10
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 178:
Line 178: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:About (view source)
Revision as of 20:30, October 24, 2007
, 20:30, October 24, 2007no edit summary
:Thanks Ymm.. eh, Mr. Y! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks Ymm.. eh, Mr. Y! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
[edit] PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ?
While looking at the Global Warming article and its controversial nature (frozen), I got an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?
Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.
I say this because there could be DOZENS of changes that might be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.
In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....
Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.
Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.
Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?
Jon Moseley