[Theforum] Re: some thoughts

[Warden, Matt]

elfur wrote:
>ok, and then the subscription to theforum has reached 1500 and 'only' 550
>of them show interest in editing an article, don't you think that it's a
>bit too steep for an administration group, even when 'only' 250 of them
>are super duper active..

How can 250 people be super-duper active on 3 articles per week?

I think it sort of takes care of itself... for the same reasons animals
don't continue to multiply with no bounds. Once the food (articles) isn't
enough to continue increasing in population, the population won't continue
to increase.

Ok, maybe not the best analogy. But, you get what I'm saying, eh?

>| See the process I outlined.
>
>see my cons to that process ... it requires much more monitoring of other
>people's work than the current process.

Yes, and we disagree on that point.

>ah, but then you don't agree with the basic summary i posted:
>"theforum is open to everyone and published on leo, while a subsection of
>theforum has the administrational privilege after showing enough
>enthusiasm for the community."

Alright, if we want to get technical here and assume this means that we're
against any possibility of 100% of theforum are article editors, then
you're right I disagree.

In fact, I should have read it more carefully. IMO, being on theforum and
being an editor are totally unrelated other than the fact that
*probably* at least most of editors will be on theforum.

>so it can be prevented, but the prevention is time consuming and cludgy
>(is that a word :) and unnecessary ... why don't you just let the person
>vent first ... interfere with process and definitions and tell his
>opinion about stuff and things and then after he's established some
>identity for himself within the group, he's ready to volunteer for
>administration (and more administration than just editing articles).

Unnecessary?

Even *with* your idea, you STILL need the version history. I don't care
how much you trust someone, that doesn't prevent them from messing up big
time or even getting totally ticked off and deleting stuff.

It is *very* necessary no matter WHAT we decide as far as who is an
editor.

Kludgy?

We're not debating the specific implementation here.

Time consuming?

Open browser.
Go to archives.
Fine last article alert for the article (easy if sorted by date!)
Copy.
Paste into edit screen for article.

If that's a big problem for you, I volunteer to handle this anytime it's
needed.

>that is a risk i'm willing to take,
>and so should you, for the better of the community you take part in
>running.

Please, let's watch the comments on what I should do/think.

Thanks,

--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com