331
edits
WikiIndex talk:What is a WikiIndex entry?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WikiIndex talk:What is a WikiIndex entry? (edit)
Revision as of 16:39, 11 January 2015
, 11 January 2015→Commentary: what this shows
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) (→Commentary: new section) |
(→Commentary: what this shows) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
If there's not going to be commentary about wikis, then basically we're not much different from [[WikiApiary]], except that we cover other wikis besides MediaWiki installations, and we don't have bots to keep the data automatically updated. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | If there's not going to be commentary about wikis, then basically we're not much different from [[WikiApiary]], except that we cover other wikis besides MediaWiki installations, and we don't have bots to keep the data automatically updated. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
*There has been no clear decision made on the topic. | |||
*Leucosticte's procedure seems to have been to use WikiIndex for extreme discussions, and to list the most extremely controversial wikis, then to argue endlessly against reactions that were predictable, and then, when he runs into warnings about his style of "collaboration," also predictable, to complain that no discussion of wikis is allowed. | |||
*Above, I write about how discussion might be allowed. I did the same with Leucosticte on Wikiversity, where he could actually build content, and if willing to participate in the creation of ethical standards, even content in the areas where he has been the most provocative. That was ignored. If it isn't easy for him, it's not "wiki." He's not blocked on Wikiversity, in spite of some major and disruptive complaints. He will not be allowed to poke those who complain, but he will be allowed to build content ''under ethical guidelines.'' He complains that the guidelines don't exist, and he's mostly correct. However, we have no drive, on Wikiversity, to include whatever anyone wants to include, without restraint. I am not personally interested at this point, to set up guidelines for, say, content about or around pedophilia or age-of-consent activism. Wikiversity defacto policy is a practical necessity: any WMF user can immediately come to Wikiversity and participate in process and vote in decisions. Wikiversity *also* has strong traditions of academic freedom. At some point I may decide to demonstrate what, in my opinion, can be done, but I have other fish to fry. It's not terribly difficult however. How do brick-and-mortar universities, dependent upon public support, handle the issues? | |||
*There is, in this situation, an exposure of the basic wiki problem. "Not easy" afflicts all the wikis. On Wikipedia, if understanding a subject requires study, and wherever controversy exists, Wikipedia can be radically dysfunctional, like a mob. | |||
*To allow discussion without damaging the function of the wiki, structure is needed, and, as well, users and administrators who understand how to *organize* and *regulate* discussion, so that it does not become damaging. If that is not done, a wiki becomes highly inefficient and burns out users. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | |||