts that can be collaboratively edited, then you get a wiki article.

DaniFong 18y ago
Wikipedia isn't intended to be anchored in the perspectives of a single person's views; in the ideal case Wikipedia is supposed to be completely neutral. Even if one's blog is more wiki-like, the owner would necessarily be associated with those perspectives and topics and interests. I suspect that in many cases, a blog-wiki wouldn't be terribly useful; there simply aren't enough interested readers to do much (though I've had many people point out simple corrections on my own blog). But in certain circumstances, a blog-wiki could be very interesting. One could imagine that the blogs of particularly prominent personalities could take on lives of their own.
- xzx 18y ago
  Actually what Paul is proposing isn't new - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliki. It looks like the idea hasn't really hasn't taken off in the purest form, where anyone can edit a personal blog.
jerf 18y ago
I've pondered the idea of a moderated Wiki, where edits come in more-or-less as patchsets which the owner can apply or not apply. This was a while ago, and I'd say my idea is totally trumped by hosting Wikis on git, such that changes really are patchsets, complete with a massive infrastructure to support dealing with patchsets. Wrap a decent web UI around the basic idea, enhancing the git workflow to better support the idea of "submitting" a patch out of the blue, and you might have something powerful. I believe such projects are in progress. (For git, substitute your choice of DVCS.) The point of this being that if you pick and choose patches deliberately, with of course the opportunity to modify them as you go, then you can end up with something collaborative that still has a strong editorial voice. That might be something new. It'd have to be very open and easy to use to work at all, but it might.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  Do you have a link? I've been looking for something like this.
  - siong1987 18y ago
    pbwiki.com?
    - DaniFong 18y ago
      More specifically I was interested in a hosted interface that uses git as the backend.
      - siong1987 18y ago
        http://github.com/blog/272-github-pages http://github.com/blog/272-github-pages You can create a repository to collaborate a post with your friends. Whenever you want to publish the post, just push it to the http://yourname.github.com http://yourname.github.com repository.
        DaniFong 18y ago
        Very cool, thanks!

by xzx 18y ago

DaniFong 18y ago

Wikipedia isn't intended to be anchored in the perspectives of a single person's views; in the ideal case Wikipedia is supposed to be completely neutral. Even if one's blog is more wiki-like, the owner would necessarily be associated with those perspectives and topics and interests. I suspect that in many cases, a blog-wiki wouldn't be terribly useful; there simply aren't enough interested readers to do much (though I've had many people point out simple corrections on my own blog). But in certain circumstances, a blog-wiki could be very interesting. One could imagine that the blogs of particularly prominent personalities could take on lives of their own.

xzx 18y ago
Actually what Paul is proposing isn't new - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliki. It looks like the idea hasn't really hasn't taken off in the purest form, where anyone can edit a personal blog.

jerf 18y ago

I've pondered the idea of a moderated Wiki, where edits come in more-or-less as patchsets which the owner can apply or not apply. This was a while ago, and I'd say my idea is totally trumped by hosting Wikis on git, such that changes really are patchsets, complete with a massive infrastructure to support dealing with patchsets. Wrap a decent web UI around the basic idea, enhancing the git workflow to better support the idea of "submitting" a patch out of the blue, and you might have something powerful. I believe such projects are in progress. (For git, substitute your choice of DVCS.) The point of this being that if you pick and choose patches deliberately, with of course the opportunity to modify them as you go, then you can end up with something collaborative that still has a strong editorial voice. That might be something new. It'd have to be very open and easy to use to work at all, but it might.

DaniFong 18y ago
Do you have a link? I've been looking for something like this.
- siong1987 18y ago
  pbwiki.com?
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    More specifically I was interested in a hosted interface that uses git as the backend.
    - siong1987 18y ago
      http://github.com/blog/272-github-pages http://github.com/blog/272-github-pages You can create a repository to collaborate a post with your friends. Whenever you want to publish the post, just push it to the http://yourname.github.com http://yourname.github.com repository.
      - DaniFong 18y ago
        Very cool, thanks!