On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:29:46AM +0200, deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > > 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed, > > it may be worth checking with other people running different systems > > about what's wrong, and what the new text should say. > > > > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may > > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even > > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus. > > > > totally agree with you. You see what happens to wikipedia. (I mean wikipedia > can not be trusted. it was prooven that people falsify information or > impose censorship).
[citation needed] Now irony aside: manipulation efforts are to be expected on high visibility sites like Wikipedia. I think that, given the constraints, it's doing a pretty good job nevertheless. If you pick anything up on the internet, don't swallow it right away, says my doctor. What's your source of wisdom? Facebook? > Best would be to have ownership and the community to decide what needs to be > there, after which the owner of the document can edit. Each scheme has its advantages and disadvantages. The one you propose mimicks Debian's traditional packaging setup -- although you see more and more team-owned packages nowadays. Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
