<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Nov 17, 2021, 17:49 by osm@imagico.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="auto">A way to <br></div><div>mitigate that and to create more credibility for tagging documentation <br></div><div>could be to move away from the relatively anonymous presentation of <br></div><div>content on the wiki more towards a collection of clearly attributed <br></div><div>statements and analysis on tagging. This way readers could weigh what <br></div><div>they read in the tagging documentation with the credibility and merit <br></div><div>of those who have written it. I do not know how practically feasible <br></div><div>that is though.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">It is partially done by providing sources.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Something like:<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">variant foobar=abc is used by some<ref>links, explanations</ref><br></div><div dir="auto">while barfoo is used by other<ref>again some extra info</ref><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This will be rendered as footnotes.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I feel that footnotes explaining situations and linking<br></div><div dir="auto">relevant discussions should be used more widely.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br></div><div dir="auto">Main negatives of full scale "lets provide all variants" is<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">- there will be fight over what should be order of<br></div><div dir="auto">listing views<br></div><div dir="auto">- wiki would be even more confusing for reader<br></div><div dir="auto">- gives much greater position for various fringe views<br></div><div dir="auto">hold by single person<br></div> </body>
</html>