Often an exchange will arise on a wiki such as this:
One way to respond to this is in ThreadMode:
Another way to respond it by modifying the original text, removing the question.
This has a certain zen to it, and it makes the page a lot nicer to read. Another way to respond is by removing the question and adding a PageLink?:
These simple tricks help keep clutter down and help IncreaseClarity?. Think of questions as only stubs for additional content, not sequence points between content. While editing as you go sometimes makes it hard for the questioner to find the answer to her question, you may presume that your readers are smart enough to figure it out.
ReplaceQuestionWithAnswer happens much less on wikis that make extensive use of CommentPages, such as Wikipedia, where ThreadMode is kept strictly separate from the DocumentMode articles. One solution is to allow people to leave "question" annotations in articles when they sense they need more information. e.g.
The syntax translator could also sense the style [ text goes here, until question mark & right bracket--> ?] and render the HTML less obtrusively. See WikiPedia:Wikipedia:make_omissions_explicit.
This used to be common practice on Wikipedia. The community moved away from it as Wikipedia started to become useful as a reference and started to have readers who weren't also contributors. Inline questions and "to be written" sections made the text look somewhat dubious. However, it would be possible to hide [question?] text from readers but keep it visible to contributors, set in preferences. This would EnlargeSpace by allowing text to be directed at contributors without disturbing readers.
Although making omissions explicit is usually inline, you could also make space for out-of-line comments to ease IncidentalCollaboration, such as by creating a section at the end of each article called Concerns or Defects or Issues where people could list issues with text in DocumentMode. e.g. "While red foxes are covered, a discussion about arctic foxes is strikingly absent." That way readers are at least aware that there are critical points they should remain concerned about when reading the text without having to move to a separate free form (i.e. mostly ThreadMode), unedited page and digest that as well. Wikipedia does this somewhat, usually with prefixed boilerplate saying things like "this article's neutrality is disputed".
An alternative would be to have this edited list of current issues at the top of the talk page. However, this is not very reader-friendly. HTwoGTwo does something similiar, but doesn't allow for collaboration. See, for example, the [Wikipedia article]. It's really quite good, but there are some minor errors. Therefore, someone could add a comment at the bottom of the page to point out those errors.
I like this pages. It has this zen-ish approach to untie the knot from insides instead of making endless pages that describe different types of knots and by doing so not to untie anything. 040130 13:20 UTC, +01 -- MattisManzel