It is assumed that "Cred Historians" and Curators would come along and update threads with links and whatnot, but in this case the comment is not a wiki - it’s just a private comment. Should "Cred Historians" and Curators update all comments/threads with relevant links, or just publicly editable wikis? Should all comments just be wikis by default so that it’s easier for "Cred Historians" and Curators to update links to improve Cred flows? How do we want to handle this?
In the long run, cred historians will be operating through a dedicated UI with a direct link for SourceCred. The cred edges will be “annotations” on posts, etc–but they won’t need to be in the original post to take effect.
For now, making every single comment on the Discourse publicly editable by everyone in the community is probably not a best practice. If someone has forgotten an important cred edge, you can ask them to include it (either via a reply or a direct message).
This is 6-12 months out. Until then, having to DM everyone every time there’s a reference oversight (often!) seems sub-optimal. Not only will that not flow any Cred to the Historians/Curators, but it’s just annoying. What’s a better way for us to handle this in the interim?
In the interim, I expect cred historians will focus on artifacts/initiatives (which are all wikis, and for which we will be giving edit-cred). Getting the cred perfect with respect to every individual reference in folks’ posts isn’t needed. However, feel free to propose more solutions as you think of them.
Doh! Edited post comment to add link to SourceCred as an incentive compiler.
Actually I’ve been thinking, isn’t all of IPFS like a decentralized wiki?
Not sure familiar with IPFS, but presumably it’s not like a wiki in the sense that, unlike say wikipedia, not anyone can edit pages. Or edit them with equal weighting anyway. You can host wikipedia pages) on IPFS apparently.