Registering that I much prefer the format of the older repositories you link to, where additions are left as comments that can be voted on, over the format here, where everything is in a giant list sorted by topic rather than ranking. For any crowdsourced repository, most suggestions will be mediocre or half-baked, but with voting and sorting it’s easy to read only the ones that rise to the top. I’d also be curious to check out the highest-voted suggestions on this topic, but not curious enough to wade through an unranked list of (I assume) mostly mediocre and half-baked ideas to find them.
Yeah, that might have been the correct choice, though I consider this a not-yet-concluded experiment. It was an intentional choice to see how using a publicly editable document as built-in distillation goes.
In fact the document is not fully publicly editable, it still requires an admin to approve changes, so you should assume that everything in there is something that someone with modestly good judgment thought was worth including.
My first preference would actually to have made this a wiki page with all the that functionality that has (clear contributions that can be voted on), however our current wiki tech doesn’t handle concurrent editing and I was worried about that. Might have been fine though.
I’m interested in seeing an experiment using the wiki-option, esp. since that includes the ability to vote on contributions. I suspect the lack of concurrency isn’t going to be that big a deal. (Wikipedia does it somehow and I don’t think they have google-docs functionality)
It would make more sense to write a summary article of the top voted advice after the voting. The way it is right now discourages adding advice—because there is so much in the OP and instead leads to meta comments like this.
Registering that I much prefer the format of the older repositories you link to, where additions are left as comments that can be voted on, over the format here, where everything is in a giant list sorted by topic rather than ranking. For any crowdsourced repository, most suggestions will be mediocre or half-baked, but with voting and sorting it’s easy to read only the ones that rise to the top. I’d also be curious to check out the highest-voted suggestions on this topic, but not curious enough to wade through an unranked list of (I assume) mostly mediocre and half-baked ideas to find them.
Yeah, that might have been the correct choice, though I consider this a not-yet-concluded experiment. It was an intentional choice to see how using a publicly editable document as built-in distillation goes.
In fact the document is not fully publicly editable, it still requires an admin to approve changes, so you should assume that everything in there is something that someone with modestly good judgment thought was worth including.
My first preference would actually to have made this a wiki page with all the that functionality that has (clear contributions that can be voted on), however our current wiki tech doesn’t handle concurrent editing and I was worried about that. Might have been fine though.
I’m interested in seeing an experiment using the wiki-option, esp. since that includes the ability to vote on contributions. I suspect the lack of concurrency isn’t going to be that big a deal. (Wikipedia does it somehow and I don’t think they have google-docs functionality)
Wikipedia has some kind of merge conflict tool that we don’t for wiki, but yeah, thinking about it now I think it probably would have been fine.
It would make more sense to write a summary article of the top voted advice after the voting. The way it is right now discourages adding advice—because there is so much in the OP and instead leads to meta comments like this.