chugach mtn boy wrote:Josh Lewis wrote:Not sure if this was already mentioned (a similar idea was), but if submitters had some kind of check box on the page to allow editors, this would completely make "wikifying" summitpost more appropriate because it would then be up to the users. Yeah I know you would still have some users who might not activate it, but I think many would.
If the idea of the check box is accepted, I would suggest having the check box appear next to every section when you are creating or editing a page. You can check the box next to sections you want to open for editing.
That's very helpful IMHO.
That's the only way I could accept any Wiki-like feature. But in some cases it's useful -- I put out a request for help on my Ozarks page and got three takers, as an example. The Adirondacks, Cascades and other ranges would be great for (optional) Wiki features.
Splitting up technical and non-technical routes is also a good idea. It wouldn't hurt to have SP become a leading source for non-technical routes. Existing trail sources suck, such as Backpacker's. Plus, Backpacker already uses SP for beta, most every issue, and making hiking routes more visible would help reach that market.
[Which reminds me of one of my pet ideas, repeatedly tossed out -- a "preferences" menu that would let users control what they see. Technical climbers could turn off non-technical routes and so on and so forth.]