Wiki Community/General Discussion

InfoInfo
Search:    
Differences:

version 167 (2006-12-10 14:42:21 by JabberWokky)
←previous edit
version 183 (2006-12-15 17:47:02 by EdwinSaada)
next edit→
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 193: Line 193:
------
''2006-12-14 12:56:08'' [[nbsp]] What should be done about people who disregard normal rules/ettiquette, and do so purposefully? I'm talking about ["SteveOstrowski"]. He continually reverts and refuses to use talk pages, and he's definitely an established user, doing this for months on several pages. He's even said on his own page when asked about it for a specific page, and even mentioned it on his own blog, that he'd continue to do so to get what he wants. That's whack. --["EdwinSaada" ES] (23:18:05:)I think my annoyance is compounded by annoying edits or lack of clear contribution. I really feel this guy is just trying to use the wiki to promote his own agenda, from the start. He always edits things to be [http://daviswiki.org/The_Davis_Enforcer?action=recall&version=1 the most vague and meaningless way] ever, argue about whether a fact is true or not ["Christian Slate" (like # of members)], loves to say everything is secret (ACT rankings, CDP strategy, CDP agenda isn't for public [actually, a lot of CDP stuff lost in the millions of edits to those pages]), and just make a general muck. Try to deny involvement of this or that, claim no one knows! I know when he was new to the wiki he was talking about how chaos is a good thing, and said stuff like "if you only knew it would blah blah WHOA". But I think it's kinda just annoying and all self-serving. I was fine with that, other people edit and noticed, but when you start throwing on intentional revert wars and intentional disregarding of normal rules/ettiquette, as well as pseudo-lying/deception..bah. Just throwing it out there as a general feeling.
 If someone deliberately and continually refuses to play by the rules, they should not be allowed to play at all. --["WilliamLewis"]
  ''2006-12-14 23:26:08'' [[nbsp]] Well said. --["GrahamFreeman"]
   Yeah, but if we ban him, he'll just ["The Davis Enforcer" his own wiki]. -- ["ArlenAbraham"]
     ''2006-12-15 17:06:57'' [[nbsp]] The issue at hand is whether Steve should be permitted to reduce the value of Davis Wiki for everyone else in the process of abusing it to further his own personal goals. Whether or not he actually achieves his personal goals is irrelevant. --["GrahamFreeman"]

Older Comments can be found by going through the revision history in the Info tab. Comments are deleted only in entries marked "CLEANUP" — KenBloom

Add comment for new thread, use 'edit' to reply to existent thread

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2005-03-30 17:21:09   What is the difference between a page ABOUT a business and a page BY a business and obviously geared towards advertising? How do we (or should we) deal with the later type of page? I had this question in response to some recent postings, but I just want to see what people have to say about it. I imagine this will be a more frequent concern as the wiki becomes more well known. (please forgive if this has been discussed before) —CarlMcCabe


2005-03-30 17:32:03   I'm not entirely sure what to do myself. I myself have used the wiki to advertise different things on campus. No one owns a page in the wiki, so it can be edited to represent multiple viewpoints. And most of us Wikivangelists will be able to keep this place from turning into Davis411, so I wouldn't worry. Just edit what you think is excessively one-sided, and hopefully people who have had dealings with the business will come by and add their points of view.

Of course, another option is to let businesses have home pages, much like the CamelCase pages that pretty much belong to individual users. That resolved a lot of the issues during the Winter 2005 ASUCD Election. —BrentLaabs


2005-03-30 17:43:08   Businesses can advertise all they want on the page for their business, but content about the business is more important and should be placed higher on the page than the advertisements. —MikeIvanov


2005-04-06 14:52:29   what if some pictures on pages are shitty, whats the policy on changing them to something better? i dont want to get anyone's panties in a twist if i replace pictures —MattJojola


2005-04-22 15:59:47   Does anyone have a need for the 'thicker' horizontal rules like -----------. I think they nearly always look ugly. Would anyone object if I switched them all to be a very fine thin line, like I have [WWW]here? —PhilipNeustrom


2005-04-23 11:15:31   philip, you might want to force a reload. when i visited the site, i couldn't see the rules —ArlenAbraham


2005-04-23 15:01:34   i'm not sure i like the new rules —ArlenAbraham


2005-04-24 23:31:55   Davis Wiki is officially a success! Why, you ask? Because someone bought up [WWW]http://www.daviswiki.com/. —BrentLaabs


2005-04-26 22:47:09   Very cool new map detail! The only thing that troubles me is that Visor Lady is mapped outside of Griffin Lounge and is clearly infringing on the turf of the Old Guys at the MU. Someone should fix that before a fight breaks out. —JackHaskel


2005-05-11 23:29:30   someone keeps signing up with new accounts and defacing Campaigning in Dorms Controversy. BenYaxley and MikeRodriguez are the same IP address. BenYaxley tried to deface it (breaking all of the links to the aggie, and removing senators' names, and deleting references to Student Focus). MikeRodriguez tried to delete it. —KenBloom


2005-05-14 19:55:45   Any chance we could get the weather forecast some nice icons and put it somewhere important? It's not like the black bar at the top does very much. But really just a display on the front page would be nice. —BrentLaabs


2005-06-21 20:39:10   I've got an etiquette question. When is it ok to create a user page for a user who doesn't have one? How much information is it ok to put on there about them? Is anything already available on the internet fair game to put on pages about people (both user pages and people pages)? —JasonAller


2005-07-06 23:23:29   Um, just curious what people think. SchminkerTons has "Do not edit this page" on his user page. That seems sorta bizarre and counter to the purpose of wikiwiki. Candidate for speedy deletion? —BrentLaabs


2005-07-08 18:54:26   Someone wrote a Firefox search extension a while back (I can't seem to find it anymore.) If that person is still around, could they perhaps write a similar extension to search ucdavis.edu? —MarkWetter


2005-07-14 13:45:19   So, "sub-pages" can be denoted by the name "Original Page/Sub page name". Then, you can write ["/Sub page name"] as a short-cut to the longer page name of "Original page/Sub page name" I've noticed that we're sort of using this as the naming convention for sub pages, and we used to use a colon (stuff: other stuff). For "talk" pages, which we seem to be moving to in some cases, should they be named Talk/Original page name or Original page name/Talk? —PhilipNeustrom


2005-07-24 21:17:16   While it is great that people are putting so much work into cleaning up Wanted Pages, is it really a good idea to put up a page with very little or no useful information simply for the sake of getting it off Wanted Pages? The problem with this is that it's a lot less likely that someone who actually has knowledge of or interest in researching the subject will notice that the information is needed. If we do continue eliminating wanted pages in this manner, perhaps adding a statement including the word "stub" would be useful so that people can easily search for pages that need to be filled out. —JessicaLuedtke


2005-07-24 21:20:12   From what I've seen people are quick to start adding new stuff or shooting down my pages. From there you can tell what pages really are wanted or not. —JimSchwab


2005-07-27 22:05:46   There's an increasing trend to use the events board for repeating events. This has the plus of showing up in my xml feed when sometimes i wish i knew what there was to do tonight in terms of both repeating and non-repeating events in one list. however, obviously that is the exception rather than rule. However, the rule doesn't seem to be enforced. Any thoughts? —JaimeRaba


On 8.24.05 I cleaned out some Talk pages for entries that had become stable. Since the format for Talk pages has changed, here are the "missing entries" should they be needed in the future:

Talk:Traditions, Talk:Ben & Jerry's, Talk:Ari Kalfayan, Talk:Gender and Sexuality Commission, Talk:Davis Players Society

jw


2005-08-26 14:25:12   Does anyone object to changing the purpose of the mystery page to include the question of "what." It seems there are plenty of things people see around town that are really anomalous (flowers, people, etc.). This could also encourage wiki contributions that would otherwise have been avoided due to lack of namage. —CraigBrozinsky


2005-08-26   (discussion moved here from Davis Farmers Market)

I do not want to delete them, because I am not 100% certain, but I do not think you can post pictures of children on the internet without their parents permission. Anyone know? JimSchwab


2005-09-14 12:53:23   I think that it is sad how brainwashed we have become in our worship of copyright law. Must we all cow down whenever congress decides to change it because it helps some corporation? With the current climate, the public (or even private) library never could come into existance! —SteveDavison


2005-09-18 23:35:28   as long as i've been on the wiki, people have been responsible in what they post and have reverted stuff they deemed inappropriate. what were to happen if someone were to post a really inappropriate thing to the wiki. something that would be harmful to find even in the page's history. for instance, some celebrity's phone number, the answers to an exam, libelous info intended to inflict harm on an individual, outing someone, etc? has that ever happened on here or on other wikis, and what is the policy should it happen? —CraigBrozinsky


2005-09-25 12:13:38   Was just looking at some of the recent Hoa Viet 'revision wars'. I feel that we should have factual content, positive and negative, on the top part of the page and then in the Comments section, opinions (positive and negative) should follow. I propose these as guidelines about what content goes where. The great thing about the Wiki is that we can see the good, bad, and ugly. I do want to see the GOOD as well as the BAD. —SteveDavison


2005-09-27 14:33:57   I know meta pages have gotten a lot of shit recently, but i think we should have a Martinis where we discuss the mertis of Martinis at various bars in davis. —ArlenAbraham


2005-10-13 08:13:14   I think there should be a place to just ask general questions of a large group of people, on any subject. Here's mine for today: wasn't there an "ecology bookstore" on 3rd? 4th? downtown? (For Departed Businesses) —SteveDavison


2005-10-15 00:59:43   *shrug*... I don't think the Bistro 33 page would seem so bad if it was just reorganized and cleaned up a bit. There is just a lot of crap on the page currently... for example the multiple comments all dealing with the [WWW]candlestick incident that take up almost 20 lines could be greatly pared down or possibly even removed completely. The off-topic comments could be removed and the informational ones could be worked into the page's body text. That'd do a lot to help right there, though it'd still leave a bunch of reviews/user experiences. But I don't think it's that bad for a page to have lots of review like comments, as long as they're in the proper place (ie: after all the factual informational stuff). I don't think length alone should determine the necessity of a talk page. —JevanGray


2005-10-20 06:24:17   Just a general musing: I've observed several times how 1) Someone sees a need and adds to a page or creates a new page), 2) Others see it in Recent Changes, then jump on it and edit it, 3) the original intent is lost and the content veers off into something unrecognizable, 4) the page is deleted as having no merit -taking the meritorious original seed with it. The subject is much larger than Wiki, it is one of group dynamics, and a worthy subject of study. —SteveDavison


2005-10-29 16:23:25   I can imagine the day, not far off, when every business in Davis has a page here. —SteveDavison


2005-10-29 16:26:24   Something I've been thinking about: Would it make sense to have "task groups" which might meet, plan a page (perhaps one requiring in-depth research) and create it? In other words, folks that might get together for a project vs. everyone just doing their own? —SteveDavison


2005-10-30 20:40:51   What ever happened to the Disclaimer? —ArlenAbraham


2005-10-31 22:29:37   To whomever did the Halloween logo, pumpkin & bones: That's really slick! —SteveDavison


2005-11-14 02:48:34   Question: What do you guys think about Craig's idea to create pages, "CraigBrozinsky:RestaurantReviews-style pages that mirror the content of Restaurants but with personal opinions. Is this something the community wants more of? I.E Arlen:RestaurantReview, Neustrom:Reviews, etc?


2005-11-25 Just noticed the Wiki is listed on an [WWW]official UC Davis web site. In fact, it's the only non-ucdavis resource listed, I take that as an acknowledgement of accomplishment. —SteveDavison


2005-12-14 11:01:13   recently, there seems to be a lot of strange editing behavior on the wiki. where would be a good place to discourage [wikipedia]sock puppets? —CraigBrozinsky


2005-12-23 11:22:50   The Davis Wiki needs to have a vision statement; a sense of what it should become. Perhaps a steering committee which would meet regularly and evaluate the current state and future goals. (I'm just floating ideas for thoughts & feedback.) —SteveDavison

editor.png


2006-01-26 21:28:06   The HUB (the Davis High School newspaper) has recently had an article about Daviswiki. Though this may sound like a good way to promote the wiki, there is a good chance that there will be an uprise in the next month of useless edits and teenage userpages which will probably link to MySpace, Livejournal, Xanga and others of the like. Brace yourself. I heard something funny recently as well. Some high schools students refer to the wiki as the "new MySpace". I don't see the resemblance, but some people really do think that's what it is. haha. —JohnDudek


2006-01-31 17:04:04   We had 21 minutes of downtime due to another user on our system un-gracefully restarting our webserver. Everything should be fine now. —PhilipNeustrom


2006-02-18 03:50:39   I feel that people should not be included on the Wiki map. If you were to look for someone, wouldn't you just go to their personal page and find out where they lived? The extra dots also contribute to clutter on the map. While this isn't a problem now, it could get worse as more users join or forget to update their Map locations since most students move every year. People who leave the wiki (or Davis) might forget to delete their location as well, contributing to more clutter. —DussonYeung


2006-06-18 09:58:09   I think the number of fake accounts used to trash/promote businesses, especially restaurants, is getting out of hand. The new user info feature is handy, should we just delete suspicious activity? If people only make one edit to one page, and then never edit again, it could be legitimate, but it's likely fake. How do we tell the real people apart from the people who work for mountain mikes? —ArlenAbraham


2006-07-20 13:04:50   should Today's Events be admin only? i can't see why someone would need to edit that. —ArlenAbraham


I am terribly concerned about the open ended debate pages. These are increasing in number and are open ended. Unlike Talk pages such as Cults/Talk which debate over specific points and then are deleted, these are debates over eternal issues. As I wrote in an entry that indexed and proposed several new ongoing debates:

These started with the Abortion Debate monstrosity. Are we seriously expecting to come to a conclusion on that issue and produce some sort of breakthough entry that satisfies all? Does it seem likely that the ongoing debate on Abortion will be resolved on this Wiki? They have long since passed debating wording and points of the Abortion entry... it's now a free for all discussion that seems to have no end. And unlike discussion threads on [WWW]UCDavis LiveJournal, they will never have any end. Six months, six years from now, they will still be growing (and splitting and mutating). When do you call the discussion "done" and delete it? Unlike forums designed for debate, these always grow and will devour the actual entries that the Wiki is here for.

I would delete these, but I think that's a big enough discussion to have the community weigh in. To contrast with the debates I'm worried about, this isn't an open debate: it's a specific issue, and I'd like to have a community decision... and then action, at which point this is deleted.

I think that even global issues can be made relevant to Davis. Such as the juvenile justice page. It started out to be just a general page about juvenile justice (prompted by the Halema Buzayan stuff), but then someone made the comment that it should have local things added to it. This prompted me to search for and find all the local (Yolo County) information on how juvenile justice works. I had to call and ask people for some information and other information came from minutes of meetings, websites of various government offices, etc. Some of it still needs work, such as the Juvenile Justice Commission - there is nothing on any website. I think that I'm going to end up having to go over to the Probation Department to get information on what they actually do. —SharlaDaly


2006-07-30 18:47:51   Are there any guidelines for citing/acknowledging sources? No one seems to do it and we don't have the same verifiability policy as Wikipedia, but it feels wrong to use info from, say, the Enterprise and not acknowledge it. —AndrewChen


2006-08-07 23:20:16   6995 pages... almost 7000! —BrentLaabs


2006-10-18 16:40:36   Currently I find the default commenting method rather difficult to parse when scanning a page. I was thinking perhaps altering how comments worked to split them into logical sections. Something as simple as a positive comment area and a negative comment area with separate buttons for both would make it a lot easier to read. Granted I have yet to look into the backend of a Wiki so the ease of such a change I am not currently sure of. —KevinRobinson


2006-12-01 10:20:44   Just out of curiosity, how does everybody feel about tags? —JabberWokky


Is there anybody who could nab a copy of today's SacBee and mail me the Metro Section? (Well, the pages with the article about the Wiki). I'd really appreciate it. Otherwise, anybody know a link to order a specific copy? Update: Nevermind... I found the magic Google keywords. [WWW]The link is here to order back issues.JabberWokky


2006-12-14 12:56:08   What should be done about people who disregard normal rules/ettiquette, and do so purposefully? I'm talking about SteveOstrowski. He continually reverts and refuses to use talk pages, and he's definitely an established user, doing this for months on several pages. He's even said on his own page when asked about it for a specific page, and even mentioned it on his own blog, that he'd continue to do so to get what he wants. That's whack. —ES (23:18:05:)I think my annoyance is compounded by annoying edits or lack of clear contribution. I really feel this guy is just trying to use the wiki to promote his own agenda, from the start. He always edits things to be [WWW]the most vague and meaningless way ever, argue about whether a fact is true or not (like # of members), loves to say everything is secret (ACT rankings, CDP strategy, CDP agenda isn't for public [actually, a lot of CDP stuff lost in the millions of edits to those pages]), and just make a general muck. Try to deny involvement of this or that, claim no one knows! I know when he was new to the wiki he was talking about how chaos is a good thing, and said stuff like "if you only knew it would blah blah WHOA". But I think it's kinda just annoying and all self-serving. I was fine with that, other people edit and noticed, but when you start throwing on intentional revert wars and intentional disregarding of normal rules/ettiquette, as well as pseudo-lying/deception..bah. Just throwing it out there as a general feeling.

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.