5 ms·
If you're going to annotate the web, please do it properly and have different layers. As in, let me select whose annotations I'd like to see. Order of importanc
by omouse 17y ago
If you're going to annotate the web, please do it properly and have different layers. As in, let me select whose annotations I'd like to see. Order of importance of the annotations for me is: mine, site owner's, friends'/favourites'/bookmarked-peoples', everyone else's.
I don't understand why they flatten out the annotations and toss them into a universal dump.
- diN0bot 17y agoor a universal topic dump. (my biggest pet peeve with hacker news)
- ordinaryman 17y agoWhat you are asking is similar to Google FriendConnect features, which is what I believe Google will try to do. Instead of waiting for websites to add FriendConnect widgets, a browser addon enables Google to provide those features on every website. Similarly, even if AdSense is not going to be added on those websites, relevant ads can still be shown on the sidewiki. So, Google now gets to show AdSense on Microsoft/Apple's website.
- bravura 17y agoThat's not necessarily the right way to do it. To formalize the problems, assume that Wikipedia was intended to be subjective and that editors are potentially malicious. So some edits in the middle of a changeset might be malicious, but children edits are legitimate. So you want to delete the malicious edits but preserve the dangling child edit. What is the correct way to reconcile this changeset? Once you answer the above question, you can soften the intepretation of malicious to: Users that I would rather filter, because their opinions are stupid to me or because I consider them spammers.
- omouse 17y agoWell see, the right way to do it is to have a single original document that represents a single version so that the annotation only applies to it. Of course this requires changing the whole web because there's no such thing as version control on it :)