The wub2.0 idea that would make millions

Pete

I getting kinda bored of news sites and there bias.
I'm also not getting anything overly important from del.icio.us and dig and the like, because they are ultimately edited from people who I don't really care about and are focussed on silly things like programming and whatever whoop du jour is on boingboing

SO, here comes the idea, using models of other sites as a framework.

Firstly, you have many news sources feed into a site, text only. If you wanted pictures, buy a tabloid. Then using step one of the user-generated-content, you start bunching together the stories. For example, you put all of the Saddam stories in one place. All this information would appear on a wiki style page.

Then, step two of the user-generated-content happens. Using people as editors, you reduced the story down and down to only possible bare facts. The way this could be done would be a user highlights 5 of the most important sentences. The top ten sentence of a story would then be "approved". Even these could be then reduced. "Saddam. Verdict: Guilty."

Another point could be an auto-linking feature. Clicking on "Saddam" would then link to all stories with Saddam. It's kinda like a news story made up of tagging.

I call it News Boil.

David

<http://en.wikinews.org>; But I still like the idea, and chomping down the content appeals too.

Pete

Having played around with what wiki news has to offer, it runs like a chair. Its really just feedings wiki pages to you. And all the problems that a wiki has.

Also, the less you make it look like a wiki, the better. I'm a real sucker for a constant format.

Looking at the wikinews page of Saddam, it's easier two-thirds too long.

(I got this dea from warren ellis)

Lucy

I'm going to start having to put David and Pete's internet/blog type threads in the same category as the sports ones!

andy

Britney is getting divorced! That's what I learned from wikinews.

Lucy

I saw that too! Plus, is this the best post on the guardian ever??? <http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/11/shelf_help.html>;

David

See, this is where Apple could release iBooks and ebooks would take over the world. I think answer to what the article poses is convention. Just pick one and go with it. Order by Author, then Title, then Genre. Order by Genre, Author then Title. It really doesn't matter, just pick the order the comes most naturally and stick to it, but the golden rule is always alphabetical. No-one else will ever get a personally subjective system, which kind of makes any system pointless. The profoundly impressive genre-bleed may as well be shelves ordered by square roots of x by counting up from the floor. No point whatsoever. Obviously, this lady's real issue is displayed in her irrational fear of _"hardbacks pressed up against slim volumes of poetry."_ I just can't quite share the horror of it.

Liz

Does it really matter if anyone else gets it as long as you do? It's not like any of us are running a public library. Mine are proudly organised by colour because it looks neater. So far the only person who has noticed this is Andy (a fellow OCD/borderline autistic sufferer).

David

No it doesn't really matter, but really the main point of a system is for more than one person to know how to use it. By colour is lovely, but how do you find a book by a certain author? I suspect you probably know pretty much where every single book is, regardless of the colour system. So if its just for a single Autistic soul, why procrastinate about a system at all?

Pete

Response to the book thing: Go outside
Response to how off-topic this has become: :'(

I blame you Lucy.

Lucy

yup, all my fault. But, for those of us who obsess over books, it's a good article!

andy

It's quite good to derail the techie threads. Keeps us on our toes.