Recent Changes for "Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_DiscussionRecent Changes of the page "Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion" on Davis Wiki.en-us Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2011-04-27 22:43:03TomGarberson <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 86: </td> <td> Line 86: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ I agree 100% with this decision. Where someone is using anonymity abusively, revealing their identity may be necessary to protect other users. Absent such a need, revealing the identity of someone who chooses to be anonymous is inappropriate, ''especially'' when it's apparently done maliciously. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2011-04-27 22:35:13JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 82: </td> <td> Line 82: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + =Outing Identity=<br> + <br> + Somebody posted potentially identifying information about a person who has chosen to remain unknown. I admin reverted it. I checked very briefly with two editors who happened to be online, and decided it was the ethical equivalent of home address: a few people post them, but most people don't. Occasionally somebody posts somebody's home address without asking and it is usually removed by request of the person who lives there. It falls under choice of privacy. I have no idea if the information was even accurate, and given the nature of the situation, I'm being intentionally vague. If there's a community demand for the information, I stored it. I do note, also, that it may have been a veiled threat in terms of "I know who you are". --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2011-01-19 22:55:44WayneSchiller <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 33: </td> <td> Line 33: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- When you edit a page be careful not to impose your style onto other peoples' entries. For sure, help clean up spelling and grammar, but be careful to assume you can better state what others are saying. It is an arrogant practice. ["Wayne Schiller"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2009-02-25 08:33:07SaulSugarmanName to initials. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * The only issue I have is that the info tab, the edit page, the recent changes page, all of it seems to be geared for Wikiholics or active users. I'm concerned mostly just about the people using the wiki as an information source. Not leaving a signature on an obvious opinion kinda says to me "We here at the Wiki think the system is fucked ..." as an example. It's a minor detail, in my opinion. --<span>["Users/</span>S<span>aul</span>S<span>ugarman"]</span><br> <span>-</span> * The problem I see here is that there seems to be some ambiguity. The Wikiholics Anonymous page, for example, seems to have had comments with signatures that weren't put by the original author. I personally see no problem in adding a signature. Something like the 40 ounce Meal Plan page really doesn't need to be edited for non-bias, I just felt the need to step in because of "... the system is fucked." That seems kinda harsh to be representative of the entire Wiki community. --<span>["Users/</span>S<span>aul</span>S<span>ugarman"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * The only issue I have is that the info tab, the edit page, the recent changes page, all of it seems to be geared for Wikiholics or active users. I'm concerned mostly just about the people using the wiki as an information source. Not leaving a signature on an obvious opinion kinda says to me "We here at the Wiki think the system is fucked ..." as an example. It's a minor detail, in my opinion. --SS<br> <span>+</span> * The problem I see here is that there seems to be some ambiguity. The Wikiholics Anonymous page, for example, seems to have had comments with signatures that weren't put by the original author. I personally see no problem in adding a signature. Something like the 40 ounce Meal Plan page really doesn't need to be edited for non-bias, I just felt the need to step in because of "... the system is fucked." That seems kinda harsh to be representative of the entire Wiki community. --SS </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 21: </td> <td> Line 21: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I can see that the similarities between attribution/objectivity are going to be difficult to deal with. --<span>["Users/</span>S<span>aul</span>S<span>ugarman"]</span><br> <span>-</span> * Man. . . <span>["Users/</span>S<span>aul</span>S<span>ugarman"]</span> and I just finished arguing about this sort of thing. I side with ["Users/JabberWokky"] on this one. I started doing this a couple of times, but he's much better at it. -- ["Users/ct"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I can see that the similarities between attribution/objectivity are going to be difficult to deal with. --SS<br> <span>+</span> * Man. . . SS and I just finished arguing about this sort of thing. I side with ["Users/JabberWokky"] on this one. I started doing this a couple of times, but he's much better at it. -- ["Users/ct"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 29: </td> <td> Line 29: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Well gee I'm glad you cleared that up. Next time *I* write some pretty words I'm sure when it's edited I can make the same argument (I'm in a huff if you haven't noticed). --<span>["Users/</span>S<span>aul</span>S<span>ugarman"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Well gee I'm glad you cleared that up. Next time *I* write some pretty words I'm sure when it's edited I can make the same argument (I'm in a huff if you haven't noticed). --SS </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 49: </td> <td> Line 49: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Not that I don't understand what you're doing ... but some comments are opinion, and (I think thanks in part to me) page information these days is more non-biased. I like the comment system because it allows people to clearly express their opinions without having it necessarily disrupt the flow of page information. I just want to know where you get the authority to "integrate" or basically "make anonymous" people's opinions? I know that at least me personally, I would appreciate your asking me before you integrated my comments. I might want my name attached to something I said. --<span>{"</span>S<span>aul</span>S<span>ugarman"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Not that I don't understand what you're doing ... but some comments are opinion, and (I think thanks in part to me) page information these days is more non-biased. I like the comment system because it allows people to clearly express their opinions without having it necessarily disrupt the flow of page information. I just want to know where you get the authority to "integrate" or basically "make anonymous" people's opinions? I know that at least me personally, I would appreciate your asking me before you integrated my comments. I might want my name attached to something I said. --SS </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2008-12-30 16:12:03JabberWokkyTossing out an admin action to the community for future reference. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 78: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + <br> + =Attack Photos=<br> + <br> + For what it's worth, I just permanently deleted a photo: it was a drunk college aged guy with his face covered in marker and had been posted on an entry by somebody else, likely to humiliate him (the name is trivial to figure out, I'm leaving it out, but it was a very recent entry). I assume nobody has any issues with a permanent deletion in those cases? (Normally deleted photo are still viewable). Incidentally, it is been nearly a year since the last time hard core porn/shock images were posted, so it seems that we're getting them at a rate of one spate a year. Or maybe the holidays cause some people to get a bit extra gleeful. --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2008-07-20 16:01:59MaryLieth <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 5: </td> <td> Line 5: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I honestly have been thinking about that the past hour or so. Would I do it? No. In the end, it makes a page unwieldy and difficult to read, which is always against the purpose of the Wiki - to provide information. It also (and this is an important point) makes the quoted text seem less "authoritative" than the base text of the entry - which itself was entered by an equal editor. Do I think it is "Bad", "Wrong" or "Unethical". Possibly, but only due to that second reason - you are lowering the weight of the words of other contributors. -- ["JabberWokky" jw]<br> <span>-</span> * Another *strong* point is that every letter is attributed automatically in the "info" tab. Is that not enough? -- ["JabberWokky" jw]<br> <span>-</span> * The only issue I have is that the info tab, the edit page, the recent changes page, all of it seems to be geared for Wikiholics or active users. I'm concerned mostly just about the people using the wiki as an information source. Not leaving a signature on an obvious opinion kinda says to me "We here at the Wiki think the system is fucked ..." as an example. It's a minor detail, in my opinion. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>-</span> * The problem I see here is that there seems to be some ambiguity. The Wikiholics Anonymous page, for example, seems to have had comments with signatures that weren't put by the original author. I personally see no problem in adding a signature. Something like the 40 ounce Meal Plan page really doesn't need to be edited for non-bias, I just felt the need to step in because of "... the system is fucked." That seems kinda harsh to be representative of the entire Wiki community. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>-</span> * I think signatures are appropriate (in fact, appreciated) when enganged in discussion on a page, but when setting the facts straight via a correction they're clearly unnecessary, just a good edit comment is all that's needed. ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-30 00:36:05 </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I honestly have been thinking about that the past hour or so. Would I do it? No. In the end, it makes a page unwieldy and difficult to read, which is always against the purpose of the Wiki - to provide information. It also (and this is an important point) makes the quoted text seem less "authoritative" than the base text of the entry - which itself was entered by an equal editor. Do I think it is "Bad", "Wrong" or "Unethical". Possibly, but only due to that second reason - you are lowering the weight of the words of other contributors. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky" jw]<br> <span>+</span> * Another *strong* point is that every letter is attributed automatically in the "info" tab. Is that not enough? -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky" jw]<br> <span>+</span> * The only issue I have is that the info tab, the edit page, the recent changes page, all of it seems to be geared for Wikiholics or active users. I'm concerned mostly just about the people using the wiki as an information source. Not leaving a signature on an obvious opinion kinda says to me "We here at the Wiki think the system is fucked ..." as an example. It's a minor detail, in my opinion. --["<span>Users/</span>SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>+</span> * The problem I see here is that there seems to be some ambiguity. The Wikiholics Anonymous page, for example, seems to have had comments with signatures that weren't put by the original author. I personally see no problem in adding a signature. Something like the 40 ounce Meal Plan page really doesn't need to be edited for non-bias, I just felt the need to step in because of "... the system is fucked." That seems kinda harsh to be representative of the entire Wiki community. --["<span>Users/</span>SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>+</span> * I think signatures are appropriate (in fact, appreciated) when enganged in discussion on a page, but when setting the facts straight via a correction they're clearly unnecessary, just a good edit comment is all that's needed. ["<span>Users/</span>OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-30 00:36:05 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 12: </td> <td> Line 12: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> One of the main issues here has to do with the interplay of fact and opinion. Wikipedia doesn't have this problem as often, as it deals mostly in fact, whereas [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki c2] deals almost exclusively with opinion. The idea that attributing an edit violates "Wiki Ethics" (which is growing to be a TERRIBLY overused phrase) seems to come mostly from c2, and I think a lot of stuff on c2 is rubbish. There have been tons of specific cases where I've found myself attributing edits here on the DavisWiki: I point you to the case of [http://daviswiki.org/index.cgi/Computer_20Science?action=diff&amp;date2=1107821682&amp;date1=1107308059 Kenneth Bloom versus ECS188], in which ["KenBloom" Kabloom] dropped a derogatory statement regarding ["Computer Science" ECS188]. It was totally uncool unattributed, but if he thought what he said was true it's probably deserved to stay as a warning to future students of the class. </td> <td> <span>+</span> One of the main issues here has to do with the interplay of fact and opinion. Wikipedia doesn't have this problem as often, as it deals mostly in fact, whereas [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki c2] deals almost exclusively with opinion. The idea that attributing an edit violates "Wiki Ethics" (which is growing to be a TERRIBLY overused phrase) seems to come mostly from c2, and I think a lot of stuff on c2 is rubbish. There have been tons of specific cases where I've found myself attributing edits here on the DavisWiki: I point you to the case of [http://daviswiki.org/index.cgi/Computer_20Science?action=diff&amp;date2=1107821682&amp;date1=1107308059 Kenneth Bloom versus ECS188], in which ["<span>Users/</span>KenBloom" Kabloom] dropped a derogatory statement regarding ["Computer Science" ECS188]. It was totally uncool unattributed, but if he thought what he said was true it's probably deserved to stay as a warning to future students of the class. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 16: </td> <td> Line 16: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On the issue of Wiki Ethics, I wish everyone would lay off that specific phrase at least. During the election about a million years ago, Mr. Philip himself said to me that he wished there was some simple code for determining what should and shouldn't go on the wiki - but that's just it, there isn't one. There's no wiki bible and we basically have to make this shit up as we go along. Shouting 'ETHICS! ETHICS!' doesn't help as much as you think it does. -- ["TravisGrathwell"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> On the issue of Wiki Ethics, I wish everyone would lay off that specific phrase at least. During the election about a million years ago, Mr. Philip himself said to me that he wished there was some simple code for determining what should and shouldn't go on the wiki - but that's just it, there isn't one. There's no wiki bible and we basically have to make this shit up as we go along. Shouting 'ETHICS! ETHICS!' doesn't help as much as you think it does. -- ["<span>Users/</span>TravisGrathwell"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 18: </td> <td> Line 18: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I have, in the past, attributed things I thought were too opinionated. However, if pages have more than one viewpoint expressed then there's little need for attribution of these viewpoints: the dual presence makes it clear that it is not an ''official opinion''. You have to consider that rampant attribution might actually cause the ''opposite'' of the intended affect: All non-attributed text is given the guise of authority or agreement, which is not the case (and cannot be the case because we've all agreed to disagree). It would be nice if the bulk of the text represented somewhat of a consensus, and this can be achived by including differing points of view (where you can find ''your'' view included). I say use your best judgement. --["PhilipNeustrom"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> I have, in the past, attributed things I thought were too opinionated. However, if pages have more than one viewpoint expressed then there's little need for attribution of these viewpoints: the dual presence makes it clear that it is not an ''official opinion''. You have to consider that rampant attribution might actually cause the ''opposite'' of the intended affect: All non-attributed text is given the guise of authority or agreement, which is not the case (and cannot be the case because we've all agreed to disagree). It would be nice if the bulk of the text represented somewhat of a consensus, and this can be achived by including differing points of view (where you can find ''your'' view included). I say use your best judgement. --["<span>Users/</span>PhilipNeustrom"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 20: </td> <td> Line 20: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Wiki Style Guide"] says how to handle certain comments - remove the ones that contribute little, and take the information contained within and incorporate them into the body of the page, if possible. It also says avoid "I" and "my" phrases. In the end, however, I am doing one thing - making pages more readable so that people can use the Wiki better. I don't give a damn who wrote it or even if I disagree with it - if I disagree, I'll present a counterpoint - unattributed - but I will also do my best to make the point I disagree with as legible and persuasive as possible. In short, I take the information and opinions on each page and present them in the most clear manner possible. -- ["JabberWokky"]<br> <span>-</span> * I can see that the similarities between attribution/objectivity are going to be difficult to deal with. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>-</span> * Man. . . ["SaulSugarman"] and I just finished arguing about this sort of thing. I side with ["JabberWokky"] on this one. I started doing this a couple of times, but he's much better at it. -- ["ct"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Wiki Style Guide"] says how to handle certain comments - remove the ones that contribute little, and take the information contained within and incorporate them into the body of the page, if possible. It also says avoid "I" and "my" phrases. In the end, however, I am doing one thing - making pages more readable so that people can use the Wiki better. I don't give a damn who wrote it or even if I disagree with it - if I disagree, I'll present a counterpoint - unattributed - but I will also do my best to make the point I disagree with as legible and persuasive as possible. In short, I take the information and opinions on each page and present them in the most clear manner possible. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"]<br> <span>+</span> * I can see that the similarities between attribution/objectivity are going to be difficult to deal with. --["<span>Users/</span>SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>+</span> * Man. . . ["<span>Users/</span>SaulSugarman"] and I just finished arguing about this sort of thing. I side with ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"] on this one. I started doing this a couple of times, but he's much better at it. -- ["<span>Users/</span>ct"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 28: </td> <td> Line 28: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Uh, guys... I wrote that, and when I did, I just thought it was a clever phrase - I hardly intended anybody to try to debate the logic of it. It's a pretty turn of words, not a legal document. -- ["JabberWokky"]<br> <span>-</span> * Well gee I'm glad you cleared that up. Next time *I* write some pretty words I'm sure when it's edited I can make the same argument (I'm in a huff if you haven't noticed). --["SaulSugarman"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Uh, guys... I wrote that, and when I did, I just thought it was a clever phrase - I hardly intended anybody to try to debate the logic of it. It's a pretty turn of words, not a legal document. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"]<br> <span>+</span> * Well gee I'm glad you cleared that up. Next time *I* write some pretty words I'm sure when it's edited I can make the same argument (I'm in a huff if you haven't noticed). --["<span>Users/</span>SaulSugarman"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 34: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I don't agree but maybe that's because I'm an arrogant person. The wiki is meant to be edited and changed. Deleting people's personal comments and incorporating them, rewriting unclear or disconnected entries and all of the like is a good thing and needs to be done more, not less. It's wrong to change the substance of a person's post but in my opinion that isn't usually the problem. I think that we need to have far fewer personal comments and pages that are filled with discussions. It makes the wiki cluttered, hard to read and all around less useful and available to the masses. But I'm not quite sure what your original point was anyhow. Is it that you are opposed to people modifying signed opinion posts? If so that is already covered in the wiki. I guess I was arrogant simply be deleting your page and moving it here. Whatever, it's just the internet. What's your opinion? -["JH"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I don't agree but maybe that's because I'm an arrogant person. The wiki is meant to be edited and changed. Deleting people's personal comments and incorporating them, rewriting unclear or disconnected entries and all of the like is a good thing and needs to be done more, not less. It's wrong to change the substance of a person's post but in my opinion that isn't usually the problem. I think that we need to have far fewer personal comments and pages that are filled with discussions. It makes the wiki cluttered, hard to read and all around less useful and available to the masses. But I'm not quite sure what your original point was anyhow. Is it that you are opposed to people modifying signed opinion posts? If so that is already covered in the wiki. I guess I was arrogant simply be deleting your page and moving it here. Whatever, it's just the internet. What's your opinion? -["<span>Users/</span>JH"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 37: </td> <td> Line 37: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Usage of multiple user accounts (also known as clones) should be discouraged. I don't believe there is a legitimate reason for a single entity to have multiple user accounts and especially not for the clone accounts to have their own user pages. However this does not mean that your username has to be your real name. Clone detection is very easy from just the information provided on ["Recent Changes"], and if your a username shows up with a clone, that only has a handful of edits all of which have been disruptive (i.e. deleting user pages, instigating revert wars) the only effect this will have is to have people take you less seriously. Attribution of edits and comments to a username is taking responsibility for those things, and if you can't take responsibility for a comment, and instead attribute it to your clone, then you should think twice about making that comment in the first place. --["DavidReid"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Usage of multiple user accounts (also known as clones) should be discouraged. I don't believe there is a legitimate reason for a single entity to have multiple user accounts and especially not for the clone accounts to have their own user pages. However this does not mean that your username has to be your real name. Clone detection is very easy from just the information provided on ["Recent Changes"], and if your a username shows up with a clone, that only has a handful of edits all of which have been disruptive (i.e. deleting user pages, instigating revert wars) the only effect this will have is to have people take you less seriously. Attribution of edits and comments to a username is taking responsibility for those things, and if you can't take responsibility for a comment, and instead attribute it to your clone, then you should think twice about making that comment in the first place. --["<span>Users/</span>DavidReid"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 43: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I agree - which is why I don't integrate reviews or personal recounts. I wish there was a stronger delineation between chatter, informative comments and reviews. The latter should be the only thing remaining -- the first is deletable, and the second should really have just been a edit directly to the entry. Reviews are not comments, and are a useful part of the article. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I agree - which is why I don't integrate reviews or personal recounts. I wish there was a stronger delineation between chatter, informative comments and reviews. The latter should be the only thing remaining -- the first is deletable, and the second should really have just been a edit directly to the entry. Reviews are not comments, and are a useful part of the article. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 47: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I've probably integrated 500 entries so far. I recently started also commenting on people's pages to get people to edit entries directly. Recently there have been a spate of new users who have been adding very good content in the form of a comment rather than editing the actual entry. If nobody else does those integrations, I will. This is merely my attempt to get people to think along the lines of "Wiki, not blog" when editing. The reason I made the icon was to gently encourage Wiki editing rather than using the Wiki as a messageboard. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I've probably integrated 500 entries so far. I recently started also commenting on people's pages to get people to edit entries directly. Recently there have been a spate of new users who have been adding very good content in the form of a comment rather than editing the actual entry. If nobody else does those integrations, I will. This is merely my attempt to get people to think along the lines of "Wiki, not blog" when editing. The reason I made the icon was to gently encourage Wiki editing rather than using the Wiki as a messageboard. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 50: </td> <td> Line 50: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Personally, I get my authority from Fozzie T. Bear. You might get yours from God or Locke or the Lord of the Dance. I am ''allowed'' to by Creative Commons, and I do it to try to improve the Wiki, the exact same reason you are concerned about it. Most people here have the same goal: to make the Wiki better. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Personally, I get my authority from Fozzie T. Bear. You might get yours from God or Locke or the Lord of the Dance. I am ''allowed'' to by Creative Commons, and I do it to try to improve the Wiki, the exact same reason you are concerned about it. Most people here have the same goal: to make the Wiki better. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 52: </td> <td> Line 52: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * In that case, you also agree with me. Note my distinction between reviews, comments and chatter. The stuff that I remove tends to be "Is there going to be a meeting on Saturday?" from eight months ago. When it actually contains info, I move it up to the entry. Reviews are left alone. By me, at any rate. Somebody else might have a different edit philosophy. -- ["JabberWokky"]<br> <span>-</span> * Ah, JoAnna, you're actually the specific person who prompted my notices that so upset Saul. You do great, absolutely fantastic writeups about restaurants. Why don't you just edit the actual entry and put all the things you have to say directly into the article? It would make that Wiki entry better -- and after all it's ''your'' entry to edit as much as it is anyone else's. More to the point, if you don't, who will? You're perfectly able to edit the entry itself... so go'fer it! You are an excellent author. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * In that case, you also agree with me. Note my distinction between reviews, comments and chatter. The stuff that I remove tends to be "Is there going to be a meeting on Saturday?" from eight months ago. When it actually contains info, I move it up to the entry. Reviews are left alone. By me, at any rate. Somebody else might have a different edit philosophy. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"]<br> <span>+</span> * Ah, JoAnna, you're actually the specific person who prompted my notices that so upset Saul. You do great, absolutely fantastic writeups about restaurants. Why don't you just edit the actual entry and put all the things you have to say directly into the article? It would make that Wiki entry better -- and after all it's ''your'' entry to edit as much as it is anyone else's. More to the point, if you don't, who will? You're perfectly able to edit the entry itself... so go'fer it! You are an excellent author. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 55: </td> <td> Line 55: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * If someone else thinks the service isn't good, they can add that to the entry. Besides -- your opinion is valid, don't worry if it's universal. There's no rule that says your opinion has to be universal to be in the article. Think of restaurant reviews in newspapers or in travel or restaurant guides. Can you imagine if they were afraid to voice an opinion because it might not be universal? If your good service was atypical, five other people will pop in afterwards and change it. Eventually the opinions presented will approximate the opinion of the general public (at least those who use the Wiki). If you're still scared that your opinion isn't good enough for the article, think of it as you being on a panel of reviewers -- the rest of the panel being the rest of the Wiki editors. You have a good and valid voice... don't be afraid to use it. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * If someone else thinks the service isn't good, they can add that to the entry. Besides -- your opinion is valid, don't worry if it's universal. There's no rule that says your opinion has to be universal to be in the article. Think of restaurant reviews in newspapers or in travel or restaurant guides. Can you imagine if they were afraid to voice an opinion because it might not be universal? If your good service was atypical, five other people will pop in afterwards and change it. Eventually the opinions presented will approximate the opinion of the general public (at least those who use the Wiki). If you're still scared that your opinion isn't good enough for the article, think of it as you being on a panel of reviewers -- the rest of the panel being the rest of the Wiki editors. You have a good and valid voice... don't be afraid to use it. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 57: </td> <td> Line 57: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I'm not an authority, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter. Just like you are. We're both right -- ''even when we disagree''. We're on a level playing field, and we both want a better Wiki. I'm confidant that that will happen, and it won't be precisely what either of us envision. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I'm not an authority, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter. Just like you are. We're both right -- ''even when we disagree''. We're on a level playing field, and we both want a better Wiki. I'm confidant that that will happen, and it won't be precisely what either of us envision. -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 64: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Banning someone seems to me to be a serious matter, and not something which we should just decide by a simple poll. Poll-taking leads to a dynamic where people start thinking about "Do I want him banned?" rather than something like "Would it be right to ban him?", and also a dynamic where people feel compelled to defend their prior opinions rather than taking in facts and arguments. Some thought and discussion, hopefully leading to something close to consensus, would be good. Also, it seems there are more possibilities here than a simple binary decision. I'm even leery of the discussion happening without face-to-face contact among all interested, though it is possible to do it online well if everyone puts some care into it. A second concern is that some people may have thoughts they want to share without identifying themselves to everyone. --["AlexanderWoo"] (at 1PMish, Sunday Oct. 30) </td> <td> <span>+</span> Banning someone seems to me to be a serious matter, and not something which we should just decide by a simple poll. Poll-taking leads to a dynamic where people start thinking about "Do I want him banned?" rather than something like "Would it be right to ban him?", and also a dynamic where people feel compelled to defend their prior opinions rather than taking in facts and arguments. Some thought and discussion, hopefully leading to something close to consensus, would be good. Also, it seems there are more possibilities here than a simple binary decision. I'm even leery of the discussion happening without face-to-face contact among all interested, though it is possible to do it online well if everyone puts some care into it. A second concern is that some people may have thoughts they want to share without identifying themselves to everyone. --["<span>Users/</span>AlexanderWoo"] (at 1PMish, Sunday Oct. 30) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I think that the wiki community has far too high of a tolerance for malicious/annoying people who just don't get it. I know that we should try to explain to people how this works, but if that fails, people should be banned. Basically: ban more people. --["ArlenAbraham"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> I think that the wiki community has far too high of a tolerance for malicious/annoying people who just don't get it. I know that we should try to explain to people how this works, but if that fails, people should be banned. Basically: ban more people. --["<span>Users/</span>ArlenAbraham"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 72: </td> <td> Line 72: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I think that the Daviswiki should firstly be a source of accurate information. I love parody and satire as much as or more than most, but when we present information that can be construed as fact but in reality is something completely different, we have strayed from the mission. --["GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>-</span> * When it comes to pages that are sticking around for a while - ones that aren't just visible to viewers of Recent Changes - I'm inclined to agree. Someone could make a Parody macro, perhaps? --["JosephBleckman"]<br> <span>-</span> * Might I add a introduce a bit of [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/Orig-Smiley.htm historical context] from my alma mater, and suggest the smiley face emoticon? -- ["CraigBrozinsky"]<br> <span>-</span> * This has the effect of completely sapping all humor from said pages. I prefer these pages be left to their natural course of being debated about for some time prior to their inevitable deletion. -- ["TravisGrathwell"]<br> <span>-</span> * Why should we debate and eliminate satirical pages rather than add to them? Initial shock value aside, they're creative are worthy of keeping if the thing they're spoofing is allowed to persist on the wiki. What's the difference between a well written comment and a satirical piece if they both get the same message across. As for labelling, I don't think it saps all humor from said pages. I've never heard someone say, "The Colbert Report was funny until I realized it was on Comedy Central." ["CraigBrozinsky"]<br> <span>-</span> * The Jewish Slate page certainly caused a chuckle - humor in a jon-stewart-ish way. I was one of those who was snowed by the April Fools Day 2006 joke for several hours, so I am pleased that I'm getting better at spotting this kind of thing. But maybe there should be some sort of "just kidding" message at the end for those whose keen awareness of leg pulling is not as developed. - ["SharlaDaly"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> I think that the Daviswiki should firstly be a source of accurate information. I love parody and satire as much as or more than most, but when we present information that can be construed as fact but in reality is something completely different, we have strayed from the mission. --["<span>Users/</span>GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>+</span> * When it comes to pages that are sticking around for a while - ones that aren't just visible to viewers of Recent Changes - I'm inclined to agree. Someone could make a Parody macro, perhaps? --["<span>Users/</span>JosephBleckman"]<br> <span>+</span> * Might I add a introduce a bit of [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/Orig-Smiley.htm historical context] from my alma mater, and suggest the smiley face emoticon? -- ["<span>Users/</span>CraigBrozinsky"]<br> <span>+</span> * This has the effect of completely sapping all humor from said pages. I prefer these pages be left to their natural course of being debated about for some time prior to their inevitable deletion. -- ["<span>Users/</span>TravisGrathwell"]<br> <span>+</span> * Why should we debate and eliminate satirical pages rather than add to them? Initial shock value aside, they're creative are worthy of keeping if the thing they're spoofing is allowed to persist on the wiki. What's the difference between a well written comment and a satirical piece if they both get the same message across. As for labelling, I don't think it saps all humor from said pages. I've never heard someone say, "The Colbert Report was funny until I realized it was on Comedy Central." ["<span>Users/</span>CraigBrozinsky"]<br> <span>+</span> * The Jewish Slate page certainly caused a chuckle - humor in a jon-stewart-ish way. I was one of those who was snowed by the April Fools Day 2006 joke for several hours, so I am pleased that I'm getting better at spotting this kind of thing. But maybe there should be some sort of "just kidding" message at the end for those whose keen awareness of leg pulling is not as developed. - ["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-12-04 00:49:46EdwinSaadacan some of the discussion be summarized into points for future discussion? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * I have the feeling Wayne was indirectly referring to his personal user page which falls under the ["Wiki Ethics" loose guidelines], due to a directed comment he had left on a different page (someone else edited it out). Otherwise I mostly agree with Jack. -["EdwinSaada" ES]<br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-09-05 16:33:36SharlaDaly <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 79: </td> <td> Line 79: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * The Jewish Slate page certainly caused a chuckle - humor in a jon-stewart-ish way. I was one of those who was snowed by the April Fools Day 2006 joke for several hours, so I am pleased that I'm getting better at spotting this kind of thing. But maybe there should be some sort of "just kidding" message at the end for those whose keen awareness of leg pulling is not as developed. - ["SharlaDaly"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-09-05 15:44:03CraigBrozinskyresponse to travis <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 78: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Why should we debate and eliminate satirical pages rather than add to them? Initial shock value aside, they're creative are worthy of keeping if the thing they're spoofing is allowed to persist on the wiki. What's the difference between a well written comment and a satirical piece if they both get the same message across. As for labelling, I don't think it saps all humor from said pages. I've never heard someone say, "The Colbert Report was funny until I realized it was on Comedy Central." ["CraigBrozinsky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-09-05 14:49:28TravisGrathwellcomment comment <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 77: </td> <td> Line 77: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * This has the effect of completely sapping all humor from said pages. I prefer these pages be left to their natural course of being debated about for some time prior to their inevitable deletion. -- ["TravisGrathwell"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-09-05 14:27:51CraigBrozinskysmiley faces ho! <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 76: </td> <td> Line 76: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Might I add a introduce a bit of [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/Orig-Smiley.htm historical context] from my alma mater, and suggest the smiley face emoticon? -- ["CraigBrozinsky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-09-05 14:23:51JosephBleckmanvoices agreement. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 75: </td> <td> Line 75: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * When it comes to pages that are sticking around for a while - ones that aren't just visible to viewers of Recent Changes - I'm inclined to agree. Someone could make a Parody macro, perhaps? --["JosephBleckman"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-09-05 14:13:19GrumpyoldGeekSatire and parody pages should be identified as-such. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 47: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Dude, so JabbberWokky, your solution to using your own freaked out method of integrating comments is to put a stupid sign on every freaking page so that others will claim responsibility for doing it? Seriously man, I find this annoying.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> Dude, so JabbberWokky, your solution to using your own freaked out method of integrating comments is to put a stupid sign on every freaking page so that others will claim responsibility for doing it? Seriously man, I find this annoying. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 58: </td> <td> Line 58: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Jabber, I really want to know why you write like you are the biggest authority of this issue. I am a wiki editor, she is a Wiki editor. In fact, Domenic is a Wiki editor, who disagrees with my opinion when I put it directly on the page. So much so that a separate page has to be created because he thinks my opinion is not valid. As I said, I can see ''some'' things getting integrated. But, she's absolutely right, her opinion is not a universal. That was the first thing that upset me the first day I was on the Wiki, when I found the Cost Plus page said something like "Cost Plus More Third World Market" it looked like it represented the opinion of the entire wiki community, and I found that really presumptuous. I really would appreciate if you left my comments on pages alone. ''I am a Wiki Editor'' just as much as you are.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Jabber, I really want to know why you write like you are the biggest authority of this issue. I am a wiki editor, she is a Wiki editor. In fact, Domenic is a Wiki editor, who disagrees with my opinion when I put it directly on the page. So much so that a separate page has to be created because he thinks my opinion is not valid. As I said, I can see ''some'' things getting integrated. But, she's absolutely right, her opinion is not a universal. That was the first thing that upset me the first day I was on the Wiki, when I found the Cost Plus page said something like "Cost Plus More Third World Market" it looked like it represented the opinion of the entire wiki community, and I found that really presumptuous. I really would appreciate if you left my comments on pages alone. ''I am a Wiki Editor'' just as much as you are. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 69: </td> <td> Line 69: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + =Satirical and Parody Pages=<br> + <br> + I think it is important that satirical or parody pages have a readlily apparent notice that they are, in fact a work of satire or parody and are not factual. The ["Jewish Slate"] page is a case in point. Whereas the majority of wiki readers would recognise the parody/satire (I'm still not quite sure which one it is), many of our readers may not be well versed in other cultures and subtle humor. Imagine a freshman student at UCD fresh from the midwest. The student might very well know nothing of Jewish values and humor. The page could be terribly misinterpreted. If we allow unrestrained satire and parody, what's to stop wiki pages like [http://landoverbaptist.org]?<br> + <br> + I think that the Daviswiki should firstly be a source of accurate information. I love parody and satire as much as or more than most, but when we present information that can be construed as fact but in reality is something completely different, we have strayed from the mission. --["GrumpyoldGeek"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-05-06 19:12:09PhilipNeustrom <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Banning someone seems to me to be a serious matter, and not something which we should just decide by a simple poll. Poll-taking leads to a dynamic where people start thinking about "Do I want him banned?" rather than something like "Would it be right to ban him?", and also a dynamic where people feel compelled to defend their prior opinions rather than taking in facts and arguments. Some thought and discussion, hopefully leading to something close to consensus, would be good. Also, it seems there are more possibilities here than a simple binary decision. I'm even leery of the discussion happening without face-to-face contact among all interested, though it is possible to do well<span>&nbsp;it online</span> if everyone puts some care into it. A second concern is that some people may have thoughts they want to share without identifying themselves to everyone. --["AlexanderWoo"] (at 1PMish, Sunday Oct. 30) </td> <td> <span>+</span> Banning someone seems to me to be a serious matter, and not something which we should just decide by a simple poll. Poll-taking leads to a dynamic where people start thinking about "Do I want him banned?" rather than something like "Would it be right to ban him?", and also a dynamic where people feel compelled to defend their prior opinions rather than taking in facts and arguments. Some thought and discussion, hopefully leading to something close to consensus, would be good. Also, it seems there are more possibilities here than a simple binary decision. I'm even leery of the discussion happening without face-to-face contact among all interested, though it is possible to do <span>it online </span>well if everyone puts some care into it. A second concern is that some people may have thoughts they want to share without identifying themselves to everyone. --["AlexanderWoo"] (at 1PMish, Sunday Oct. 30) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-05-06 19:10:53PhilipNeustrom <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 67: </td> <td> Line 67: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + I think that the wiki community has far too high of a tolerance for malicious/annoying people who just don't get it. I know that we should try to explain to people how this works, but if that fails, people should be banned. Basically: ban more people. --["ArlenAbraham"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2006-05-06 19:08:52PhilipNeustromsaving a tidbit on a deleted page <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 42: </td> <td> Line 42: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Hi there.</span> I realize this has been discussed earlier (I read a little bit about it above), but I have an issue. I can understand the integration of comments over time. Sometimes I'll come back and read something and think to myself "that was kind of mean, bad, stupid, etc." But, I think there should be a way of making showing a preference of not integrating a comment into the page? Like, if it has a person's name attributed to it ... and there's some kind of bold lettering or something? I think it's really presumptuous and condescending to think someone wants their comment altered. If it's clearly an opinion with someone's name on it, I don't think it should necessarily be "integrated". </td> <td> <span>+ <br> +</span> I realize this has been discussed earlier (I read a little bit about it above), but I have an issue. I can understand the integration of comments over time. Sometimes I'll come back and read something and think to myself "that was kind of mean, bad, stupid, etc." But, I think there should be a way of making showing a preference of not integrating a comment into the page? Like, if it has a person's name attributed to it ... and there's some kind of bold lettering or something? I think it's really presumptuous and condescending to think someone wants their comment altered. If it's clearly an opinion with someone's name on it, I don't think it should necessarily be "integrated". </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 59: </td> <td> Line 60: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + = Tidbits =<br> + <br> + ''Bits of material found on other pages, particularly pages during heated discussion, that may be worthwhile.''<br> + <br> + === On banning ===<br> + Banning someone seems to me to be a serious matter, and not something which we should just decide by a simple poll. Poll-taking leads to a dynamic where people start thinking about "Do I want him banned?" rather than something like "Would it be right to ban him?", and also a dynamic where people feel compelled to defend their prior opinions rather than taking in facts and arguments. Some thought and discussion, hopefully leading to something close to consensus, would be good. Also, it seems there are more possibilities here than a simple binary decision. I'm even leery of the discussion happening without face-to-face contact among all interested, though it is possible to do well it online if everyone puts some care into it. A second concern is that some people may have thoughts they want to share without identifying themselves to everyone. --["AlexanderWoo"] (at 1PMish, Sunday Oct. 30)</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-18 15:59:32PhilipNeustrommoving <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 59: </td> <td> Line 59: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - = Creating /talk pages=<br> - After observing the effects of splitting pages into normal and /talk pages I've come to believe this should be avoided. Here's why.<br> - <br> - Doing so seems to 'deaden' the discussion. This may be because /talk pages are perceived as separate areas where people are arguing, rather than something which is pertinent to everyone. /talk pages are perceived as temporary -who wants to spend hours working on something which will disappear? That's one big draw of the Wiki (vs. chat systems) is that there is a feeling that if I put work into creating something, it will be around for all to see and use far into the future. I doubt people would put the same energy into creating Wiki pages if they expected them to be erased in a month. /talk pages are "ghettoized", that is separate from the mainstream. They are not linked to in the same way, found by searches in the same way. This seems partly intentional -the point being to move the "brawl" outside and away from the rest. Out of sight is out of mind. Debate and discussion, though at times unpleasant, is not a bad thing however. People don't HAVE to read the page in flux. If we can't discuss here in the safety of the Wiki, then where? So what if it gets edited a hundred times a day. They're only glowing letters on a screen. I would think that an active Wiki is actually a sign of success -vs. having a nice, static Wiki stuck at 7000 pages. Disk space is obviously not the issue. The discussions I've seen have been spirited, but not hateful, so let's hold back at pouring in the cold water when it starts to boil. [I'd address clutter, formatting, etc. but I gotta go...] --["SteveDavison"]<br> - <br> - I think there are two major kinds of pages on the wiki. The primary type are information pages that aim at objective or at least balanced coverage of a topic. ["Housing Guide"] is a good example of this because it has little personal opinion, and frankly it shouldn't. Also in this category are also controversial topics such as the Covell Village page. At the end of the day, I really don't care who advanced which opinions. Rather, I want to know what the crucial facts and interpretations are without having to wade through a jungle of comments. The comments on those pages are general in nature, and those generalities should be extracted into page content and/or decided on in a Talk page. The secondary type of pages are ones where personal opinion and specific experiences are crucial for the page. With restaurant reviews, for example, I want to know the quantity and quality of positive and negative opinions. There's no way to gauge this if comments are integrated into a page. In addition, comments gives me a sense of the "credibility" of a review. I read the Wiki enough to realize that certain people make comments that are typically in line with mine, while others have completely tastes. -- ["CraigBrozinsky"]<br> - <br> - <br> - <br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-18 13:10:42CraigBrozinsky$.02 cents <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 64: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + I think there are two major kinds of pages on the wiki. The primary type are information pages that aim at objective or at least balanced coverage of a topic. ["Housing Guide"] is a good example of this because it has little personal opinion, and frankly it shouldn't. Also in this category are also controversial topics such as the Covell Village page. At the end of the day, I really don't care who advanced which opinions. Rather, I want to know what the crucial facts and interpretations are without having to wade through a jungle of comments. The comments on those pages are general in nature, and those generalities should be extracted into page content and/or decided on in a Talk page. The secondary type of pages are ones where personal opinion and specific experiences are crucial for the page. With restaurant reviews, for example, I want to know the quantity and quality of positive and negative opinions. There's no way to gauge this if comments are integrated into a page. In addition, comments gives me a sense of the "credibility" of a review. I read the Wiki enough to realize that certain people make comments that are typically in line with mine, while others have completely tastes. -- ["CraigBrozinsky"]<br> + <br> + <br> + <br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-18 10:28:29SteveDavison <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 56: </td> <td> Line 56: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * If someone else thinks the service isn't good, they can add that to the entry. Besides -- your opinion is valid, don't worry if it's universal.<span>&nbsp;</span> There's no rule that says your opinion has to be universal to be in the article. Think of restaurant reviews in newspapers or in travel or restaurant guides. Can you imagine if they were afraid to voice an opinion because it might not be universal? If your good service was atypical, five other people will pop in afterwards and change it. Eventually the opinions presented will approximate the opinion of the general public (at least those who use the Wiki). If you're still scared that your opinion isn't good enough for the article, think of it as you being on a panel of reviewers -- the rest of the panel being the rest of the Wiki editors. You have a good and valid voice... don't be afraid to use it. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * If someone else thinks the service isn't good, they can add that to the entry. Besides -- your opinion is valid, don't worry if it's universal. There's no rule that says your opinion has to be universal to be in the article. Think of restaurant reviews in newspapers or in travel or restaurant guides. Can you imagine if they were afraid to voice an opinion because it might not be universal? If your good service was atypical, five other people will pop in afterwards and change it. Eventually the opinions presented will approximate the opinion of the general public (at least those who use the Wiki). If you're still scared that your opinion isn't good enough for the article, think of it as you being on a panel of reviewers -- the rest of the panel being the rest of the Wiki editors. You have a good and valid voice... don't be afraid to use it. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 59: </td> <td> Line 59: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + = Creating /talk pages=<br> + After observing the effects of splitting pages into normal and /talk pages I've come to believe this should be avoided. Here's why.<br> + <br> + Doing so seems to 'deaden' the discussion. This may be because /talk pages are perceived as separate areas where people are arguing, rather than something which is pertinent to everyone. /talk pages are perceived as temporary -who wants to spend hours working on something which will disappear? That's one big draw of the Wiki (vs. chat systems) is that there is a feeling that if I put work into creating something, it will be around for all to see and use far into the future. I doubt people would put the same energy into creating Wiki pages if they expected them to be erased in a month. /talk pages are "ghettoized", that is separate from the mainstream. They are not linked to in the same way, found by searches in the same way. This seems partly intentional -the point being to move the "brawl" outside and away from the rest. Out of sight is out of mind. Debate and discussion, though at times unpleasant, is not a bad thing however. People don't HAVE to read the page in flux. If we can't discuss here in the safety of the Wiki, then where? So what if it gets edited a hundred times a day. They're only glowing letters on a screen. I would think that an active Wiki is actually a sign of success -vs. having a nice, static Wiki stuck at 7000 pages. Disk space is obviously not the issue. The discussions I've seen have been spirited, but not hateful, so let's hold back at pouring in the cold water when it starts to boil. [I'd address clutter, formatting, etc. but I gotta go...] --["SteveDavison"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-18 01:12:46JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 58: </td> <td> Line 58: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I'm not an authority, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter. Just like you are. We're both right -- ''even when we disagree''. We're on a level playing field, and we both want a better Wiki. I'm confidant that that will happen, and it won't be precisely what either of us envision. -- ["JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-18 00:18:02SaulSugarmanHello. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 57: </td> <td> Line 57: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Jabber, I really want to know why you write like you are the biggest authority of this issue. I am a wiki editor, she is a Wiki editor. In fact, Domenic is a Wiki editor, who disagrees with my opinion when I put it directly on the page. So much so that a separate page has to be created because he thinks my opinion is not valid. As I said, I can see ''some'' things getting integrated. But, she's absolutely right, her opinion is not a universal. That was the first thing that upset me the first day I was on the Wiki, when I found the Cost Plus page said something like "Cost Plus More Third World Market" it looked like it represented the opinion of the entire wiki community, and I found that really presumptuous. I really would appreciate if you left my comments on pages alone. ''I am a Wiki Editor'' just as much as you are. </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 21:31:08JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 55: </td> <td> Line 55: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Because my experiences will differ from others. If it's actual information like time, location then that should be in the entry. If it's a personal opinion on food or service, then I think it should be left as a comment. Writing in the actual entry "The service is wonderful" is not a universal fact that can apply to everyone, some people have bad experiences. And by seeing someone's comment, you can also see the date from which they left it. Maybe establishment food or services change a few months later. </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * Because my experiences will differ from others. If it's actual information like time, location then that should be in the entry. If it's a personal opinion on food or service, then I think it should be left as a comment. Writing in the actual entry "The service is wonderful" is not a universal fact that can apply to everyone, some people have bad experiences. And by seeing someone's comment, you can also see the date from which they left it. Maybe establishment food or services change a few months later.<span><br> + * If someone else thinks the service isn't good, they can add that to the entry. Besides -- your opinion is valid, don't worry if it's universal. There's no rule that says your opinion has to be universal to be in the article. Think of restaurant reviews in newspapers or in travel or restaurant guides. Can you imagine if they were afraid to voice an opinion because it might not be universal? If your good service was atypical, five other people will pop in afterwards and change it. Eventually the opinions presented will approximate the opinion of the general public (at least those who use the Wiki). If you're still scared that your opinion isn't good enough for the article, think of it as you being on a panel of reviewers -- the rest of the panel being the rest of the Wiki editors. You have a good and valid voice... don't be afraid to use it. -- ["JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 21:13:25JoAnnaRich <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 55: </td> <td> Line 55: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Because my experiences will differ from others. If it's actual information like time, location then that should be in the entry. If it's a personal opinion on food or service, then I think it should be left as a comment. Writing in the actual entry "The service is wonderful" is not a universal fact that can apply to everyone, some people have bad experiences. And by seeing someone's comment, you can also see the date from which they left it. Maybe establishment food or services change a few months later.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 21:03:04JabberWokkySlight change. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 54: </td> <td> Line 54: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Ah, JoAnna, you're actually the specific person who prompted my notices that so upset Saul. You do great, absolutely fantastic writeups about restaurants. Why don't you just edit the actual entry and put all the things you have to say directly into the article? It would make that Wiki entry better -- and after all it's ''your'' entry to edit as much as it is anyone else's. You're perfectly able to <span>do so</span>... so go'fer it! You are an excellent author. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Ah, JoAnna, you're actually the specific person who prompted my notices that so upset Saul. You do great, absolutely fantastic writeups about restaurants. Why don't you just edit the actual entry and put all the things you have to say directly into the article? It would make that Wiki entry better -- and after all it's ''your'' entry to edit as much as it is anyone else's. <span>More to the point, if you don't, who will? </span>You're perfectly able to <span>edit the entry itself</span>... so go'fer it! You are an excellent author. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 21:01:34JabberWokkyThe specific reason. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 54: </td> <td> Line 54: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Ah, JoAnna, you're actually the specific person who prompted my notices that so upset Saul. You do great, absolutely fantastic writeups about restaurants. Why don't you just edit the actual entry and put all the things you have to say directly into the article? It would make that Wiki entry better -- and after all it's ''your'' entry to edit as much as it is anyone else's. You're perfectly able to do so... so go'fer it! You are an excellent author. -- ["JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 20:56:02JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Personally, I get my authority from Fozzie T. Bear. You might get yours from God or Locke or the Lord of the Dance. I am ''allowed'' to by Creative Commons, and I do it to try to improve the Wiki, the exact same reason you are concerned about it. Most people here have the same goal: to make the Wiki better. -- ["JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 53: </td> <td> Line 53: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * In that case, you also agree with me. Note my distinction between reviews, comments and chatter. The stuff that I remove tends to be "Is there going to be a meeting on Saturday?" from eight months ago. When it actually contains info, I move it up to the entry. Reviews are left alone. By me, at any rate. Somebody else might have a different edit philosophy. -- ["JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 20:45:39JoAnnaRich <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * I agree with Saul. If I'm looking at a restaurant's page (ie Sonic's) and different people have different opinions, you cannot integrate them into entry without skewing the information. And by leaving comments as is, people can contact others to find out more about good or bad experiences.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 20:21:11SaulSugarmanJust curious ... <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 49: </td> <td> Line 49: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * Not that I don't understand what you're doing ... but some comments are opinion, and (I think thanks in part to me) page information these days is more non-biased. I like the comment system because it allows people to clearly express their opinions without having it necessarily disrupt the flow of page information. I just want to know where you get the authority to "integrate" or basically "make anonymous" people's opinions? I know that at least me personally, I would appreciate your asking me before you integrated my comments. I might want my name attached to something I said. --{"SaulSugarman"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 19:54:42JabberWokkyReply (in case you wondered). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I agree - which is why I don't integrate reviews or personal recounts. I wish there was a stronger delineation between chatter, informative comments and reviews. The latter should be the only thing remaining -- the first is deletable, and the second should really have just been a edit directly to the entry. Reviews are not comments, and are a useful part of the article. -- ["JabberWokky"]<br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 45: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * I've probably integrated 500 entries so far. I recently started also commenting on people's pages to get people to edit entries directly. Recently there have been a spate of new users who have been adding very good content in the form of a comment rather than editing the actual entry. If nobody else does those integrations, I will. This is merely my attempt to get people to think along the lines of "Wiki, not blog" when editing. The reason I made the icon was to gently encourage Wiki editing rather than using the Wiki as a messageboard. -- ["JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 18:39:30SaulSugarmanStop with the damn integrate comments signs. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 43: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + Dude, so JabbberWokky, your solution to using your own freaked out method of integrating comments is to put a stupid sign on every freaking page so that others will claim responsibility for doing it? Seriously man, I find this annoying. </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-17 14:33:34SaulSugarmanComment added about integrating comments. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 40: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + = Integrating Comments =<br> + Hi there. I realize this has been discussed earlier (I read a little bit about it above), but I have an issue. I can understand the integration of comments over time. Sometimes I'll come back and read something and think to myself "that was kind of mean, bad, stupid, etc." But, I think there should be a way of making showing a preference of not integrating a comment into the page? Like, if it has a person's name attributed to it ... and there's some kind of bold lettering or something? I think it's really presumptuous and condescending to think someone wants their comment altered. If it's clearly an opinion with someone's name on it, I don't think it should necessarily be "integrated".</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-12-15 14:59:43DavidReidA note about clones, and multiple user accounts. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 36: </td> <td> Line 36: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + -----<br> + <br> + Usage of multiple user accounts (also known as clones) should be discouraged. I don't believe there is a legitimate reason for a single entity to have multiple user accounts and especially not for the clone accounts to have their own user pages. However this does not mean that your username has to be your real name. Clone detection is very easy from just the information provided on ["Recent Changes"], and if your a username shows up with a clone, that only has a handful of edits all of which have been disruptive (i.e. deleting user pages, instigating revert wars) the only effect this will have is to have people take you less seriously. Attribution of edits and comments to a username is taking responsibility for those things, and if you can't take responsibility for a comment, and instead attribute it to your clone, then you should think twice about making that comment in the first place. --["DavidReid"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-09-30 00:36:05OnceLivedInDavis <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * I think signatures are appropriate (in fact, appreciated) when enganged in discussion on a page, but when setting the facts straight via a correction they're clearly unnecessary, just a good edit comment is all that's needed. ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-30 00:36:05</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-08-15 13:15:36PhilipNeustromtrimmed a bit off for readiblity/time sensitive stuff <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * I'm getting really irritated at how many wiki ethics pages there seem to be. I personally would like to know which set of wiki ethics I'm supposed to follow. If I follow the one that just posted, then she's right, I should not have added a signature. However as it is a wiki and in the last conversation we decided deleting is "bad", I would simply add a comment that said something like, "Saul would like to mention the previous statement containing the phrase "... the system is fucked," was created by ["RobRoy"]. --["SaulSugarman"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The main proponent of "attributing violates Wiki Ethics!" was our dear departed Mr. Laabs. Now that he's *cough* gone forever I think we should ease up on that one. Unlike Saul,</span> I think Fact and Opinion can live together as friends, and attributing things that deviate considerably from the baseline is a good way for them to get along. This shouldn't, however, be a rationale for attributing any adjective that looks remotely threatening, or we won't get anywhere at all. </td> <td> <span>+</span> I think Fact and Opinion can live together as friends, and attributing things that deviate considerably from the baseline is a good way for them to get along. This shouldn't, however, be a rationale for attributing any adjective that looks remotely threatening, or we won't get anywhere at all. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 21: </td> <td> Line 20: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * Jabber, I'd like to know why now, you are integrating and leaving every opinion un-attributed; I will go back and attribute a lot of these. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> - * Because the point of a Wiki is to present information, not to be a discussion board or a comment forum. Note how difficult it is to converse back and forth on this? </span> T<span>hat's because it is not designed to do so. It is designed to present information as a whole. Attribution is handled behind the scenes, not up front. Browse Wikipedia and note how often you see personal, quoted comments as an example. I could point out that that is what ["PhilipNeustrom"] lists under his "What do I do on the Wiki?" section, but I'd rather point out that t</span>he ["Wiki Style Guide"] s<span>peci</span>f<span>icall</span>y <span>says how to handle personal comments - remove the ones that contribute littl</span>e, <span>and take the in</span>f<span>ormation contained within and incorporate them into the body of the pag</span>e. It also says avoid "I" and "my" phrases. In the end, however, I am doing one thing - making pages more readable so that people can use the Wiki better. I don't give a damn who wrote it or even if I disagree with it - if I disagree, I'll present a counterpoint - unattributed - but I will also do my best to make the point I disagree with as legible and persuasive as possible. In short, I take the information and opinions on each page and present them in the most clear manner possible. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Wiki Style Guide"] s<span>ays how to handle certain comments - remove the ones that contribute little, and take the in</span>f<span>ormation contained within and incorporate them into the bod</span>y <span>of the pag</span>e, <span>i</span>f<span>&nbsp;possibl</span>e. It also says avoid "I" and "my" phrases. In the end, however, I am doing one thing - making pages more readable so that people can use the Wiki better. I don't give a damn who wrote it or even if I disagree with it - if I disagree, I'll present a counterpoint - unattributed - but I will also do my best to make the point I disagree with as legible and persuasive as possible. In short, I take the information and opinions on each page and present them in the most clear manner possible. -- ["JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 25: </td> <td> Line 23: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * Saul, if you want things to be attributed, and I know you are new to the wiki so you may not know this, but just click on the [http://www.daviswiki.org/index.cgi/SaulSugarman?action=info info tab]. It will tell you who is doing and has done what. - ["RobRoy"]<br> - * As I've mentioned in many places on the Wiki, I do not think the info attribution in a fair few circumstances is enough. If I were a new person visiting the Wiki for the first time, I would not know probably for some time to hit that info button. I'm worried about people in hypothetical situations like that (because I have been there). --["SaulSugarman"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-08-11 09:16:56EdwinSaadacomment <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I have the feeling Wayne was indirectly referring to his personal user page which falls under the ["Wiki Ethics" loose guidelines], due to a directed comment he had left on a different page (someone else edited it out). Otherwise I mostly agree with Jack. -["EdwinSaada" ES]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-08-11 08:17:22JackHaskelmoved and added my 2 cents <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 34: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + -----<br> + <br> + When you edit a page be careful not to impose your style onto other peoples' entries. For sure, help clean up spelling and grammar, but be careful to assume you can better state what others are saying. It is an arrogant practice. ["Wayne Schiller"]<br> + * I don't agree but maybe that's because I'm an arrogant person. The wiki is meant to be edited and changed. Deleting people's personal comments and incorporating them, rewriting unclear or disconnected entries and all of the like is a good thing and needs to be done more, not less. It's wrong to change the substance of a person's post but in my opinion that isn't usually the problem. I think that we need to have far fewer personal comments and pages that are filled with discussions. It makes the wiki cluttered, hard to read and all around less useful and available to the masses. But I'm not quite sure what your original point was anyhow. Is it that you are opposed to people modifying signed opinion posts? If so that is already covered in the wiki. I guess I was arrogant simply be deleting your page and moving it here. Whatever, it's just the internet. What's your opinion? -["JH"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Wiki Community/Ethics Discussionhttp://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Community/Ethics_Discussion2005-06-17 20:48:57PhilipNeustromRenamed from Wiki Community:Ethics Discussion <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ '''Older discussion can be found by going through the revision history in the ''Info'' tab'''<br> + <br> + ---------------<br> + '''Is adding a signature to text considered [wiki:Wiki:UnethicalEditing unethical editing]?'''<br> + * I honestly have been thinking about that the past hour or so. Would I do it? No. In the end, it makes a page unwieldy and difficult to read, which is always against the purpose of the Wiki - to provide information. It also (and this is an important point) makes the quoted text seem less "authoritative" than the base text of the entry - which itself was entered by an equal editor. Do I think it is "Bad", "Wrong" or "Unethical". Possibly, but only due to that second reason - you are lowering the weight of the words of other contributors. -- ["JabberWokky" jw]<br> + * Another *strong* point is that every letter is attributed automatically in the "info" tab. Is that not enough? -- ["JabberWokky" jw]<br> + * The only issue I have is that the info tab, the edit page, the recent changes page, all of it seems to be geared for Wikiholics or active users. I'm concerned mostly just about the people using the wiki as an information source. Not leaving a signature on an obvious opinion kinda says to me "We here at the Wiki think the system is fucked ..." as an example. It's a minor detail, in my opinion. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> + * I'm getting really irritated at how many wiki ethics pages there seem to be. I personally would like to know which set of wiki ethics I'm supposed to follow. If I follow the one that just posted, then she's right, I should not have added a signature. However as it is a wiki and in the last conversation we decided deleting is "bad", I would simply add a comment that said something like, "Saul would like to mention the previous statement containing the phrase "... the system is fucked," was created by ["RobRoy"]. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> + * The problem I see here is that there seems to be some ambiguity. The Wikiholics Anonymous page, for example, seems to have had comments with signatures that weren't put by the original author. I personally see no problem in adding a signature. Something like the 40 ounce Meal Plan page really doesn't need to be edited for non-bias, I just felt the need to step in because of "... the system is fucked." That seems kinda harsh to be representative of the entire Wiki community. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> + <br> + ----<br> + <br> + One of the main issues here has to do with the interplay of fact and opinion. Wikipedia doesn't have this problem as often, as it deals mostly in fact, whereas [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki c2] deals almost exclusively with opinion. The idea that attributing an edit violates "Wiki Ethics" (which is growing to be a TERRIBLY overused phrase) seems to come mostly from c2, and I think a lot of stuff on c2 is rubbish. There have been tons of specific cases where I've found myself attributing edits here on the DavisWiki: I point you to the case of [http://daviswiki.org/index.cgi/Computer_20Science?action=diff&amp;date2=1107821682&amp;date1=1107308059 Kenneth Bloom versus ECS188], in which ["KenBloom" Kabloom] dropped a derogatory statement regarding ["Computer Science" ECS188]. It was totally uncool unattributed, but if he thought what he said was true it's probably deserved to stay as a warning to future students of the class.<br> + <br> + The main proponent of "attributing violates Wiki Ethics!" was our dear departed Mr. Laabs. Now that he's *cough* gone forever I think we should ease up on that one. Unlike Saul, I think Fact and Opinion can live together as friends, and attributing things that deviate considerably from the baseline is a good way for them to get along. This shouldn't, however, be a rationale for attributing any adjective that looks remotely threatening, or we won't get anywhere at all.<br> + <br> + On the issue of Wiki Ethics, I wish everyone would lay off that specific phrase at least. During the election about a million years ago, Mr. Philip himself said to me that he wished there was some simple code for determining what should and shouldn't go on the wiki - but that's just it, there isn't one. There's no wiki bible and we basically have to make this shit up as we go along. Shouting 'ETHICS! ETHICS!' doesn't help as much as you think it does. -- ["TravisGrathwell"]<br> + ----<br> + I have, in the past, attributed things I thought were too opinionated. However, if pages have more than one viewpoint expressed then there's little need for attribution of these viewpoints: the dual presence makes it clear that it is not an ''official opinion''. You have to consider that rampant attribution might actually cause the ''opposite'' of the intended affect: All non-attributed text is given the guise of authority or agreement, which is not the case (and cannot be the case because we've all agreed to disagree). It would be nice if the bulk of the text represented somewhat of a consensus, and this can be achived by including differing points of view (where you can find ''your'' view included). I say use your best judgement. --["PhilipNeustrom"]<br> + ----<br> + * Jabber, I'd like to know why now, you are integrating and leaving every opinion un-attributed; I will go back and attribute a lot of these. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> + * Because the point of a Wiki is to present information, not to be a discussion board or a comment forum. Note how difficult it is to converse back and forth on this? That's because it is not designed to do so. It is designed to present information as a whole. Attribution is handled behind the scenes, not up front. Browse Wikipedia and note how often you see personal, quoted comments as an example. I could point out that that is what ["PhilipNeustrom"] lists under his "What do I do on the Wiki?" section, but I'd rather point out that the ["Wiki Style Guide"] specifically says how to handle personal comments - remove the ones that contribute little, and take the information contained within and incorporate them into the body of the page. It also says avoid "I" and "my" phrases. In the end, however, I am doing one thing - making pages more readable so that people can use the Wiki better. I don't give a damn who wrote it or even if I disagree with it - if I disagree, I'll present a counterpoint - unattributed - but I will also do my best to make the point I disagree with as legible and persuasive as possible. In short, I take the information and opinions on each page and present them in the most clear manner possible. -- ["JabberWokky"]<br> + * I can see that the similarities between attribution/objectivity are going to be difficult to deal with. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> + * Man. . . ["SaulSugarman"] and I just finished arguing about this sort of thing. I side with ["JabberWokky"] on this one. I started doing this a couple of times, but he's much better at it. -- ["ct"]<br> + * Saul, if you want things to be attributed, and I know you are new to the wiki so you may not know this, but just click on the [http://www.daviswiki.org/index.cgi/SaulSugarman?action=info info tab]. It will tell you who is doing and has done what. - ["RobRoy"]<br> + * As I've mentioned in many places on the Wiki, I do not think the info attribution in a fair few circumstances is enough. If I were a new person visiting the Wiki for the first time, I would not know probably for some time to hit that info button. I'm worried about people in hypothetical situations like that (because I have been there). --["SaulSugarman"]<br> + -----------------<br> + * ''Put a flier on the wall. Just don't put a flier over someone elses.''<br> + * Flyers tend to cover flyers. This happens because people often have disregard for what others post. They can have such disregard because it is commonly known that SPAC does not enforce its rules regarding posting fliers. The Davis Wiki is similar to posting fliers in this sense.<br> + * Sometimes the billboard is too small for all the voices. Because billboards are ''designed'' to be posted over, and over, and over. Not out of disregard, but because everyone wants to be heard. On the wiki, you can alter others' 'flyers', move them around, and reorganize the same thing. Space might be limited, but there is organizational potential. (''I rephrased to not use the word students, and I think the part "They can have such disregard because it is commonly known that SPAC does not enforce its rules regarding posting fliers. " could be cut because it's common knowledge, as you state, that they don't enforce their rules'').<br> + * Everyone does not want to be heard. Everyone wants to spam. Spam spam spam. (''I like it the way it is. There is a lot of common knowledge on the Wiki. If you rephrase it I will have to assume you will not want common knowledge and go around deleting everything that is common knowledge.'')<br> + * Uh, guys... I wrote that, and when I did, I just thought it was a clever phrase - I hardly intended anybody to try to debate the logic of it. It's a pretty turn of words, not a legal document. -- ["JabberWokky"]<br> + * Well gee I'm glad you cleared that up. Next time *I* write some pretty words I'm sure when it's edited I can make the same argument (I'm in a huff if you haven't noticed). --["SaulSugarman"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>