[mb-users] More Quality AND More Quantity

[Cristov Russell]

Do looking at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tori_Amos&action=edit

It looks like plain HTML tags. I'm curious as to how the did the TOC. Also the multiple subedit options (even though they don't really work).

Cristov (wolfsong)


--- "Don Redman" <donredman at gmx.de> wrote:
Dan, please send me the word document and I will try to enter the table.
Man, I have to learn the WikiTableSyntax one day :-)

DonRedman

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:09:47 +0100, Daniel Bumke <danielbumke at fmail.co.uk>  
wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> I haven’t really had a decent connection to the internet in the last few
> months, and so I haven’t been able to participate in much of the
> discussion going on here. I have been trying to follow it though, and I
> have done some thinking about the edit and voting system.
>
> A while ago the old discussion of quality vs. quantity (also known by
> many other names) flared up again. On the one hand we want MusicBrainz
> to be as open as possible, to allow people to participate and
> contribute. On the other hand, we want the data to be correct, and are
> afraid of drowning in masses of incorrect data. The issue was presented
> as a trade-off between openness and quality of data. The real problem,
> however, was that we were talking about two issues at once:
>
> 1. Some are afraid that opening the system would allow inexperienced or
> malicious users to decrease the quality of 'good' data. High quality
> data could be destroyed, making the database unusable.
>
> 2. Others are afraid that keeping the system as closed as it is will
> discourage people from participating, and permanently cripple the
> prospects of MusicBrainz. The issue of the voting backlog (recently
> reduced in urgency by new approval rules) is related to this point.
>
> I believe that both these points can be adequately addressed with an
> appropriately designed editing system. I have attempted to outline such
> a system (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/wiki.pl?QualityAndQuantity). I've
> also got it as a word document with a table, but sadly the wiki doesn't
> seem to like tables... Anyway, this is not meant to be a perfect
> solution, nor is it a complete proposal (it was, after all, written in
> one afternoon). There are undoubtedly many flaws within this proposal,
> and I am sure that not all of you will agree with it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users