1,756
edits
WikiIndex talk:Community talk: Difference between revisions
→To what extent is WikiIndex intended to serve as a meatball wiki
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (→Citations: reply to Leucosticte) |
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 563: | Line 563: | ||
I notice that we don't actually have a lot of pages in [[:Category:WikiConcept]] and [[:Category:WikiIdea]]. To what extent is it actually encouraged to add these kinds of pages? There's a lot that one could write about wiki-philosophy, wiki norms, etc. However, I don't want to do it if it'll be frowned upon. A [[meatball wiki]] is basically one that "describes the general tendencies observed on wikis and other on-line communities; for example the life cycles of wikis, and people's behavior on them." To what extent are you cool with hosting that kind of content? [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 07:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | I notice that we don't actually have a lot of pages in [[:Category:WikiConcept]] and [[:Category:WikiIdea]]. To what extent is it actually encouraged to add these kinds of pages? There's a lot that one could write about wiki-philosophy, wiki norms, etc. However, I don't want to do it if it'll be frowned upon. A [[meatball wiki]] is basically one that "describes the general tendencies observed on wikis and other on-line communities; for example the life cycles of wikis, and people's behavior on them." To what extent are you cool with hosting that kind of content? [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 07:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
:If clear standards are developed, I could assist in applying them. The problem with hosting deeper content, opinion, judgments, etc., is that it can rapidly spin out into massive debate. It can be done, but it takes protective structure. As an example of how we were able, on Wikiversity, to handle what could have become a massive content dispute, see [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Landmark_Education]. The overall presentation is neutral, and anything controversial or possibly controversial is on attributed subpages, with explicit attribution, not merely attribution through history. It can help, somewhat, if editors engaging in this are not anonymous. Anonymity fuels and enables seriously antisocial behavior. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | :If clear standards are developed, I could assist in applying them. The problem with hosting deeper content, opinion, judgments, etc., is that it can rapidly spin out into massive debate. It can be done, but it takes protective structure. As an example of how we were able, on Wikiversity, to handle what could have become a massive content dispute, see [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Landmark_Education]. The overall presentation is neutral, and anything controversial or possibly controversial is on attributed subpages, with explicit attribution, not merely attribution through history. It can help, somewhat, if editors engaging in this are not anonymous. Anonymity fuels and enables seriously antisocial behavior. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
::Anonymity also enables free speech (by reducing the potential for real-world consequences) and discourages ad hominem attacks (by making it harder to link an on-wiki identity to a user's off-wiki affiliations, interests, etc. and use that information to accuse him of conflicts of interests with regard to his on-wiki contributions). It also can enable users to get a fresh start, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 20:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Citations== | ==Citations== | ||
Are citations of sources for statements made in articles encouraged? E.g., if you say "xWiki says y" is it good to give the URL, so that people can verify your claim? I've been citing sources inline like this.[http://example.com] Of course, we don't have [[mw:Extension:Cite]], so there's no pretty way of doing it, currently. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 13:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | Are citations of sources for statements made in articles encouraged? E.g., if you say "xWiki says y" is it good to give the URL, so that people can verify your claim? I've been citing sources inline like this.[http://example.com] Of course, we don't have [[mw:Extension:Cite]], so there's no pretty way of doing it, currently. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 13:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
:We have no ''requirement'' for citations, but if anyone feels the need to include them, especially if it supports a contentious statement, then by all means just add it as a basic inline url. [[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 19:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | :We have no ''requirement'' for citations, but if anyone feels the need to include them, especially if it supports a contentious statement, then by all means just add it as a basic inline url. [[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 19:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | ||