Admin's- Please repost this to the correct forum, if necessary. Also, If you can, please direct this to the proper people, if this thread's ideas are found to be useful.

I have noticed that across several forums, several topics are getting re posted or re hashed and posted. I want to propose a "fix" to this. What if ATS were to change their forums to be more of a "wikipedia" base, where the main topic for instance, Sasquatch, were to be laid out as a "wiki" page. Users can submit information, and admins can check the links provided for the evidence/facts, and if they are deemed worthy to be used as evidence, they will be posted on the "wiki" page for that topic. And each topic, would have it's own continual updating discussion forum, where instead of the older posts coming first, the newer ones would come first as to keep the ideas flowing instead of the page becoming stagnant after page 4 or so. Also, each topic, would be under a general heading as they are now (Cryptzoology for example). Also, for any information/facts/evidence that is posted to the wiki page, links will be provided at the bottom of the page, so that any user can do their own research, or review research. All members would also be encouraged to include more evidence, and also to dispute any evidence if deemed necessary. This would create a sort of "checks and balances" type system. Also, Any member that provides new information on any subject, and gets posted onto the wiki page, gets credit for doing so. Any other thoughts, ideas, suggestions?

Originally posted by Angelsoftheapocalypse
Users can submit information, and admins can check the links provided for the evidence/facts, and if they are deemed worthy to be used as evidence

I really like your idea and have been wishing for such a format for a while. I am tired of seeing re-hashed topics as well. We all are.

But that part where I'm quoting you sounds like something I'd despise. A lot of ATS is--well, let's face it--fiction, speculation, hearsay etc. How can you fact-check topics that essentially have little to no established facts?

I do like that users can submit original content, original ideas, and put their own unique spin on things. It has a drawback to it, (the re-hashing,) but I think it's an equitable trade.

What makes ATS fun is that you never know what you're going to see next. And many threads are truly unique one-shots. The minute we become Abovewiki is when originality is discouraged, I think. Instead, we'd all be collaborators on a big textbook. And most of us have wildly differing views and theories on any number of subjects. Can we realistically have a panel decide what's deemed worthy of being added, and what isn't? I don't like the sound of that, to be honest.

I'm all for your idea. I'm just pointing out what I see to be the downside of it. I would like to see a change that reduces re-hashes. But I'd like to see more solutions.

The biggest reason there are re-hashes is because people don't post their ideas and evidence to already existing threads. They just start a new thread altogether. We've all been guilty of doing this too. I know I have. How can this be solved? That's what I'd like to see--more participation on already existing threads instead of the re-hash du jour threads

I'd really like to see the star and flag reward system go. In my opinion, that's what seems to encourage rehashes.