[Alberto]

Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis

Ok, when I suggested a wiki, I was really just thinking about how things are structured on a wiki, and not what an actual wiki represents. How about this for an idea. Once a thread (a thread that is designed to reach a conclusion) is X days old with no new posts, it gets locked. Then, the original owner or perhaps a moderator, can write a conclusive summary and make it the last post. That way, when people browse old threads and discussions, they look at the summary to decide if they want to read how it was arrived at, rather than the original post to see if they want to read to see where it goes. Or better yet, the reader can read either one or both, and choose how they want to read the thread from there. I think that's a better way to end threads rather than letting conversation taper off in plateaus.

This can be done inasmuch the last post represents actually just a contribution. However, were moderators to take this burden (which they are not supposed to) they would need to commit to take no sides (arguably a few guidelines would help, and the summary should indeed be a summary - but then you know, if they use their own words, it would be easy to misrepresent something in the feeling of somebody, and if they produce quotes they may still be subject to complaints in the line "this is out of context, this seems now different from what I said, this has become equivocal" etc).

However, arguably feasable.

ps as for closing a thread it should be a matter of months rather than of days. Also, a wiki, even within this same webspace, that produces copies of the contributions would still be subject to potential copyright issues. Better not to molest the wasps nest!

[Jezebel]

CrudeHypothesis, it sounds like what you're suggesting would be a major change to the format of our discussions. I don't mind altering our software to add features but we want to keep the core of INTJ Forum's discussion format the same.

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis
	There should at least be a repository of knowledge for that, because nowhere else is there this many INTJs. If we don't build it ourselves for our type, who is going to do it for us? Some other people that have no idea what they're talking about, and that's what's currently plastered all over the internet in contradictory type descriptions.

We do own INTJ Central which was intended for member projects but has been stagnant for a while. We've had suggestions over the years by members who thought it would be neat to use that domain as a centralized place for statistics and polls, repositories of "INTJ knowledge" and other such uses. So far, we've only had one member come up with an idea for a project and follow it through to completion. People seem to like coming up with suggestions but very few take the action required to make them happen.

If you think that site could be a better repository of knowledge for INTJs I'm open to helping members implement their ideas and even making major changes to the format.

[CrudeHypothesis]

I have an idea. Get INTPs to summarize threads.

Don't go "oh?", you can't go "oh?". It has to be INTPs. They're the only ones that make my reasoning work.

It has to be a person who volunteers to summarize a thread, motivated out of shear interest of deriving the truth, and can do so in the most objective, logical and detached manner possible.

That being said, only threads that INTPs would be willing to summarize would get summarized. But, if an INTP is willing to summarize an entire thread, it must be that the thread has some truth in it worth extracting.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis
	I have an idea. Get INTPs to summarize threads. Don't go "oh?", you can't go "oh?". It has to be INTPs. They're the only ones that make my reasoning work.

Let's try it:

ITT: Te run amok!