Re: [edict-jmdict] Turning on the amendment form in WWWJDIC?

["Dennis Schrader" <jpnthailand@*********>]

Personally, I just luv the "public exposure" idea. Kinda makes people a bit more careful. Like Katy, I was concerned about the degradation of the integrity of Edict, if suggested entries are not transparent, and reviewed accordingly.

On 10/30/06, Katy Bridges <katy@************> wrote:

Well, you took my amendment while I was one of the unwashed masses (and more are coming, BTW). However, I think any new addition or amendment needs to be reviewed  before it goes up. Wikipedia is great, but your dictionary has more accurate entries in it than Wikipedia does. I'd like it to stay that way.

Just my US$.02.,

Katy Bridges


 
 

Greetings all,

Well, the amendment form, etc. has been running for opting-in
list members for a couple of weeks and a few bugs have been removed.

The questions are:

- do I turn it on for use by the great unwashed?

- if so, does it become open slather and visible to all immediately,
or do I put a weeny hurdle in, such as the need to enable the option via
a cookie?

I'd like some views on this before I remove the control rods.

I guess I'm leaning towards going the whole way immediately. My main concern
is that I may be inundated by half-baked amendments.

Oh, and I am considering putting incoming new-entry and amendment proposals
on public view (a la Wiki style). At present they go into a
logging file from which the "new" ones are extracted. I go over it
to deal with the amedments. A version of the logging file could easily
go on to a viewable WWW page and others can comment. Maybe public
exposure will raise or ensure the quality of amendments? Comments?

Cheers

Jim