For the all the noise about getting credit, why don't people just go in and make changes themselves! Yes, some of us made wiki contributions that are not reflected in the history tab. Terrible!!! Now that everyone knows, lets get on with it.
I do not think it is appropriate to name contributors to a wiki article in the article body itself, especially popular articles that many people contribute to. For articles substantially written by one person/group AND with a lot of content, one could make an case for naming them (still a weak case in my view). Over time, as more people contribute to the article, the attribution ought to be removed.
The History tab tracks all contributions/changes (at least going forward). We track total edits by users in the wiki in the forum profile as well.
By naming "authors" you make it less likely for others to pitch in. Also what qualifies? What if someone make one small change ? One big change? What is small or big? Who decides?
Wiki as a concept is collaborative content creation, and not a tool for direct attribution (It is not a blog), so let us not recreate the purpose of the medium. According to wikipedia, "A wiki is a page or collection of Web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language." (emphasis mine)
The wiki is equally accessible by everyone. Everyone has pretty much the same right and ability to edit every page (except a few pages main navigation pages that only mods can edit). There is no "ownership" of pages. We should keep it that way.
This is not something that needs to be discussed ad infinitum. The mods can decide on a policy on this, if needed. For me as a member, the very concept of the wiki provides a good enough answer.
I do not think it is appropriate to name contributors to a wiki article in the article body itself, especially popular articles that many people contribute to. For articles substantially written by one person/group AND with a lot of content, one could make an case for naming them (still a weak case in my view). Over time, as more people contribute to the article, the attribution ought to be removed.
The History tab tracks all contributions/changes (at least going forward). We track total edits by users in the wiki in the forum profile as well.
By naming "authors" you make it less likely for others to pitch in. Also what qualifies? What if someone make one small change ? One big change? What is small or big? Who decides?
Wiki as a concept is collaborative content creation, and not a tool for direct attribution (It is not a blog), so let us not recreate the purpose of the medium. According to wikipedia, "A wiki is a page or collection of Web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language." (emphasis mine)
The wiki is equally accessible by everyone. Everyone has pretty much the same right and ability to edit every page (except a few pages main navigation pages that only mods can edit). There is no "ownership" of pages. We should keep it that way.
This is not something that needs to be discussed ad infinitum. The mods can decide on a policy on this, if needed. For me as a member, the very concept of the wiki provides a good enough answer.
Bakass dey JL nai
