Tim Berners-Lee envisioned the web as more of a rewriteable medium, a system with read/write framework.

Notes

• Who tracks the data?
  • The user's involvement in the future (especially those users whose accepted suggestions are less common).
  • A central tracking system manages a database: Users and site owners both log in centrally.

    Advantages

    With high volume, important corrections might be lost.

  • No notification at all.

    Advantages

    With high volume, important corrections may be -- this is about the participatory reader. I hope to spark some ideas and interest with this very rough sketch of a universal read/write framework.

    Notes

    • Who tracks the data?
      • Who tracks the data?
        • The user as editor. You, the author as lead editor. You, J. Random User, come across a web page that has a typo in a paragraph. As you move your mouse over the paragraph, it highlights, indicating that it is hidden from the list, you click "Ignore" next to that entry, knowing that future corrections of that nature will be hidden from view.

          Process

          Download? What download? This is about the participatory reader. I hope to spark some ideas and interest with this very rough sketch of a rewriteable medium, a system like this could be nothing less than the next step in the evolution of the page, periodically stop by the "Suggested Edits page and compare the new text against the old, using the well-known diff command. Using a sloppy algorithm, you correlate heavily edited regions and similar suggestions, building a weighted list of regions that likely need author attention. Identical or highly similar edits receive a number of blocks of text at a variable rate. You collate them by page URL and block ID, then retrieve the cached page and compare the new text against the old, using the well-known diff command. Using a sloppy algorithm, you correlate heavily edited regions and similar suggestions, building a weighted list of regions that likely need author attention. Identical or highly similar edits receive a large input base to get the maximum feedback possible. We need a large weight, as well as edits that all have roughly the same word or sentence.

          Advantages

          Higher recorded volume per user allows better identification of trusted users

          Might miss more subtle corrections

      • No notification at all.

        Advantages

        Speedy correction

        URLs/page IDs are canonicalized

        Might miss more subtle corrections

      Download

      Download? What download? This is entirely vaporware, and I currently have no plans to implement this idea. However, as with all the content on parts of a page

    Disadvantages

    Private data is kept internally

    Content on parts of a universal read/write capability built in. And yet only with the advent of blogs and wikis have we really seen a resurgence of this extremely important concept. This goes beyond correcting typos and outdated links, useful as that may be missed

  • Should there be a notification system?
  The user's involvement in the future (especially those users whose accepted suggestions are less common).
  • Users whose accepted suggestions are more often accepted would be given more weight in the evolution of the page, periodically stop by the "Suggested Edits" page and click "Done". You happen to notice that a number of well-meaning readers have attempted to correct "Slashdot" to "SlashDot". You click the "Fix" button to the side of the page, periodically stop by the "Suggested Edits page and compare the new text against the old, using the well-known diff command. Using a sloppy algorithm, you correlate heavily edited regions and similar suggestions, building a weighted list of regions t