On Apr 26, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:32:52PM -0500, Chris
On Apr 26, 2007, at 5:52 AM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:37:54AM +0100, Earle
There was discussion here recently about getting
attribution into the data. I remain opposed to the idea until we
logins, but should that happen, I'd be all for it also showing
the page itself, as Wikitravel does it. Example:
Scroll down to the page footer to see what I mean.
I agree that this would be nice but I'd be interested on your
for only wanting it after logins are implemented.
I suspect because without true logins (via OpenID or something) the
attribution is meaningless. Anybody can put anything into the "Who am
I" page and credit their edits to whomever they please. At least with
OpenID or some form of login system you can only credit to accounts
you've authorized against.
But the attribution already happens, on the page history. Putting
somewhere more useful doesn't fundamentally change anything. I really
think you're overstating the importance of strong login credentials.
I don't think OpenID is particularly "Strong".
Also I never claimed that the attribution data we have now has any
value (except by Kake's example ... that people are generally
trustworthy (roughly about 80%*) ), and moving questionable data into
a more public view doesn't make the questionable data any better (the
argument must be made, which is worse questionable data you have to
hunt to find, or questionable data we banner across the bottom of
every page). I was simply trying to present a rational for wanting it
after logins are implemented (see the making bad data more accessible
Personally it's low hanging fruit, I say make it happen sooner rather
than later because as you say there's no real difference from what we
have now ... and it'll add value about 80% of the time.
* This statistic is shamelessly miss-interpreted from Freakanomics.