[wp-hackers] A New Codex?

Roy Schestowitz r at schestowitz.com
Sun Nov 12 00:39:45 GMT 2006

___/ On Sat 11 Nov 2006 23:56:59 GMT, [ MarkR ] wrote : \___

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ___/ On Sat 11 Nov 2006 16:43:26 GMT, [ Mark Riley ] wrote : \___
>>> Craig wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/06, Dave W <dabbaking at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>Maybe there could be a
>>>>> policy instituted like Wikipedia has that some articles are locked down
>>>>> for
>>>>> new users or someone would have to request a change to an important
>>>>> page.
>>>>> <snip>
>>>> This was attempted at the start of the Codex project. It was
>>>> determined by
>>>> some that such policies are counter to the open source ideology. Chaos
>>>> ensued and we have today, a set of documentation that is a quagmire.
>>>> Craig.
>>> And if I recall correctly those that freaked out about this are no
>>> longer around. In - yell - out. That's how I remember it.
>> Scott  (skippy)? Or is it David (smallmouse)?
> No it wasn't. The above are both great guys but the names aren't
> important now.

You're  right.  It just saddens me when people whom  I  once
spoke to suddenly disappear. Yes, I know that they blog, but
it's  not quite the same. I hope that WP.org/Automattic  can
keep  its  community together. Take Craig for example.  He's
been  around  for  so long, even after he had  declared  his
departure (twice!).

> The point was that even back then a sense of order and discipline was
> needed but the free-for-all has lead to what we have now. It may all be
> in there but it's hard to find.

My  personal observation is that forums don't always address
questions  directly, concisely, fully or even  successfully.
Your  search plugin for Firefox is helpful, I might as  well
add.  As for the Codex, well... that should/could have  been
the  golden reference (Holy Grail?), but experience suggests
that  no  documentation  is perfect. Help  files  and  their
indices  in  proprietary software are often  saturated  with
promotional      language      whilst       user-contributed
information/knowledge  can become political, grossly  reused
and---in  worst  of circumstance---even mirrored or  grafted
from  someone's  existing peer-reviewed text (sometimes  for
shameless self promotion of some hypothesis).

I happen to be part of a project (NewAssignment) which leads
the way to so-called 'Open Source journalism'. These are all
questions  that  we are yet to address and investigate.  How
does  one generate answers and reviews that best reflect  on
the  truth  (subjective in its own right)? Can an editor  be
trusted?  Can  you assign a group to cover a  story  without
repeated  rebuttals and fight over content and structure? Is
balance  deserved under all circumstances? How can something
like  a  WordPress Wiki be handled in a democratic  way  (no
entry  barriers)  and  still  maintain  and  attain   better
quality? It's quite a conundrum.

Best wishes,


PS - Great to see you conceding the cloak of anonimity by the way...

Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com  |  GNU/Linux  |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://othellomaster.com - GPL'd 3-D Othello
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list