I think that this is quite a good proposal that has many merits. It begins by pointing to what is probably the central problem with Wikipedia: obtaining consensus within a very large community. "You go online to share it and you're teleported past the personal and dialogic and suddenly find yourself having to defend the inclusion of this fact or this edit... And it gets worse, because if you lose that battle (notability, accuracy, citations, linked ideas — whatever the battle is) your contribution disappears." Caulfield then describes as an alternative the federated wiki, where an idea (or item about content) will migrate from person to person before a consensus is developed (if ever). My own approach would probably be less 'tribe' centered and less consensus centred. I don't think there's a whole lot of value in either. But the idea of a piece of content moving from person to person and growing and adapting (which a record of these changes) as a lot of merit, and is worth investigating further.
Today: 1 Total: 99 [Direct link] [Share]
View full size
