1,136
edits
(→Site reviews: any review info should be objective rather than subjective, but the question is about notability and fairness of certain "facts") |
m (→Site reviews: link) |
||
Line 551: | Line 551: | ||
:I think that specific bits of information, like the examples I've given, can be very helpful to someone who wants to decide if they should spend time reading or writing on an individual wiki, but if I just read that User X thinks that 'Wiki Y is brilliant or rubbish at doing Z', then that really isn't helpful to me. I think that things like the wikiFactor (which is an optional feature on Template:Size) are so much more useful than longhand opinions, because I can very rapidly compare two wikis and decide which one I prefer. Feautures like wikiFactor, put the reader in the driving seat and inform rather than preach. More importantly, things like wikiFactor (or the absence or lack of adverts) are things that can easily be translated from English into a ton of other languages - long winded opinions are going to cause translation delays. [[User:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] 08:50, 9 May 2009 (EDT) | :I think that specific bits of information, like the examples I've given, can be very helpful to someone who wants to decide if they should spend time reading or writing on an individual wiki, but if I just read that User X thinks that 'Wiki Y is brilliant or rubbish at doing Z', then that really isn't helpful to me. I think that things like the wikiFactor (which is an optional feature on Template:Size) are so much more useful than longhand opinions, because I can very rapidly compare two wikis and decide which one I prefer. Feautures like wikiFactor, put the reader in the driving seat and inform rather than preach. More importantly, things like wikiFactor (or the absence or lack of adverts) are things that can easily be translated from English into a ton of other languages - long winded opinions are going to cause translation delays. [[User:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] 08:50, 9 May 2009 (EDT) | ||
::I agree that any review info should be objective rather than subjective, but the question is about notability and fairness of certain "facts". For example, I (repeatedly) posted a "fact" in the RationalWiki article, that there was a debate about an issue on the talk page. Is it a notable fact? Is it fair to host or link to criticism of one without doing this for any competing wikis or wiki farm? When persistent editors make sure that their favored articles are free of certain "criticisms", is it fair to allow criticism in another article just because there is no one so driven to "protect" it? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:58, 23 June 2010 (EDT) | ::I agree that any review info should be objective rather than subjective, but the question is about notability and fairness of certain "facts". For example, I (repeatedly) posted a "fact" in the [[RationalWiki]] article, that there was a debate about an issue on the talk page. Is it a notable fact? Is it fair to host or link to criticism of one without doing this for any competing wikis or wiki farm? When persistent editors make sure that their favored articles are free of certain "criticisms", is it fair to allow criticism in another article just because there is no one so driven to "protect" it? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:58, 23 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
== SizeBot? == | == SizeBot? == |
edits