|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Tom Melly wrote:
> "Neil Kolban" <kol### [at] kolban com> wrote in message
> news:41daca10$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>The URL for the Wiki is http://povray.tirnalong.com
>>
>
>
> I'm very hopeful about this idea.
>
> Can we register other url's and point them to the same IP address? e.g.
> www.wikipov.org ?
>
> Also, I'd suggest some forum for discussion on the structure and interface
> of the site.
>
> In terms of structure, my only comment at the moment is that it needs
> thought. How will searches be structured? Or, to put it another way, how
> will the site be structured so to make finding a relevant resource as easy
> as possible?
>
> Regarding the interface, it would be nice to go for a cleaner, more
> recognisable look. Also, aren't there other editors that can make creating
> articles less complex? (much as I like wiki in principle, I find the basic
> wiki-style an obstacle to activity). Anyone know if the editor/article
> interface they use at wikipedia is an available plugin?
>
>
>
Tom I would like to add my own comments. First, I love it that you are
taking the lead voicing some of these things. I mean I *really* love
it. My thoughts are about what degree of concensus is needed.
I guess I am trying to picture a wiki user who is wanting to contribute
( not *me* of course, but you know, I have have this *friend* who wants
to participate ) You have begun to address one of the two big things
this person would be wanting to know: what are the organizational
parameters. They want to know where to go and how to conform. Here we
have a good chance for concensus. The other big thing they are going to
want to know is more along the lines of purpose/spirit/vision,... does
their sense of this coincide with the what it really is. Here it seems
to me that concensus may not be so possible. Nevertheless I think it
also needs to be discussed. I would encourage anyone who is excited
about the potential here to describe their vision for it.
I was struck by a year end letter to the members that was composed
recently by the organizer of the deviantART website, a site I consider
to be a raging success. What struck me was his restatement of what was
and continues to be his guiding vision. And it is: "The artists come
first, everything else comes second." I mention this because I think
that there may be many good ideas put forward, but if they act to stifle
participation, they need to come second. Supporting participation needs
to be the priority.
My own vision, what jazzes me about the possibilities here? The
possiblity of a reference repository is exciting. Equally so is the
possiblility of an open laboratory. The newsgroups already act this way
of course. But this would have better navigation and accessiblity and
so with susequently better support for exploring permutations and
extentions on ideas.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |