well please please please understand that i wasn't implying there's anything wrong with the compendium format, and i am GLAD that not just anyone can contribute. i guess i was just referring to what i would consider a true wiki format is as follows:
http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://residentevil.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
something akin to that - like an extension of the compendium, of sorts. maybe related to but not a literal aspect of the compendium. you know, another tool to spread the gospel of chrono.
ah well, it was just a thought. no biggie.
In other words, you still only have some vague concept of what it is you're trying to express.
Most of the differences between our "Encyclopedia" and those wikis are superficial. We use URL rewriting to add ".html" to the end of our entries to make them seem more static, and we use a custom layout, but the same code runs both our wikis. Even the organization and writing style of our wiki isn't all that different, and anyone with an account can just as easily make changes or view revisions, roll back changes, etc as with any other wiki.
When you log in with your account, the wiki here looks and feels exactly like Wikipedia. It even has that same Monobook skin. The only functional difference is the access rights of our wiki. We have closed access rights, and they have open access rights.
Thus the obvious thing you're probably suggesting is that we open up our wiki's access rights to everyone. Is that right? What kind of differences (good and bad) do you think it'd make if we did? Do you mostly think it'd speed revision of the Encyclopedia entries and give fan projects more scratch paper than forums posts if anyone could edit it? If so, why?
Also, I think by using the word "format" you're just confusing everyone, including yourself. To just a regular visitor, the Compendium appears like a big, static, obtrusive beast with its Encyclopedia entries written as dogma, regardless of the reality. What fan would dare edit such a thing? All you really seem to want is to have a big, friendly looking white page with big "Edit" links everywhere, so that any average fan wouldn't be afraid to edit something.
Are you also suggesting that we really change our site's image as well, so that we're perceived differently? Get rid of the slick blue layout, throw in some ads, add a bunch of links to every page to edit, review, revise, etc. for anonymous users to see? Basically, encourage regular users to create accounts and edit pages?
No really, what do you mean by "format"? The way we look? The way the site's technology operates? The organization of the content? Or the content management style?
It's important to define how much the word "format" encompasses at this point, because it's not clear to what extent you're suggesting we make changes. That's what I'm especially curious about right now.
So take some time to question your own underlying perceptual assumptions and biases, learn about the technology and editorial styles of all these sites, quantify the difference in a meaningful way, and then organize and write out your ideas so we can develop suggestions about specific aspects of the site. Then we can also discuss the negative and positive effects of any changes, and everyone will be able to join into the discussion and refine various aspects of the idea.
Keep in mind, opening the site's Encyclopedia wiki up to everyone is as easy as adding a few things to the current layout and changing one configuration option. That's it. No programming, nothing to install or set up, no moving of any data around... Edit one template, change a config option, and everyone can happily edit anything with all of the same functionality as wikia or wikipedia.
But the perception thing though... that opens up a whole new can of worms.
