Recent Changes for "Wiki Community/General Discussion" - Davis Wiki

Wiki Community/General Discussion

PhilipNeustrom — 2009-07-17 12:37:09

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 233:	Line 233:
	+
Line 234:	Line 235:
	+ + * We use SSL on login so your password isn't sent in plaintext over the wire. The cookie is sent over standard HTTP after, though. I believe there's no way around this other than keeping (or allowing) people to stay in {{{https}}} constantly. Most every other website works this same way. Gmail, for instance, logs you in via https but you can steal someone's session by stealing all their non-https cookies (though I suspect gmail checks the end user IP and requires a peak at the SSL cookies thereafter). --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2009-07-17 03:14:28

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 233:	Line 233:
	+ * Just so you know, the Wiki ''does'' use SSL, but only when logging in or at other such secure points in the session. --jw

Wiki Community/General Discussion

SteveDavison — 2009-07-16 20:27:29

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 231:	Line 231:
	+ ------ + ''2009-07-16 21:27:29'' [[nbsp]] I strongly feel that the Davis Wiki should support ssl, in lay terms, let users use https (i.e. https://daviswiki.org) in addition to plain old http. Many websites support both (even gmail, for instance). I've set up sites to do this, it doesn't cost any more and only takes an hour or so to do. It does stop people from 'sniffing' your account password either from a network or a wireless connection. It's transparent to most users; only if people type 'https' do they get a secure connection. --["Users/SteveDavison"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

NicM — 2009-07-16 15:58:48

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 230:	Line 230:
	+ * thanks Jason, and for the suggestion about a community Wiki - I'll look at Wikispot another day though as blogging has already kept me up way too late (it's 1am here). cheerio, Nic

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JasonAller — 2009-07-16 15:25:20

Answer for NicM and introduction to WikiSpot

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 229:	Line 229:
	+ * If [http://daviswiki.org/Globe_Artichoke?action=Files&do=view&target=flora_artichoke1.jpg this] is the photo, then ["Users/AlphaDog"] is the photographer. The same software that made Davis Wiki possible is free to use and hosting is free for community wikis, you could start one for Glouchester if there isn't already one started for it. Just go to [wiki:WikiSpot]. --["Users/JasonAller"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

NicM — 2009-07-16 15:21:04

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 227:	Line 227:
	+ ------ + ''2009-07-16 16:21:04'' [[nbsp]] Dear DavisWiki, my name is Nic and I live in the UK. I came across your site while searching for a photograph of a globe artichoke plant and stayed browsing when I saw how beautiful your flowers were and the amazing story of trees being planted in parking lots to feed the homeless. I've just started writing a blog about my allotment in Gloucester and have used your photo as a comparison with my neighbour's cardoon plant - www.nipitinthebud.co.uk (I trust this is OK according to the Creative Commons License you have for this site? - please let me know what credit you'd like me to add if you know who's photograph it is). After browsing your site I kind of lost track of my initial research thread and feel pleased to have connected with such a fabulous community on-line. cheerio, Nic --["Users/NicM"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WendySmyerYu — 2009-06-28 05:57:04

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 226:	Line 226:
	+ * I'm referring to the ["Davis Aikikai"] - not a typical product-oriented "business" - classes are offered through the EC. If you refer to the wiki page, there are two instances of 'negative feedback' which we've been wondering how to deal with. In the first case, the reviewer remained anonymous and in the second case the reviewer only sat in once on part of a class. In the meantime we currently have a dozen very happy students (not counting the ones who have recently left only because circumstances took them out of Davis). Of course we're all aware of everyone's right to have an opinion and express it, but at the same time, there's the sense that further responses will come across as merely defensiveness since the criticism is pointed at the instructor's teaching style. Accusations of abusiveness are pretty severe and serve, intentionally, only to turn people away. We can argue pedagogy with critics until we're blue, I guess, but if it's any indication of a difference in perspective, my daughter (who is 12) takes the class (and is completely happy) and I have no second thoughts about her being in that environment at all. As a dojo we are a great community - it extends out of the class, and is balanced with humor and serious attention and kindness on everyone's parts, including the instructor.

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ScottLay — 2009-06-22 16:38:02

clean-up of my comment

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 225:	Line 225:
- * Let us know which business you feel has unreasonably been criticized? I've provided feedback that at times was probably both unwarranted praise and at others unwarranted criticism. I'll give any business a second try, although it takes a sincere attempt by the owner or employees to reach out to customers for me to come back for a second try. I much prefer posting praise to criticism! - --["Users/ScottLay"]	+ * Let us know which business you feel has unreasonably been criticized... I've provided feedback that at times was probably both unwarranted praise and at others unwarranted criticism. I'll give any business a second try, although it takes a sincere attempt by the owner or employees to reach out to customers for me to come back for a second try. I much prefer posting praise to criticism! --["Users/ScottLay"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ScottLay — 2009-06-22 16:37:16

follow-up comment

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 3:	Line 3:
- [[Comments(Add comment for new thread, use 'edit' to reply to existent thread)]]	+ [[Comments(Add comment for new thread, use 'edit' to reply to existing thread)]]
Line 225:	Line 225:
	+ * Let us know which business you feel has unreasonably been criticized? I've provided feedback that at times was probably both unwarranted praise and at others unwarranted criticism. I'll give any business a second try, although it takes a sincere attempt by the owner or employees to reach out to customers for me to come back for a second try. I much prefer posting praise to criticism! + --["Users/ScottLay"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JoePomidor — 2009-06-22 15:58:26

response

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 224:	Line 224:
	+ * Generally (after ~1-2 years) the old comments get archived. This puts them on a separate page, and the pages are generally organized by year. Thus, if I see a bad review on a page from 2007, but I also see that all of the reviews in the past six months are good, then I will assume that the business has improved in the interim. However, the wiki is a changing entity, as viewed in the discussion directly above this one, and it may become practice to delete very old reviews, as opposed to archiving them. One of the really big moves that can set a business apart, at least in my eyes, is for a representative of the business to respond to the negative comments. Even if the original commenter is being unreasonable, this shows that the business is working toward an understanding. Also, in those situations where the commenter is being unreasonable, it is usually pretty obvious to third parties how much of the problem is on the business' end, and how much is from the customer. But the main point is that the wiki is not incredibly old, and is just now entering the point where we will have to figure out what to do with comments from 3-5 years in the past. Whether they are deleted, archived, or integrated into the main body of the entry, it is pretty clear if a business has changed their tune over time.

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WendySmyerYu — 2009-06-22 13:34:16

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 222:	Line 222:
	+ ------ + ''2009-06-22 14:34:16'' [[nbsp]] Is there any chance of redemption on the wiki when a business has garnered mixed reviews? The naysayers will likely never change their opinions and the supporters watch miserably as business dwindles (in spite of their numbers and the fact that the original problem maybe no longer exists...) Is there any way to deal with this, for exampke in the way that 3 years after a car accident, you get your record cleaned up and can start afresh? Or do businesses just have to drag dead baggage around with them until the end of time? --["Users/WendySmyerYu"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdWins — 2009-01-07 16:44:52

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 221:	Line 221:
	+ * Years ago, a goal was to try to integrate everything. People would delete 10 to 15 older reviews and add a paragraph to the entry trying to sum up some viewpoints. It seems over the years wiki usage changed, and the resulting buildup of comments is what's leading me to archive things (else a page is too darn long). I still think a lot of things can be deleted though without really losing any value. (Again, there's a lot of small stuff that's just overlooked). -["Users/Edwins" ES]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdWins — 2009-01-07 16:42:05

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 220:	Line 220:
- ''2009-01-07 16:40:46'' [[nbsp]] Thoughts on archiving versus deleting old comments? I randomly go through sometimes and move older comments to a new page, typically "Restaurant/200X Reviews." Personally, I think a lot of older comments should be junked. Many are side comments or questions, and I think that they're the kind of thing that can be removed with time. Whereas actual reviews of the place should stay on the archived page, as people can see a progression or what have you. For example, [http://daviswiki.org/The_Graduate/2005_and_2006_Reviews this page]. I think several of these can be deleted. But others might think it's nifty to see later on. So again, anyone have opinions on archiving versus deleting (some) old comments? --["Users/EdWins"]	+ ''2009-01-07 16:40:46'' [[nbsp]] Thoughts on archiving versus deleting old comments? I randomly go through sometimes and move older comments to a new page, typically "Restaurant/200X Reviews." Personally, I think a lot of older comments should be junked. Many are side comments or questions, and I think that they're the kind of thing that can be removed with time. Oftentimes they just are overlooked, which is why they hang around so long. Whereas actual reviews of the place should stay on the archived page, as people can see a progression or what have you. For example, [http://daviswiki.org/The_Graduate/2005_and_2006_Reviews this page]. I think several of these can be deleted. But others might think it's nifty to see later on. So again, anyone have opinions on archiving versus deleting (some) old comments? --["Users/EdWins"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdWins — 2009-01-07 16:40:46

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 219:	Line 219:
	+ ------ + ''2009-01-07 16:40:46'' [[nbsp]] Thoughts on archiving versus deleting old comments? I randomly go through sometimes and move older comments to a new page, typically "Restaurant/200X Reviews." Personally, I think a lot of older comments should be junked. Many are side comments or questions, and I think that they're the kind of thing that can be removed with time. Whereas actual reviews of the place should stay on the archived page, as people can see a progression or what have you. For example, [http://daviswiki.org/The_Graduate/2005_and_2006_Reviews this page]. I think several of these can be deleted. But others might think it's nifty to see later on. So again, anyone have opinions on archiving versus deleting (some) old comments? --["Users/EdWins"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

DrWang — 2008-12-16 15:43:43

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 213:	Line 213:
- ''2008-12-16 15:16:55'' [[nbsp]] Ok, I have an ethical question for you all. I recently discovered unethical activities. On one business listing I saw contained very positive reviews by 2 separate people. Those SAME people made negative reviews on a competitors listing within days of the positive listing. Upon further investigation, those people have only made comments about these two listings (+ for one and - for the other). Also, the negative comments appear to be completely unfounded as a later independent comment confirms an opposite experience.	+ ''2008-12-16 15:16:55'' [[nbsp]] Ok, I have a question for you all. I recently discovered what I think is unethical activity. One business listing contained very positive reviews by 2 separate people. Those SAME people made negative reviews on a competitors listing within days of the positive listing. Upon further investigation, those people have only made comments about these two listings (+ for one and - for the other). Also, the negative comments appear to be completely unfounded as a later independent comment confirms an opposite experience.

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2008-12-16 15:38:32

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 218:	Line 218:
	+ * I agree with you -- tagging information about a review that is not obvious is important. Not everybody agrees. I saw the back and forth edit and let it go. If you want to raise it as an issue for group discussion, there is a "Talk" icon on every page. Go to the page that has the edit you are disputing, and click the Talk icon. You'll start a new entry with the suffix "Talk" to discuss the content of the main entry. You are basically opening a something for discussion. If it's just one editor, you could also just talk to that editor directly by adding a comment on their profile (click their signature). Sometimes it's just a nuance that they took issue with... or they misread what you were saying. --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

DrWang — 2008-12-16 15:18:30

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 213:	Line 213:
- ''2008-12-16 15:16:55'' [[nbsp]] Ok, I have an ethical question for you all. I recently discovered unethical activities. On one business listing I saw very positive reviews by 2 separate people. Those SAME people made negative reviews on a competitors listing within days of each other. Upon further investigation, those people have only made comments about these two listings (+ for one and - for the other). Also, the negative comments appear to be completely unfounded as a later comment confirms an opposite experience. - - This to me screams unethical as it appears that somebody is manipulating the wiki for business gain. I've made this clear by commenting on the listing but another user removes my comments and claims that I should keep discussions limited to the business not to the users (but this is clearly about the business!).	+ ''2008-12-16 15:16:55'' [[nbsp]] Ok, I have an ethical question for you all. I recently discovered unethical activities. On one business listing I saw contained very positive reviews by 2 separate people. Those SAME people made negative reviews on a competitors listing within days of the positive listing. Upon further investigation, those people have only made comments about these two listings (+ for one and - for the other). Also, the negative comments appear to be completely unfounded as a later independent comment confirms an opposite experience. + + This to me screams unethical activity as it appears that somebody is manipulating the wiki for business gain (I'm sure not for the first time). I've made this clear by commenting on the original listing but another user removes my comments and claims that I should keep discussions limited to the business not to the users (but this is clearly about the business!).

Wiki Community/General Discussion

DrWang — 2008-12-16 15:16:55

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 212:	Line 212:
	+ ------ + ''2008-12-16 15:16:55'' [[nbsp]] Ok, I have an ethical question for you all. I recently discovered unethical activities. On one business listing I saw very positive reviews by 2 separate people. Those SAME people made negative reviews on a competitors listing within days of each other. Upon further investigation, those people have only made comments about these two listings (+ for one and - for the other). Also, the negative comments appear to be completely unfounded as a later comment confirms an opposite experience. + + This to me screams unethical as it appears that somebody is manipulating the wiki for business gain. I've made this clear by commenting on the listing but another user removes my comments and claims that I should keep discussions limited to the business not to the users (but this is clearly about the business!). + + What to do? --["Users/DrWang"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

BarryRice — 2008-10-29 10:01:49

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 211:	Line 211:
	+ * Perfect. Thanks!--["Users/BarryRice"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WilliamLewis — 2008-10-29 08:48:51

I'm a 'tard who can't distinguish a 7 from a 4.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 210:	Line 210:
- You can grab a date from ["Wiki history"]. The site went public on October 24, 2004. As for the number of pages on this wiki, look at the bottom of recent changes. We're currently at 12,582 pages. This number includes pages that some might not consider content, like redirects, talk pages, and user pages, so take that number with a grain of salt. Good luck with your presentation! --["WilliamLewis"]	+ You can grab a date from ["Wiki history"]. The site went public on October 27, 2004. As for the number of pages on this wiki, look at the bottom of recent changes. We're currently at 12,582 pages. This number includes pages that some might not consider content, like redirects, talk pages, and user pages, so take that number with a grain of salt. Good luck with your presentation! --["WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WilliamLewis — 2008-10-29 08:45:01

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 210:	Line 210:
- You can grab a date from ["Wiki history"]. The site went public on October 24, 2004. As for the number of pages on this wiki, look at the bottom of recent changes. We're currently at 12,582 pages. Good luck with your presentation! --["WilliamLewis"]	+ You can grab a date from ["Wiki history"]. The site went public on October 24, 2004. As for the number of pages on this wiki, look at the bottom of recent changes. We're currently at 12,582 pages. This number includes pages that some might not consider content, like redirects, talk pages, and user pages, so take that number with a grain of salt. Good luck with your presentation! --["WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WilliamLewis — 2008-10-29 08:43:50

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 210:	Line 210:
	+ You can grab a date from ["Wiki history"]. The site went public on October 24, 2004. As for the number of pages on this wiki, look at the bottom of recent changes. We're currently at 12,582 pages. Good luck with your presentation! --["WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

BarryRice — 2008-10-29 08:28:21

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 208:	Line 208:
	+ ------ + ''2008-10-29 09:28:21'' [[nbsp]] This Monday I am giving a presentation to the other scientists, faculty, staff in my UC group, and am describing various wikis. I'll mention DavisWiki, but I was wondering if the uber-editors here might be able to provide me with (A)inception date for the wiki, (B)number of articles in the wiki. THANKS --["Users/BarryRice"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JasonAller — 2008-09-28 09:07:25

link fix

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 6:	Line 6:
- * ''Is this with reference to ["Chabad"]? (no -["CarlMcCabe" cm]) From my POV (as the guy who's maintaining the ["Chabad"] page) Chabad would have a low-traffic, single-page presence just about anywhere it set up. As such it makes almost no sense to create a Chabad site anywhere else. I understand the rule that pages aren't going to be mouthpieces for a single organization, but it's kind of unlikely that Chabad will do anything controversial, so this is almost entirely a moot point. If it does get controversial, and we decide we want a mouthpiece, then I'll figure out about moving the site somewhere where that's not collaboratively edited. -- ["Users/KenBloom"]''	+ * ''Is this with reference to ["Chabad"]? (no -["Users/CarlMcCabe" cm]) From my POV (as the guy who's maintaining the ["Chabad"] page) Chabad would have a low-traffic, single-page presence just about anywhere it set up. As such it makes almost no sense to create a Chabad site anywhere else. I understand the rule that pages aren't going to be mouthpieces for a single organization, but it's kind of unlikely that Chabad will do anything controversial, so this is almost entirely a moot point. If it does get controversial, and we decide we want a mouthpiece, then I'll figure out about moving the site somewhere where that's not collaboratively edited. -- ["Users/KenBloom"]''

Wiki Community/General Discussion

BarryRice — 2008-09-04 08:32:53

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 73:	Line 73:
	+ + * I may be talking about an old topic, but I'll add some information on this. I'm a professional photographer, and the laws in the USA are something I know a bit about. As long as you are standing on publicly accessible ground, you can photograph whatever or whoever you like, and you do not need permission from parents, children, etc. There are two exceptions to this. First, you cannot take a photograph of someone, if that person has what is called "reasonable expectation of privacy." This means it is not acceptable to use a telephoto lens to photograph someone through their bedroom window. Similarly, if a child were having its diapers changed, and the parents were attempting, reasonably, to shield the child from view, it would be considered a private moment and is therefore protected. On the other hand, a naked child running around in a fountain would be fair game for the photographer. The second exception to public photography is that, in some cases, it is illegal to photograph nuclear power facilities or military installations. Odd, but true. Anyway, I provide this information for you because, in this era of heightened concerns about "security", photographers are being told more and more that they are not allowed to do what they '''are indeed''' allowed to do. For more information on this, you can refer to the [http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm Photographer's Bill of Rights]; I keep a copy of this in each one of my camera bags.--["Users/BarryRice"] +

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2008-09-03 13:48:18

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 203:	Line 203:
- ''2008-09-03 14:38:52'' [[nbsp]] I am creating a wiki to help people in land conservation add their "best management practices." I'm doing this because the nonprofit I work for (The Nature Conservancy) has a big library of documents on management practices, but these need to be updated by experts in the field. I'm thinking a wiki would be a great way to proceed. How did a successful wiki like Daviswiki (stroke, stroke) get off the ground? - --["Users/BarryRice"]	+ ''2008-09-03 14:38:52'' [[nbsp]] I am creating a wiki to help people in land conservation add their "best management practices." I'm doing this because the nonprofit I work for (The Nature Conservancy) has a big library of documents on management practices, but these need to be updated by experts in the field. I'm thinking a wiki would be a great way to proceed. How did a successful wiki like Daviswiki (stroke, stroke) get off the ground? --["Users/BarryRice"] + * Well, after Davis Wiki became successful, [wiki:wikispot Wiki Spot] was created to foster exactly that -- other wikis. You can [wiki:wikispot:"create a wiki"] there, and flesh it out enough so that contributors have an idea of the vision. Usually that's a fairly serious amount of work (twenty good entries seems to attract contributors much more than 200 bare bones seed entries). --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

BarryRice — 2008-09-03 13:38:52

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 202:	Line 202:
	+ ------ + ''2008-09-03 14:38:52'' [[nbsp]] I am creating a wiki to help people in land conservation add their "best management practices." I'm doing this because the nonprofit I work for (The Nature Conservancy) has a big library of documents on management practices, but these need to be updated by experts in the field. I'm thinking a wiki would be a great way to proceed. How did a successful wiki like Daviswiki (stroke, stroke) get off the ground? + --["Users/BarryRice"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JasonAller — 2008-07-16 17:01:12

link fixes

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 5:	Line 5:
- ''2005-03-30 17:21:09'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - * ''Is this with reference to ["Chabad"]? (no -["CarlMcCabe" cm]) From my POV (as the guy who's maintaining the ["Chabad"] page) Chabad would have a low-traffic, single-page presence just about anywhere it set up. As such it makes almost no sense to create a Chabad site anywhere else. I understand the rule that pages aren't going to be mouthpieces for a single organization, but it's kind of unlikely that Chabad will do anything controversial, so this is almost entirely a moot point. If it does get controversial, and we decide we want a mouthpiece, then I'll figure out about moving the site somewhere where that's not collaboratively edited. -- ["KenBloom"]'' - * ''There is no difference. A business owner has equal right to edit their entry as you do. That goes both ways - you can add your views, and they can add theirs. A couple businesses have been listing specials and deals (one of the cell phone stores updates their deals fairly often). That's a good thing - it's more information on the Wiki, and constant updating keeps the information current and useful. If they started deleting bad reviews, they would be behaving as a poor editor (it doesn't require a business owner to do this - Saul deleted a few when he first arrived)... and poor editing often is best combated through education rather than a kneejerk reaction.'' -- ["JabberWokky"] - * ''You make a good point. I hadn't thought of it like that.'' --["CarlMcCabe" cm]	+ ''2005-03-30 17:21:09'' [[nbsp]] 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) --["Users/CarlMcCabe"] + * ''Is this with reference to ["Chabad"]? (no -["CarlMcCabe" cm]) From my POV (as the guy who's maintaining the ["Chabad"] page) Chabad would have a low-traffic, single-page presence just about anywhere it set up. As such it makes almost no sense to create a Chabad site anywhere else. I understand the rule that pages aren't going to be mouthpieces for a single organization, but it's kind of unlikely that Chabad will do anything controversial, so this is almost entirely a moot point. If it does get controversial, and we decide we want a mouthpiece, then I'll figure out about moving the site somewhere where that's not collaboratively edited. -- ["Users/KenBloom"]'' + * ''There is no difference. A business owner has equal right to edit their entry as you do. That goes both ways - you can add your views, and they can add theirs. A couple businesses have been listing specials and deals (one of the cell phone stores updates their deals fairly often). That's a good thing - it's more information on the Wiki, and constant updating keeps the information current and useful. If they started deleting bad reviews, they would be behaving as a poor editor (it doesn't require a business owner to do this - Saul deleted a few when he first arrived)... and poor editing often is best combated through education rather than a kneejerk reaction.'' -- ["Users/JabberWokky"] + * ''You make a good point. I hadn't thought of it like that.'' --["Users/CarlMcCabe" cm]
Line 11:	Line 11:
- 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"] - - They're probably just not aware of the daviswiki, but it amazes me how tolerant businesses have been of negative comments. I've only been on the Wiki since January, but I've never seen an instance of a business owner trying to remove something bad. hmmm... maybe I should test the waters by listing where I found a band-aid in a tuna-fish sandwich? Anyway, due to their controversial and transient nature, dual-page-representation made perfect sense for the elections. However, for more stable businesses, I fear that dual-representation would clutter and confuse things greatly. Naive searches might lead people only to the biased business owner's page rather than the objective community based one. --["CraigBrozinsky"] - ''2005-03-30 17:43:08'' [[nbsp]] 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"]	+ 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"]. --["Users/BrentLaabs"] + + They're probably just not aware of the daviswiki, but it amazes me how tolerant businesses have been of negative comments. I've only been on the Wiki since January, but I've never seen an instance of a business owner trying to remove something bad. hmmm... maybe I should test the waters by listing where I found a band-aid in a tuna-fish sandwich? Anyway, due to their controversial and transient nature, dual-page-representation made perfect sense for the elections. However, for more stable businesses, I fear that dual-representation would clutter and confuse things greatly. Naive searches might lead people only to the biased business owner's page rather than the objective community based one. --["Users/CraigBrozinsky"] + ''2005-03-30 17:43:08'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/MikeIvanov"]
Line 17:	Line 17:
- ''2005-04-06 14:52:29'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - * the wiki is all about panty twisting --["ArlenAbraham"]	+ ''2005-04-06 14:52:29'' [[nbsp]] 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 --["Users/MattJojola"] + * the wiki is all about panty twisting --["Users/ArlenAbraham"]
Line 20:	Line 20:
- * feel free to replace my shitty pictures too. i think a lot of photos were put up just to fill a void. there's a lot that ''should'' be replaced. and i wear boxers, but you're not allowed to twist them. --["CarlMcCabe" cm] - ------ - ''2005-04-24 23:31:55'' [[nbsp]] Davis Wiki is officially a success! Why, you ask? Because someone bought up [http://www.daviswiki.com/]. --["BrentLaabs"] - ------ - ''2005-04-26 22:47:09'' [[nbsp]] 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"]	+ * feel free to replace my shitty pictures too. i think a lot of photos were put up just to fill a void. there's a lot that ''should'' be replaced. and i wear boxers, but you're not allowed to twist them. --["Users/CarlMcCabe" cm] + ------ + ''2005-04-24 23:31:55'' [[nbsp]] Davis Wiki is officially a success! Why, you ask? Because someone bought up [http://www.daviswiki.com/]. --["Users/BrentLaabs"] + ------ + ''2005-04-26 22:47:09'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/JackHaskel"]
Line 28:	Line 28:
- ''2005-05-14 19:55:45'' [[nbsp]] Any chance we could get the ["Wiki Weather" 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"] - - We were considering adding some weather icons, but if we do that we would rather use a live xml weather feed. --["MikeIvanov"] - ------ - ''2005-06-21 20:39:10'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - * Here's my personal opinion. I avoid putting anything not accessible from a google search, would jeopardize someone's job, or isn't observable by any passerby. Also, for people who's usernames are aliases, consider that they might be using aliases to protect their anonymity. You might want to ask those folks if its okay first. Using these rules, I've avoided putting anything about ["BarnabasTruman"] or anything that would embarrass any of my colleagues in the ["Psychology"]. I've also refrained from putting the last name of ["Visor Lady"]. Well, actually I don't know her full name, but if I did, I wouldn't write it. - ------ - ''2005-07-06 23:23:29'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - ''2005-07-07 01:30:32'' [[nbsp]] It's a personal page, so I don't see a point in deleting it. Probably just a joke, anyway. Who cares? --["MikeIvanov"] - ------ - ''2005-07-08 18:54:26'' [[nbsp]] 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"]	+ ''2005-05-14 19:55:45'' [[nbsp]] Any chance we could get the ["Wiki Weather" 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. --["Users/BrentLaabs"] + + We were considering adding some weather icons, but if we do that we would rather use a live xml weather feed. --["Users/MikeIvanov"] + ------ + ''2005-06-21 20:39:10'' [[nbsp]] 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)? --["Users/JasonAller"] + * Here's my personal opinion. I avoid putting anything not accessible from a google search, would jeopardize someone's job, or isn't observable by any passerby. Also, for people who's usernames are aliases, consider that they might be using aliases to protect their anonymity. You might want to ask those folks if its okay first. Using these rules, I've avoided putting anything about ["Users/BarnabasTruman"] or anything that would embarrass any of my colleagues in the ["Psychology"]. I've also refrained from putting the last name of ["Visor Lady"]. Well, actually I don't know her full name, but if I did, I wouldn't write it. + ------ + ''2005-07-06 23:23:29'' [[nbsp]] Um, just curious what people think. ["Users/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? --["Users/BrentLaabs"] + ''2005-07-07 01:30:32'' [[nbsp]] It's a personal page, so I don't see a point in deleting it. Probably just a joke, anyway. Who cares? --["Users/MikeIvanov"] + ------ + ''2005-07-08 18:54:26'' [[nbsp]] 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? --["Users/MarkWetter"]
Line 40:	Line 40:
- ''2005-07-14 13:45:19'' [[nbsp]] 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'' [[nbsp]] 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'' [[nbsp]] 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"]	+ ''2005-07-14 13:45:19'' [[nbsp]] 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}}}? --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"] + ------ + ''2005-07-24 21:17:16'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/JessicaLuedtke"] + ------ + ''2005-07-24 21:20:12'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/JimSchwab"]
Line 46:	Line 46:
- At Phil: I'd like to see {{{["../Subpage"]}}} implemented so it's easy to link between subpages on the same level. This was sort of an issue with all of the ["ASUCD Elections"] pages. --["BrentLaabs"] - ------ - ''2005-07-27 22:05:46'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - * ''2006-10-5'' Okay, this is a very late addition to this discussion, but I noticed the same thing today, especially the addition of several very large images. For example, the Grad has posted the same large image on a weekly basis. How about a pixel size limit to ["events"] postings, e.g. please thumbnail images or something? It makes it very difficult to scroll through the events listing as a user when KDVS [for which I have the utmost respect] posts half a dozen large band images. --["Alphadog"]	+ At Phil: I'd like to see {{{["../Subpage"]}}} implemented so it's easy to link between subpages on the same level. This was sort of an issue with all of the ["ASUCD Elections"] pages. --["Users/BrentLaabs"] + ------ + ''2005-07-27 22:05:46'' [[nbsp]] 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? --["Users/JaimeRaba"] + * ''2006-10-5'' Okay, this is a very late addition to this discussion, but I noticed the same thing today, especially the addition of several very large images. For example, the Grad has posted the same large image on a weekly basis. How about a pixel size limit to ["events"] postings, e.g. please thumbnail images or something? It makes it very difficult to scroll through the events listing as a user when KDVS [for which I have the utmost respect] posts half a dozen large band images. --["Users/Alphadog"]
Line 55:	Line 55:
- -- ["JabberWokky" jw] - ------ - ''2005-08-26 14:25:12'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - Is this covered by "or identify its contents?" --["ArlenAbraham"]	+ -- ["Users/JabberWokky" jw] + ------ + ''2005-08-26 14:25:12'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/CraigBrozinsky"] + Is this covered by "or identify its contents?" --["Users/ArlenAbraham"]
Line 62:	Line 62:
- ''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"] - - ''I would say maybe the one with three little boys would be questioning, if that were true. The other one you can't see their faces.'' --["MichelleAccurso"] - - ''I occasionally work as an escort for the Planned Parenthood clinic, walking clients and staff in and out of the building. The protesters use to take pictures of the children, until the police came and told them not too. I have no idea what they would do with the pics, but the pics they took of me, well they put those on the internet. Maybe one of our expert lawyers will know.'' ["JimSchwab"] - - '' it is completely legal to take pictures of people in PUBLIC places and post them without their permission. And anyway, think of it from a practical viewpoint...what's the worry? That some child molester knows that boys, without any identifying information, sometimes congregate at the Farmer's Market? Is that something he/she needed DavisWiki to find out?'' - ["ApolloStumpy"] - - ''I think the law is different for children, I believe you need there parent's permission. I just don't want Phillip or Mike to get in trouble.'' ["Jimschwab"]	+ ''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?'' ["Users/JimSchwab"] + + ''I would say maybe the one with three little boys would be questioning, if that were true. The other one you can't see their faces.'' --["Users/MichelleAccurso"] + + ''I occasionally work as an escort for the Planned Parenthood clinic, walking clients and staff in and out of the building. The protesters use to take pictures of the children, until the police came and told them not too. I have no idea what they would do with the pics, but the pics they took of me, well they put those on the internet. Maybe one of our expert lawyers will know.'' ["Users/JimSchwab"] + + '' it is completely legal to take pictures of people in PUBLIC places and post them without their permission. And anyway, think of it from a practical viewpoint...what's the worry? That some child molester knows that boys, without any identifying information, sometimes congregate at the Farmer's Market? Is that something he/she needed DavisWiki to find out?'' - ["Users/ApolloStumpy"] + + ''I think the law is different for children, I believe you need there parent's permission. I just don't want Phillip or Mike to get in trouble.'' ["Users/Jimschwab"]
Line 74:	Line 74:
- ''2005-09-14 12:53:23'' [[nbsp]] 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"]	+ ''2005-09-14 12:53:23'' [[nbsp]] 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! --["Users/SteveDavison"]
Line 79:	Line 79:
- By putting everything on Davis Wiki under such a liberal license we allow an amazing amount of usage. Talk about usage of material on Davis Wiki is a part of keeping the resource free. -["PhilipNeustrom"] - - That was my frustration with the current state of copyright law and how things that were historically in the public commons have been co-opted by corporate interests, not a suggestion that we not follow the law. I have no complaint with the Creative Commons license, or with Davis Wiki. This is a topic that could be discussed for some time. -["SteveDavison"] - ------ - ''2005-09-18 23:35:28'' [[nbsp]] 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, ["Libel" 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"] - What do you think it should be? Most of the time courts rule that those who provide services are not necessarily responsible for those who use them. So, this would be a case in which it was clear that there is a misuse and the non-removal of something is deemed a violation of some law or another? ["PhilipNeustrom"] - I was thinking in terms of moral obligation rather than legal obligation. In either case, I don't have a clear answer. On the one hand, its easy to intellectualize the Wiki as a no-holds-barred free-speech tool. On the other hand, when things become personal, I think a lot of people would want material permanently removed. ["CraigBrozinsky" cb] - I probably shouldn't note this, but if you edit a page >100 times (see [http://www.daviswiki.org/ASUCD_Senate?action=info this one], some of the history appears to be lost. This may not actually be the case. You can also do fun stuff with combinations of moves, deletes and reverts that I haven't been able to recover info from, but those might have been fixed. -["BrentLaabs"] - The history isn't lost, it's just not displayed (yet). As for any combination of deleting and renaming, let me know if there are any problems in this respect from now on (because there shouldn't be). --["PhilipNeustrom"] - The >100 edit "bug" has been fixed. There will be a memory hole feature in the next software update. --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------ - ''2005-09-25 12:13:38'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - You should fix it, then! I think it was reverted because something was deleted that someone thought valuable without being integrated elsewhere in the page? --["PhilipNeustrom"]	+ By putting everything on Davis Wiki under such a liberal license we allow an amazing amount of usage. Talk about usage of material on Davis Wiki is a part of keeping the resource free. -["Users/PhilipNeustrom"] + + That was my frustration with the current state of copyright law and how things that were historically in the public commons have been co-opted by corporate interests, not a suggestion that we not follow the law. I have no complaint with the Creative Commons license, or with Davis Wiki. This is a topic that could be discussed for some time. -["Users/SteveDavison"] + ------ + ''2005-09-18 23:35:28'' [[nbsp]] 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, ["Libel" 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? --["Users/CraigBrozinsky"] + What do you think it should be? Most of the time courts rule that those who provide services are not necessarily responsible for those who use them. So, this would be a case in which it was clear that there is a misuse and the non-removal of something is deemed a violation of some law or another? ["Users/PhilipNeustrom"] + I was thinking in terms of moral obligation rather than legal obligation. In either case, I don't have a clear answer. On the one hand, its easy to intellectualize the Wiki as a no-holds-barred free-speech tool. On the other hand, when things become personal, I think a lot of people would want material permanently removed. ["Users/CraigBrozinsky" cb] + I probably shouldn't note this, but if you edit a page >100 times (see [http://www.daviswiki.org/ASUCD_Senate?action=info this one], some of the history appears to be lost. This may not actually be the case. You can also do fun stuff with combinations of moves, deletes and reverts that I haven't been able to recover info from, but those might have been fixed. -["Users/BrentLaabs"] + The history isn't lost, it's just not displayed (yet). As for any combination of deleting and renaming, let me know if there are any problems in this respect from now on (because there shouldn't be). --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"] + The >100 edit "bug" has been fixed. There will be a memory hole feature in the next software update. --["Users/ArlenAbraham"] + ------ + ''2005-09-25 12:13:38'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/SteveDavison"] + You should fix it, then! I think it was reverted because something was deleted that someone thought valuable without being integrated elsewhere in the page? --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"]
Line 94:	Line 94:
- ''2005-10-15 00:59:43'' [[nbsp]] 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 [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/09/30/FrontPage/New-Bistro.Has.Old.Problems-1321175.shtml 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'' [[nbsp]] 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'' [[nbsp]] I can imagine the day, not far off, when every business in Davis has a page here. --["SteveDavison"] - ------ - ''2005-10-29 16:26:24'' [[nbsp]] 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'' [[nbsp]] What ever happened to the ["Disclaimer"]? --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------ - ''2005-10-31 22:29:37'' [[nbsp]] To whomever did the Halloween logo, pumpkin & bones: That's really slick! --["SteveDavison"] - ''2005-11-01 02:48:34'' [[nbsp]] Thanks, check out our ["Wiki Logo" other holiday logos] --["MikeIvanov"]	+ ''2005-10-15 00:59:43'' [[nbsp]] 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 [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/09/30/FrontPage/New-Bistro.Has.Old.Problems-1321175.shtml 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. --["Users/JevanGray"] + ------ + ''2005-10-20 06:24:17'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/SteveDavison"] + ------ + ''2005-10-29 16:23:25'' [[nbsp]] I can imagine the day, not far off, when every business in Davis has a page here. --["Users/SteveDavison"] + ------ + ''2005-10-29 16:26:24'' [[nbsp]] 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? --["Users/SteveDavison"] + ------ + ''2005-10-30 20:40:51'' [[nbsp]] What ever happened to the ["Disclaimer"]? --["Users/ArlenAbraham"] + ------ + ''2005-10-31 22:29:37'' [[nbsp]] To whomever did the Halloween logo, pumpkin & bones: That's really slick! --["Users/SteveDavison"] + ''2005-11-01 02:48:34'' [[nbsp]] Thanks, check out our ["Wiki Logo" other holiday logos] --["Users/MikeIvanov"]
Line 108:	Line 108:
- Michael, you bring up a good point, and I should clarify that I was somewhat conflicted in making that page. On the one hand, my review page isn't something thats set up to be edited by others, comments section aside. Thats makes it admittedly un-wikilike, and i'm 100% open to comments for the page's continuation or removal. On the one hand, I felt it useful because I make enough restaurant comments to warrant some kind of a calibration and summary page. I'm harsh (but fair) on lots of reviews, and I find it useful for people to understand thats a general bias on my part. Also, I'm hesitant to leave a vague comment such as "i liked it" or "eh, okay" or an overly smarmy comment on a page if I don't have more evidence to back it up. Finally, with regards to one of my particularly nasty reviews, I felt that putting the info on the individual page was largely a historical point, and would do more damage to the business than was really fair. ["CraigBrozinsky"]	+ Michael, you bring up a good point, and I should clarify that I was somewhat conflicted in making that page. On the one hand, my review page isn't something thats set up to be edited by others, comments section aside. Thats makes it admittedly un-wikilike, and i'm 100% open to comments for the page's continuation or removal. On the one hand, I felt it useful because I make enough restaurant comments to warrant some kind of a calibration and summary page. I'm harsh (but fair) on lots of reviews, and I find it useful for people to understand thats a general bias on my part. Also, I'm hesitant to leave a vague comment such as "i liked it" or "eh, okay" or an overly smarmy comment on a page if I don't have more evidence to back it up. Finally, with regards to one of my particularly nasty reviews, I felt that putting the info on the individual page was largely a historical point, and would do more damage to the business than was really fair. ["Users/CraigBrozinsky"]
Line 110:	Line 110:
- 2005-11-25 Just noticed the Wiki is listed on an [http://www.housing.ucdavis.edu/Current/ official UC Davis web site]. In fact, it's the '''only''' non-ucdavis resource listed, I take that as an acknowledgment of accomplishment. --["SteveDavison"] - ------ - ''2005-12-14 11:01:13'' [[nbsp]] recently, there seems to be a lot of strange editing behavior on the wiki. where would be a good place to discourage [wiki:WikiPedia:Sock_puppet sock puppets]? --["CraigBrozinsky"] - ------ - ''2005-12-23 11:22:50'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - * Other than for code development or socializing, what would be the purpose? i may be misinterpreting your suggestions, but i kind of like the way things are-- no bureaucracy, no explicit group of people making decisions for the rest, and a generally laid back attitude. -- ["CraigBrozinsky"] - * I think you are misinterpreting me slightly. All I am suggesting is that we discuss the future rather than just blindly waiting. As far as no "explicit group of people making decisions", that's already not the case: there is an explicit group who know the root password. Making it 100% democratic is probably undesirable. --["SteveDavison"] - * Philip and I have discussed this, and neither of us think it's a good idea to put the wiki into the hands of any sort of committee. We have discussed our vision and goals, but it's probably not such a good idea to try to steer something like the wiki, but we tried to point it in a positive direction to start with. --["MikeIvanov"] - * It doesn't have to be a private matter. For instance, if Philip -or others- created a page "Wiki/Future" and started a discussion of what the Wiki ''could'' be, I think that would be a good thing. Should the Wiki be mostly for UCD students or should effort be made to broaden it's community outreach? Should every Davis business be listed here? Is the intention to have it grow several fold or stay sort of as-is? Or is the plan just to be totally hands-off and see what happens? In any case, I think some clear thinking is always a good thing. --["SteveDavison"]	+ 2005-11-25 Just noticed the Wiki is listed on an [http://www.housing.ucdavis.edu/Current/ official UC Davis web site]. In fact, it's the '''only''' non-ucdavis resource listed, I take that as an acknowledgment of accomplishment. --["Users/SteveDavison"] + ------ + ''2005-12-14 11:01:13'' [[nbsp]] recently, there seems to be a lot of strange editing behavior on the wiki. where would be a good place to discourage [wiki:WikiPedia:Sock_puppet sock puppets]? --["Users/CraigBrozinsky"] + ------ + ''2005-12-23 11:22:50'' [[nbsp]] 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.) --["Users/SteveDavison"] + * Other than for code development or socializing, what would be the purpose? i may be misinterpreting your suggestions, but i kind of like the way things are-- no bureaucracy, no explicit group of people making decisions for the rest, and a generally laid back attitude. -- ["Users/CraigBrozinsky"] + * I think you are misinterpreting me slightly. All I am suggesting is that we discuss the future rather than just blindly waiting. As far as no "explicit group of people making decisions", that's already not the case: there is an explicit group who know the root password. Making it 100% democratic is probably undesirable. --["Users/SteveDavison"] + * Philip and I have discussed this, and neither of us think it's a good idea to put the wiki into the hands of any sort of committee. We have discussed our vision and goals, but it's probably not such a good idea to try to steer something like the wiki, but we tried to point it in a positive direction to start with. --["Users/MikeIvanov"] + * It doesn't have to be a private matter. For instance, if Philip -or others- created a page "Wiki/Future" and started a discussion of what the Wiki ''could'' be, I think that would be a good thing. Should the Wiki be mostly for UCD students or should effort be made to broaden it's community outreach? Should every Davis business be listed here? Is the intention to have it grow several fold or stay sort of as-is? Or is the plan just to be totally hands-off and see what happens? In any case, I think some clear thinking is always a good thing. --["Users/SteveDavison"]
Line 122:	Line 122:
- * I'm open to anything. In the code/server sense, I think having some sort of small yet established group that is responsible for maintence of the site (at a high-level), is probably a good idea for long-term growth of the site. ["ArlenAbraham"]'s been looking into non-profit status. By simply declaring non-profit we have to create an entity, so this will probably have to happen. --["PhilipNeustrom"] - ------ - ''2006-01-26 21:28:06'' [[nbsp]] ["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"] - Shit. --["GrahamFreeman"] - - If people treat the wiki soley to host myspace type pages on, we can always just edit their pages to be more relevant, right? --["JosephBleckman"] - Agreed... relevant userpages are one thing, blatant "ooh lookitme I'm so popular" so-called profiles are icky-ew. --["CindySperry"] - The non comment part of Mr. Keys' profile seems quite exceptionally good, although his Daily Random Fact thing's way too myspace/blog like for my likings. --["JosephBleckman"] - The problem with editing MySpace-type pages is that MySpace-type users tend to spend inordinate amounts of time on the internet. --["RoyWright"] - - I think user pages are user pages. So what if they want fluff on their page? I think it only makes that user look bad or useless or whatever. All we can really do it maybe add some links and hope they don't get deleted. I say the more people using the wiki the better. I've heard from so many people who used the wiki to find an apartment or look up some late night food, even if they don't sign up and edit. And I think that means we've "done our job." So who cares if someone's on it and not doing anything? There's not a whole lot of... censorship? authority? there's really no rules that says you need to do X amount of edits for every X amount of days/weeks/months you're on the wiki, there's no rules saying how many links you have to have on your personal page, so let people do what they want. It's their page that will suck and not yours. -["michelleaccurso"] - ------ - ''2006-01-31 17:04:04'' [[nbsp]] 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'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - Good point. People dots would be cool if they were live, but at this point, they just add clutter. I'll go delete myself now. -- ["ArlenAbraham"]	+ * I'm open to anything. In the code/server sense, I think having some sort of small yet established group that is responsible for maintence of the site (at a high-level), is probably a good idea for long-term growth of the site. ["Users/ArlenAbraham"]'s been looking into non-profit status. By simply declaring non-profit we have to create an entity, so this will probably have to happen. --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"] + ------ + ''2006-01-26 21:28:06'' [[nbsp]] ["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. --["Users/JohnDudek"] + Shit. --["Users/GrahamFreeman"] + + If people treat the wiki soley to host myspace type pages on, we can always just edit their pages to be more relevant, right? --["Users/JosephBleckman"] + Agreed... relevant userpages are one thing, blatant "ooh lookitme I'm so popular" so-called profiles are icky-ew. --["Users/CindySperry"] + The non comment part of Mr. Keys' profile seems quite exceptionally good, although his Daily Random Fact thing's way too myspace/blog like for my likings. --["Users/JosephBleckman"] + The problem with editing MySpace-type pages is that MySpace-type users tend to spend inordinate amounts of time on the internet. --["Users/RoyWright"] + + I think user pages are user pages. So what if they want fluff on their page? I think it only makes that user look bad or useless or whatever. All we can really do it maybe add some links and hope they don't get deleted. I say the more people using the wiki the better. I've heard from so many people who used the wiki to find an apartment or look up some late night food, even if they don't sign up and edit. And I think that means we've "done our job." So who cares if someone's on it and not doing anything? There's not a whole lot of... censorship? authority? there's really no rules that says you need to do X amount of edits for every X amount of days/weeks/months you're on the wiki, there's no rules saying how many links you have to have on your personal page, so let people do what they want. It's their page that will suck and not yours. -["Users/michelleaccurso"] + ------ + ''2006-01-31 17:04:04'' [[nbsp]] We had 21 minutes of downtime due to another user on our system un-gracefully restarting our webserver. Everything should be fine now. --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"] + ------ + ''2006-02-18 03:50:39'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/DussonYeung"] + Good point. People dots would be cool if they were live, but at this point, they just add clutter. I'll go delete myself now. -- ["Users/ArlenAbraham"]
Line 141:	Line 141:
- ''2006-06-18 09:58:09'' [[nbsp]] 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'' [[nbsp]] should ["Today's Events"] be admin only? i can't see why someone would need to edit that. --["ArlenAbraham"]	+ ''2006-06-18 09:58:09'' [[nbsp]] 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? --["Users/ArlenAbraham"] + ------ + ''2006-07-20 13:04:50'' [[nbsp]] should ["Today's Events"] be admin only? i can't see why someone would need to edit that. --["Users/ArlenAbraham"]
Line 147:	Line 147:
- ''Debating on a Wiki is only a little less stupid than using a wrench to pound a nail. The Wiki is designed to coallate information and to that end hosts closed target debates that are deleted when over. Opened ended debates can't be deleted and combed over for information to place in an entry. When are you going to delete these to produce third person entries that have specific relevance to Davis and are useful to visitors? This entry is quite possibly one of the most deadly to the Wiki, producing volumes of material ill-suited to the Wiki itself. Much better that this go to one of the sites [http://davisforums.com/ intended] for [http://ucdavis.livejournal.com/ debate].'' -- ["JabberWokky"]	+ ''Debating on a Wiki is only a little less stupid than using a wrench to pound a nail. The Wiki is designed to coallate information and to that end hosts closed target debates that are deleted when over. Opened ended debates can't be deleted and combed over for information to place in an entry. When are you going to delete these to produce third person entries that have specific relevance to Davis and are useful to visitors? This entry is quite possibly one of the most deadly to the Wiki, producing volumes of material ill-suited to the Wiki itself. Much better that this go to one of the sites [http://davisforums.com/ intended] for [http://ucdavis.livejournal.com/ debate].'' -- ["Users/JabberWokky"]
Line 152:	Line 152:
- I also think those pages are dumb, but a lot of people like standing on top of soap boxes. One thing that I don't know is how visible those pages are to JoeUser who doesn't obsessively watch Recent Changes. While I think the pages are dumb, I'm not sure deleting them is the best idea. People use the wiki as a fourm because it's easy to use, lots of people use it, and people like to argue. We could go around wantonly deleting pointless debate, but more pointless debate would just grow back. I think what we need to is attack this beast slowly. I don't have a plan of action here, but perhaps we can start by making a page on why people shouldn't have open ended debates, then deleting or sumarizing existing pages. For example on the abortion page, we can have a link to something like discussion and then the discussion page can talk about why discussing abortion on the wiki is pointless. I think a lot of people are going to object to this plan. The wiki has the potential to be an instrument for social change, and some people feel that abortion should be illegal in davis and will try their damnedest to make this happen. I want to see choice voting happen, and I would probably participate in a discussion on choice voting. Is a discussion about choice voting ok on the wiki? How do we decide what discussion is relevant and what is not? The Measure X page was huge and didn't really accomplish anything. Pages like Measure X and abortion become so large that they only serve the people actively involved in discussion. Ugh, now i'm rambling... --["ArlenAbraham"] - - I may be best to discuss removing specific things rather than to say that any debate or discussion on the wiki is pointless. Let's try and avoid making Davis Wiki boring. While I generally agree that debate about certain things, such as vegetarianism, aren't really locally relevant, there are a number of global issues that folks may feel are relevant to Davis itself or would like to maybe discuss with Davis itself. But it's probably best to have these dealt with on a case-by-case basis? --["PhilipNeustrom"] - - - Oh, I agree totally. Debate on the Wiki is very important, and I'm ''not'' looking to just stomp on everything calling itself a Debate. That's why I referred to a "good" debate (Cult/Talk)... there are several more, some of which have lasted for a long long time and are chaotic -- Measure X is a good example of using the Wiki as a Forum for a Davis issue. I'm referring to "open debates" about non-Wiki, non-Davis issues. Yes, they need to be approached on a case by case basis. I'm bringing it up because the rapid appearance of several that are, in my mind, starting to cross out of the domain of the Wiki. As I say, that line is one that the community should draw together, and (somewhat ironically), I'm trying to start debate on the issue to feel out the opinions of others. Fundamentally, I'm worrying about the long view -- what the shape of the Wiki will look like in, say, 2010. Rather than thinking about an edit of a specific entry, I'm thinking what series of edits can be done to "prune and shape" a growing, organic whole into a better end result. Talk pages or long blocks of comments are fantastic because people know they will dwindle and disappear, enriching the entry. Reviews (a specific form of comment) stand alone as a sampling of individual opinions without compromise. Debates on Davis issues function as minutes of a town hall open forum, a record of the zeitgeist of the community on certain issues. But even the real world town forums should not lapse into tangents too far astray. Mosquito spraying or Measure X, yes. Even "Too damn Hot..." makes perfect sense (my earlier comment regarding it was in the heat of passion on the issue). The Wiki should have character. But I've always been leery of Abortion Debate as a topic too far astray from that "town hall meeting" qualification. Having a "General Debate" on the topic of Food or an unprompted debate on "Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism" worries me that the scope of debate has exited the boundaries of what is appropriate -- what is prompted for by the needs of the Wiki. DavisWiki is not Google Groups or Blogger. Unless the community just likes debating on the Wiki and feel that's a path the site should take... in which case I'll be perfectly happy with it. ''But I worry that debate has become the purpose, rather than debate having a purpose''... which is a very subtle and ''very'' fundamental shift which I feel will have profound effects on the shape of the Wiki as a whole. --["JabberWokky" jw] - - - 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"] - - Sharla -- you posted this while I was writing the above. Seed topics have always been something I've seen as important and defended; Juvenile Justice is certainly a example of a excellent topic. I even think colors can be turned into the basis for good Davis relevant entries. I'm talking about chatter between a few people that just goes back and forth about topics unrelated to Davis, the Wiki, and have no general intent other than as a place to chat. Hopefully my above comment clarifies what I was referring to. --["JabberWokky" jw] - ------ - ''2006-07-30 18:47:51'' [[nbsp]] 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"] - * It probably should be done. There's a footnote macro just perfect for that... before the macro accepted links (the Dark Days), I used to use the following format: During the 19th annual Dixon Lambtown USA mutton bustin' competition, the winner stayed on a bucking lamb for 5.35 seconds. ( '''[http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/07/30/news/154new0.txt Source]''' ). You can see that format here and there... either that or the footnote macro should be decided on for the ["Wiki Style Guide"]. --["JabberWokky" jw] - ------ - ''2006-10-18 16:40:36'' [[nbsp]] 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"]	+ I also think those pages are dumb, but a lot of people like standing on top of soap boxes. One thing that I don't know is how visible those pages are to JoeUser who doesn't obsessively watch Recent Changes. While I think the pages are dumb, I'm not sure deleting them is the best idea. People use the wiki as a fourm because it's easy to use, lots of people use it, and people like to argue. We could go around wantonly deleting pointless debate, but more pointless debate would just grow back. I think what we need to is attack this beast slowly. I don't have a plan of action here, but perhaps we can start by making a page on why people shouldn't have open ended debates, then deleting or sumarizing existing pages. For example on the abortion page, we can have a link to something like discussion and then the discussion page can talk about why discussing abortion on the wiki is pointless. I think a lot of people are going to object to this plan. The wiki has the potential to be an instrument for social change, and some people feel that abortion should be illegal in davis and will try their damnedest to make this happen. I want to see choice voting happen, and I would probably participate in a discussion on choice voting. Is a discussion about choice voting ok on the wiki? How do we decide what discussion is relevant and what is not? The Measure X page was huge and didn't really accomplish anything. Pages like Measure X and abortion become so large that they only serve the people actively involved in discussion. Ugh, now i'm rambling... --["Users/ArlenAbraham"] + + I may be best to discuss removing specific things rather than to say that any debate or discussion on the wiki is pointless. Let's try and avoid making Davis Wiki boring. While I generally agree that debate about certain things, such as vegetarianism, aren't really locally relevant, there are a number of global issues that folks may feel are relevant to Davis itself or would like to maybe discuss with Davis itself. But it's probably best to have these dealt with on a case-by-case basis? --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"] + + + Oh, I agree totally. Debate on the Wiki is very important, and I'm ''not'' looking to just stomp on everything calling itself a Debate. That's why I referred to a "good" debate (Cult/Talk)... there are several more, some of which have lasted for a long long time and are chaotic -- Measure X is a good example of using the Wiki as a Forum for a Davis issue. I'm referring to "open debates" about non-Wiki, non-Davis issues. Yes, they need to be approached on a case by case basis. I'm bringing it up because the rapid appearance of several that are, in my mind, starting to cross out of the domain of the Wiki. As I say, that line is one that the community should draw together, and (somewhat ironically), I'm trying to start debate on the issue to feel out the opinions of others. Fundamentally, I'm worrying about the long view -- what the shape of the Wiki will look like in, say, 2010. Rather than thinking about an edit of a specific entry, I'm thinking what series of edits can be done to "prune and shape" a growing, organic whole into a better end result. Talk pages or long blocks of comments are fantastic because people know they will dwindle and disappear, enriching the entry. Reviews (a specific form of comment) stand alone as a sampling of individual opinions without compromise. Debates on Davis issues function as minutes of a town hall open forum, a record of the zeitgeist of the community on certain issues. But even the real world town forums should not lapse into tangents too far astray. Mosquito spraying or Measure X, yes. Even "Too damn Hot..." makes perfect sense (my earlier comment regarding it was in the heat of passion on the issue). The Wiki should have character. But I've always been leery of Abortion Debate as a topic too far astray from that "town hall meeting" qualification. Having a "General Debate" on the topic of Food or an unprompted debate on "Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism" worries me that the scope of debate has exited the boundaries of what is appropriate -- what is prompted for by the needs of the Wiki. DavisWiki is not Google Groups or Blogger. Unless the community just likes debating on the Wiki and feel that's a path the site should take... in which case I'll be perfectly happy with it. ''But I worry that debate has become the purpose, rather than debate having a purpose''... which is a very subtle and ''very'' fundamental shift which I feel will have profound effects on the shape of the Wiki as a whole. --["Users/JabberWokky" jw] + + + 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. --["Users/SharlaDaly"] + + Sharla -- you posted this while I was writing the above. Seed topics have always been something I've seen as important and defended; Juvenile Justice is certainly a example of a excellent topic. I even think colors can be turned into the basis for good Davis relevant entries. I'm talking about chatter between a few people that just goes back and forth about topics unrelated to Davis, the Wiki, and have no general intent other than as a place to chat. Hopefully my above comment clarifies what I was referring to. --["Users/JabberWokky" jw] + ------ + ''2006-07-30 18:47:51'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/AndrewChen"] + * It probably should be done. There's a footnote macro just perfect for that... before the macro accepted links (the Dark Days), I used to use the following format: During the 19th annual Dixon Lambtown USA mutton bustin' competition, the winner stayed on a bucking lamb for 5.35 seconds. ( '''[http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/07/30/news/154new0.txt Source]''' ). You can see that format here and there... either that or the footnote macro should be decided on for the ["Wiki Style Guide"]. --["Users/JabberWokky" jw] + ------ + ''2006-10-18 16:40:36'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["Users/KevinRobinson"]
Line 169:	Line 169:
- ''Should included notices (Photo Request, Stub, etc) go at the top or bottom of the entry? Wikipedia uses the top, presumably so they stand out more. Since some of ours (like Photo Request) sit on entries for quite awhile, and a placement at the top detracts from the entry. I'd say they should go at the bottom in general, as they stand out quite nicely on their own, and thus don't get "in the way" when a visitor (especially a non-wiki savvy one) reads the entry. STOP and Copy/Paste would probably be exceptions, as they indicate far more serious notifications that affect the entry and should be known before the entry is read (that there's a dispute, or that the content may not be legal to use elsewhere). Thoughts?'' --["JabberWokky"] - ------ - ''2007-01-30 15:09:01'' [[nbsp]] I'm having trouble with posting times on the event board. My event shows at the correct time on my computer and an hour later on my assistant's computer. The time of the event that she posted shows correctly on her computer and wrong on mine. --["ErieVitiello"] - ''2007-01-30 15:08:14'' [[nbsp]] Perhaps, check and see if you are in the same timezone. Go to settings and make sure you both are UTC -8.00 hrs --["MaxMikalonis"] - The wiki adjusts for users who live in different time zones. Check your . Pacific Standard Time is -8 hours from UTC (Universal Coordinated Time) --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------ - ''2007-02-23 13:12:19'' [[nbsp]] Anybody have ANY idea where to link ["Maguid Security"] from? --["JabberWokky"] - I'm sure there are other security firms that provide service in Davis. It's just an issue of finding them, making pages of them, making a ["Security Services"] page, and going out and photographing a security guard (the fun part). --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------ - ''2007-03-18 12:39:17'' [[nbsp]] Do we want to list departed businesses from outside Davis? Keeping a historical record for Davis makes sense. I'm divided myself on the issue, just tossing it out to see what other feel. --["JabberWokky"] - * I think it should depend on how relevant the business is to the Davis community. If its a business that has plenty of others of its type in the Davis Area, it might not be that notable, but if it was very distinctive and played a key nitch in the Davis community (like a sole BBQ place in the area, or something like that) than it is worth remembering. If we start keeping tabs on all departed businesses in the region it would, I think, be equivient to expanding the scope of this wiki. Which isn't something I'd nessecarily disagree with, but I feel we'd need to be concious of that choice. --["JosephBleckman"]	+ ''Should included notices (Photo Request, Stub, etc) go at the top or bottom of the entry? Wikipedia uses the top, presumably so they stand out more. Since some of ours (like Photo Request) sit on entries for quite awhile, and a placement at the top detracts from the entry. I'd say they should go at the bottom in general, as they stand out quite nicely on their own, and thus don't get "in the way" when a visitor (especially a non-wiki savvy one) reads the entry. STOP and Copy/Paste would probably be exceptions, as they indicate far more serious notifications that affect the entry and should be known before the entry is read (that there's a dispute, or that the content may not be legal to use elsewhere). Thoughts?'' --["Users/JabberWokky"] + ------ + ''2007-01-30 15:09:01'' [[nbsp]] I'm having trouble with posting times on the event board. My event shows at the correct time on my computer and an hour later on my assistant's computer. The time of the event that she posted shows correctly on her computer and wrong on mine. --["Users/ErieVitiello"] + ''2007-01-30 15:08:14'' [[nbsp]] Perhaps, check and see if you are in the same timezone. Go to settings and make sure you both are UTC -8.00 hrs --["Users/MaxMikalonis"] + The wiki adjusts for users who live in different time zones. Check your . Pacific Standard Time is -8 hours from UTC (Universal Coordinated Time) --["Users/ArlenAbraham"] + ------ + ''2007-02-23 13:12:19'' [[nbsp]] Anybody have ANY idea where to link ["Maguid Security"] from? --["Users/JabberWokky"] + I'm sure there are other security firms that provide service in Davis. It's just an issue of finding them, making pages of them, making a ["Security Services"] page, and going out and photographing a security guard (the fun part). --["Users/ArlenAbraham"] + ------ + ''2007-03-18 12:39:17'' [[nbsp]] Do we want to list departed businesses from outside Davis? Keeping a historical record for Davis makes sense. I'm divided myself on the issue, just tossing it out to see what other feel. --["Users/JabberWokky"] + * I think it should depend on how relevant the business is to the Davis community. If its a business that has plenty of others of its type in the Davis Area, it might not be that notable, but if it was very distinctive and played a key nitch in the Davis community (like a sole BBQ place in the area, or something like that) than it is worth remembering. If we start keeping tabs on all departed businesses in the region it would, I think, be equivient to expanding the scope of this wiki. Which isn't something I'd nessecarily disagree with, but I feel we'd need to be concious of that choice. --["Users/JosephBleckman"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2008-04-04 09:15:10

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 196:	Line 196:
	+ ------ + ''2008-04-04 10:03:47'' [[nbsp]] I definitely don't think that anyone should be silenced! The wiki is a very good thing, and most of the comments are probably fair. I'd really like to see businesses improve based on feedback in the wiki. The goal is to improve things for everyone, right? I do feel bad though reading things like the attacks on the owner of the Village Bakery. Maybe they are valid. Maybe they aren't. I really don't know, as I have no involvement with that business. But how am I to tell? There's apparently one or more angry workers and an angry owner, and no evidence supporting either side. Who do I believe? (And not just in this particular case.) + + In most cases though, I don't see the businesses responding. Are they aware of the wiki? Do they know how to respond? --["Users/IDoNotExist"] + + * There probably isn't a simple answer. The edge cases have to be taken one by one, and if editors disagree, then it gets discussed. It is hard to delete a comment, and it should be. The only real place where there could be more activity is outreach, and even then some people don't use computers at all, while some simply won't want to participate in a group they can't control. There will be some nasty cases of people butting heads... just like off the wiki. If there weren't, the wiki probably wouldn't be a good reflection of Davis. There are some very nasty things on the wiki that do jibe with my personal experience. If I hadn't seen actions by a business owner, I would have thought it was an outlandish accusation. In other cases, a very serious claim was made, questioned, and then followed up with several people saying that the same thing happened to them. Just like in real life, figuring out whose reviews to trust, and who to trust on serious claims is a social thing, not a technical issue (other than outing chicanery like sockpuppets -- which can occur in real life "And all my friends agree!"). --jw

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2008-04-04 09:00:32

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 192:	Line 192:
	+ ------ + ''2008-04-04 09:25:42'' [[nbsp]] There has been a good deal of work put into business outreach, although it will perpetually be an ongoing effort. The problem is that the badmouthing is associated with the wiki because it is visible here, as opposed to sidewalk conversations. See ["Welcome to the Wiki"] for some effort that has gone into outreach, and the business owner's section for specifically business oriented outreach. ["Users/JasonAller" Jason] has also put together some print materials and presentations for business groups. Empowering the businesses makes more sense than quieting the consumers[[Footnote(Except in one very specific case which has been batted around in email and really should be brought up on the wiki, which I'll do in the next day or two)]]. Why should a comment or review on the wiki be treated any differently than a person's comment or review elsewhere... on a blog, a newspaper or an email? Better Business Bureau works in the same way as the wiki -- collect complaints and allow businesses a chance to answer to them. Yes, wiki reviews tend to be more critical (so do the BBB reports), but then the wiki isn't depending on the local businesses for advertising... check out the reviews in the Enterprise or Aggie of local restaurants (which are their paying clients) versus their reviews of movies. There seems to be a feeling of "you can't say bad things about me in print, no matter if it is true or not" among quite a few businesses. + + The wiki is also not a business/consumer binary system... it is merely an subject/individual system, and that is important to remember lest we fall into a "group vs. group" view. The wiki reveals the opinions of the people in the community. That opinion is almost never going to be purely positive, and there are going to be people dead set against the practices or aesthetics of the business. Should the community not be given a voice? If so, who should be allowed to review (or even write)? Of course there are obnoxious edge examples involving people with a personal stake, and winnowing those out is part of how the wiki works. Outreach to businesses is a key factor as well... feel free to help! --["Users/JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

PhilipNeustrom — 2008-04-04 08:36:05

moved comment here

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 190:	Line 190:
	+ ------ + I think there is a problem here with people making comments about businesses (correct or not) where the businesses do not know how to respond. One business owner complained to me for half an hour on the phone that the comments on the wiki had been destroying their business, as they were a franchise and the company that they franchised from was threatening to take away part of their franchise. (Note: I never mentioned the wiki, and in fact I found them because they were listed on the wiki!) I also don't think that the comments on the wiki were likely to be inaccurate, as they reflected my experience when I used that business many years ago. But the point is that they didn't understand how to address the issues raised on the wiki - either by changing how their business operates to address those issues, or by explaining what was happening on the wiki. Even after I explained to them how they could respond on the wiki itself, they didn't post anything. They may not understand how to, or may not even be comfortable with using computers. In any case, things do get a bit one sided - people post often when they have complaints, but not so often when they are satisfied. And most businesses don't know how to respond, even though they could. It seems important to change the situation so that businesses that need to improve can do so, and so that those that don't can address negative comments. Perhaps a suggestions section for each business would allow people to recommend improvements to how they operate or in their customer service? Perhaps something else? I'm really not sure what the best solution is here... --["Users/IDoNotExist"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JamesSchwab — 2007-12-18 12:34:20

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 188:	Line 188:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-18 12:34:20'' [[nbsp]] How should we deal with the advertisements the apartment complexes put on their pages? --["Users/JamesSchwab"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

BrentLaabs — 2007-12-11 17:45:41

That last edit was a CLEANUP

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 187:	Line 187:
- ''2007-12-11 14:37:34'' [[nbsp]] Anybody know about/want to writeup the proposal for the bike and electric vehicle only road to Woodland? I've just heard about it on the radio; they are reporting it uses the right of way of the railroad? I figure somebody must know the details, probably more in depth than media reports. --["Users/JabberWokky"]	+ ''2007-12-11 14:37:34'' [[nbsp]] Anybody know about/want to writeup the proposal for the bike and electric vehicle only road to Woodland? I've just heard about it on the radio; they are reporting it uses the right of way of the railroad? I figure somebody must know the details, probably more in depth than media reports. --["Users/JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-12-11 14:45:19

Removed some old more "fluff/dated" threads. Feel free to restore any.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 167:	Line 167:
- ''2006-08-07 23:20:16'' [[nbsp]] 6995 pages... almost 7000! --["BrentLaabs"] - ------
Line 170:	Line 168:
- ------ - ''2006-12-01 10:20:44'' [[nbsp]] Just out of curiosity, how does everybody feel about tags? --["JabberWokky"] - I think tags work well for something like flickr where i'm too lazy to write a description, and in one click i can see everyone else's photos of the same thing, but i'm not sure if they'd be appropriate for the wiki. Xapian searches seem to be working well. --["ArlenAbraham"] - In general I agree. I was thinking something to tag types of entries and present a sidebar. Things like {pet}. I thought of it applied to dWiki because of the discussion that was removed about titling pets. I'm just tossing out the topic to see what the community thinks. --["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. [http://guide.sacbee.com/customer_service/story/10758106p-11676299c.html The link is here to order back issues].'' -- ["JabberWokky"] -
Line 187:	Line 178:
- I just locked Steve out of his public profile, combined with an include to allow him to voice his opinions. This aims to be a temporary test to see if we can work together in a different manner. I'm not going to edit related entries while that lock is in place. I ask the wiki community to please take his viewpoint into consideration and edit gracefully, allowing his points to be included in the entry. This is not a license to run amok on his entry, and I'll regret having done this if any abuse of his entry occurs. ''The end goal is to work together.'' --["JabberWokky"] - ------
Line 191:	Line 180:
- ------ - ''2007-03-23 17:39:08'' [[nbsp]] As a section header: "Photos" or "Pictures"? I've been using Photos because I thought more people were using it. I note that Pictures are popping up more often. Anything but "Images", damn their black hearts. Seriously, however, if we can pick one and add it to the style guide, der gnomen guild will likely slowly massage the entries that way. Anybody else care? Hello? Is this thing on? --["JabberWokky"] - * A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds! - * As much as I work to make entries more readable, I really like the ones that don't fit the "standard look" because they are exceptional -- they have amusing introductions, panoramic photos, goofy links... they are harder to write, but darn if they aren't more fun to read. Of course, there are some that you read and wonder "but what is it?". Honestly, I just tossed out the Photo/Picture "debate" our of curiosity to see if anybody else even noticed. --jw - * I've been using "pictures" because I haven't found a standard anywhere... I'll happily switch to whatever myself, though to me "pictures" is a more commonly used term in general speaking than "photos" or "images". IMHO, but not a very strong O. --["WesHardaker"] - ------ - ''2007-04-28 09:33:07'' [[nbsp]] Can anyone recommend a good financial planner in Davis? Is this the right forum for this topic? - -Thanks --["Users/ryman"]
Line 204:	Line 185:
- ''2007-12-10 16:50:17'' [[nbsp]] I've tried to delete ["Winter 2008 ASUCD Election/Talk"] (or the contents thereof) a few times now, but they keep getting restored. I guess this means that the wiki community wants me keep flaming Friedman, right? Because I'm not going to admit defeat, but I am willing to let this stuff go away. --["Users/BrentLaabs"] - ------

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-12-11 14:37:34

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 207:	Line 207:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-11 14:37:34'' [[nbsp]] Anybody know about/want to writeup the proposal for the bike and electric vehicle only road to Woodland? I've just heard about it on the radio; they are reporting it uses the right of way of the railroad? I figure somebody must know the details, probably more in depth than media reports. --["Users/JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-12-11 14:35:44

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- '''Older Comments can be found by going through the revision history in the ''Info'' tab. Comments are deleted only in entries marked "CLEANUP" -- ["KenBloom"]'''	+ \|\|<#ffffcc tableborder="1" :>'''Older Comments can be found by going through the revision history in the ''Info'' tab. Comments are deleted only in entries marked "CLEANUP"'''\|\|

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-12-11 14:34:34

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 205:	Line 205:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-11 14:34:34'' [[nbsp]] It might be a good idea to take some newer photos of some locations, or get some photos that represent the actual place rather than the opening days. For instance, ["Pita Pit"] and ["Burgers and Brew"] both reflect the opening (or in the latter case, before the opening). --["Users/JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

BrentLaabs — 2007-12-10 16:50:17

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 203:	Line 203:
	+ ------ + ''2007-12-10 16:50:17'' [[nbsp]] I've tried to delete ["Winter 2008 ASUCD Election/Talk"] (or the contents thereof) a few times now, but they keep getting restored. I guess this means that the wiki community wants me keep flaming Friedman, right? Because I'm not going to admit defeat, but I am willing to let this stuff go away. --["Users/BrentLaabs"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

PhilipNeustrom — 2007-08-17 20:47:58

reply to williamlewis

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 201:	Line 201:
	+ + Is it just new accounts, though? If so, it is probably the case that they create the account (on the hub) and then don't go back to Davis Wiki -- they just create the page on the hub. We should change it so people get redirected to the wiki they clicked from. A bit about this is on the [wiki:wikispot:"Feature Requests"] page. --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WilliamLewis — 2007-08-17 20:34:49

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
	+ ------ + ''2007-08-17 21:34:49'' [[nbsp]] As of late, quite a few people have created pages on the wikispot hub that were intended for DavisWiki. What is probably happening is that they follow help links (which are interwiki links) and then they get to work on the hub w/o realizing that they have gone to another wiki. It's good to put the basic help docs on the hub for new wikis to use. However, I believe that this whole interwiki confusion would be resolved by keeping copies of all the help docs on dwiki. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ryman — 2007-04-28 09:33:07

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 196:	Line 196:
	+ ------ + ''2007-04-28 09:33:07'' [[nbsp]] Can anyone recommend a good financial planner in Davis? Is this the right forum for this topic? + -Thanks --["Users/ryman"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JasonAller — 2007-04-01 23:07:29

Revert to version 205 (Reverting out April Fools Day stuff).

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 196:	Line 196:
- ------- - '''JasonAller has been banned for uploading disgusting photos'''. The ban will last a week or so, until he can cool off a bit. Sorry this had to happen folks, but at least everybody else has a chance to catch up to Mr. Wündereditor. --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-04-01 12:41:31

re: JasonAller Ban

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 196:	Line 196:
	+ ------- + '''JasonAller has been banned for uploading disgusting photos'''. The ban will last a week or so, until he can cool off a bit. Sorry this had to happen folks, but at least everybody else has a chance to catch up to Mr. Wündereditor. --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WesHardaker — 2007-03-23 19:56:45

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 195:	Line 195:
	+ * I've been using "pictures" because I haven't found a standard anywhere... I'll happily switch to whatever myself, though to me "pictures" is a more commonly used term in general speaking than "photos" or "images". IMHO, but not a very strong O. --["WesHardaker"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-03-23 18:30:22

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 194:	Line 194:
	+ * As much as I work to make entries more readable, I really like the ones that don't fit the "standard look" because they are exceptional -- they have amusing introductions, panoramic photos, goofy links... they are harder to write, but darn if they aren't more fun to read. Of course, there are some that you read and wonder "but what is it?". Honestly, I just tossed out the Photo/Picture "debate" our of curiosity to see if anybody else even noticed. --jw

Wiki Community/General Discussion

PhilipNeustrom — 2007-03-23 17:35:38

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 190:	Line 190:
- * I think it should depend on how relevant the business is to the Davis community. If its a business that has plenty of others of its type in the Davis Area, it might not be that notable, but if it was very distinctive and played a key nitch in the Davis community (like a sole BBQ place in the area, or something like that) than it is worth remembering. If we start keeping tabs on all departed businesses in the region it would, I think, be equivient to expanding the scope of this wiki. Which isn't something I'd nessecarily disagree with, but I feel we'd need to be concious of that choice. --["JosephBleckman"]	+ * I think it should depend on how relevant the business is to the Davis community. If its a business that has plenty of others of its type in the Davis Area, it might not be that notable, but if it was very distinctive and played a key nitch in the Davis community (like a sole BBQ place in the area, or something like that) than it is worth remembering. If we start keeping tabs on all departed businesses in the region it would, I think, be equivient to expanding the scope of this wiki. Which isn't something I'd nessecarily disagree with, but I feel we'd need to be concious of that choice. --["JosephBleckman"]
Line 193:	Line 193:
	+ * A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-03-23 16:39:08

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 191:	Line 191:
	+ ------ + ''2007-03-23 17:39:08'' [[nbsp]] As a section header: "Photos" or "Pictures"? I've been using Photos because I thought more people were using it. I note that Pictures are popping up more often. Anything but "Images", damn their black hearts. Seriously, however, if we can pick one and add it to the style guide, der gnomen guild will likely slowly massage the entries that way. Anybody else care? Hello? Is this thing on? --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JosephBleckman — 2007-03-18 12:17:56

reply on the non-davis businesses question

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 190:	Line 190:
	+ * I think it should depend on how relevant the business is to the Davis community. If its a business that has plenty of others of its type in the Davis Area, it might not be that notable, but if it was very distinctive and played a key nitch in the Davis community (like a sole BBQ place in the area, or something like that) than it is worth remembering. If we start keeping tabs on all departed businesses in the region it would, I think, be equivient to expanding the scope of this wiki. Which isn't something I'd nessecarily disagree with, but I feel we'd need to be concious of that choice. --["JosephBleckman"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-03-18 11:39:17

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 188:	Line 188:
	+ ------ + ''2007-03-18 12:39:17'' [[nbsp]] Do we want to list departed businesses from outside Davis? Keeping a historical record for Davis makes sense. I'm divided myself on the issue, just tossing it out to see what other feel. --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ArlenAbraham — 2007-03-05 12:46:57

missed Ernie's double comment.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 180:	Line 180:
- ''2007-01-30 15:02:44'' [[nbsp]] I'm having trouble with posting times on the event board. My event shows at the correct time on my computer and an hour later on my assistant's computer. The time of the event that she posted shows correctly on her computer and wrong on mine. --["ErieVitiello"] - ------ - ''2007-01-30 15:08:14'' [[nbsp]] Perhaps, check and see if you are in the same timezone. Go to settings and make sure you both are UTC -8.00 hrs --["MaxMikalonis"] - ------
Line 185:	Line 181:
- The wiki adjusts for users who live in different time zones. Check your ["User Preferences"]. Pacific Standard Time is -8 hours from UTC (Universal Coordinated Time) --["ArlenAbraham"]	+ ''2007-01-30 15:08:14'' [[nbsp]] Perhaps, check and see if you are in the same timezone. Go to settings and make sure you both are UTC -8.00 hrs --["MaxMikalonis"] + The wiki adjusts for users who live in different time zones. Check your . Pacific Standard Time is -8 hours from UTC (Universal Coordinated Time) --["ArlenAbraham"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ArlenAbraham — 2007-03-05 12:42:22

cleanup, replies, fixed aggie link, spalling, threading

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 9:	Line 9:
- ------ - ''2005-03-30 17:32:03'' [[nbsp]] 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.	+ ''2005-03-30 17:32:03'' [[nbsp]] 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.
Line 12:	Line 11:
- 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"]	+ 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"]
Line 15:	Line 14:
- ------ - ''2005-03-30 17:43:08'' [[nbsp]] 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"]	+ ''2005-03-30 17:43:08'' [[nbsp]] 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"]
Line 24:	Line 22:
- ''2005-04-22 15:59:47'' [[nbsp]] 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 [http://dev.daviswiki.org/index.cgi/PhilipNeustrom here]? --["PhilipNeustrom"] - * Okay, so I changed this. Now all horizontal rules are the same thickness and display as a thin, padded line. I think this looks nicer. You might need to reload because this is a CSS change. --["PhilipNeustrom"] - * After quitting and then restarting Firefox and Safari, the lines are as you planned on Safari, but invisible on Firefox (OSX 10.3).--["CraigBrozinsky"] - * You need to reload the CSS... They work in Firefox because I use firefox :) - ------ - ''2005-04-23 11:15:31'' [[nbsp]] philip, you might want to force a reload. when i visited the site, i couldn't see the rules --["ArlenAbraham"] - * I changed the name of the css directory, which should hopefully force a reload of the CSS on most systems. I'm not sure what happens inside all of the browsers, but I guess that'll work. - * Works for me now. --["CraigBrozinsky"] - ------ - ''2005-04-23 15:01:34'' [[nbsp]] i'm not sure i like the new rules --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------
Line 40:	Line 27:
- ------ - ''2005-05-11 23:29:30'' [[nbsp]] 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"]
Line 54:	Line 39:
- ------	+ -----
Line 73:	Line 58:
	+ Is this covered by "or identify its contents?" --["ArlenAbraham"]
Line 98:	Line 84:
- What do you think it should be? Most of the time courts rule that those who provide services are not necessarily responsible for those who use them. So, this would be a case in which it was clear that there is a misuse and the non-removal of something is deemed a violation of some law or another? ["PhilipNeustrom"] [[BR]]	+ What do you think it should be? Most of the time courts rule that those who provide services are not necessarily responsible for those who use them. So, this would be a case in which it was clear that there is a misuse and the non-removal of something is deemed a violation of some law or another? ["PhilipNeustrom"]
Line 102:	Line 88:
	+ The >100 edit "bug" has been fixed. There will be a memory hole feature in the next software update. --["ArlenAbraham"]
Line 107:	Line 94:
- ''2005-09-27 14:33:57'' [[nbsp]] 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'' [[nbsp]] 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'' [[nbsp]] 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 [http://californiaaggie.ucdavis.edu/article/?id=10272 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"]	+ ''2005-10-15 00:59:43'' [[nbsp]] 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 [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/09/30/FrontPage/New-Bistro.Has.Old.Problems-1321175.shtml 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"]
Line 127:	Line 110:
- 2005-11-25 Just noticed the Wiki is listed on an [http://www.housing.ucdavis.edu/Current/ official UC Davis web site]. In fact, it's the '''only''' non-ucdavis resource listed, I take that as an acknowledgement of accomplishment. --["SteveDavison"]	+ 2005-11-25 Just noticed the Wiki is listed on an [http://www.housing.ucdavis.edu/Current/ official UC Davis web site]. In fact, it's the '''only''' non-ucdavis resource listed, I take that as an acknowledgment of accomplishment. --["SteveDavison"]
Line 129:	Line 112:
- ''2005-12-14 11:01:13'' [[nbsp]] recently, there seems to be a lot of strange editing behavior on the wiki. where would be a good place to discourage [wiki:WikiPedia:Wikipedia:Sock_puppet sock puppets]? --["CraigBrozinsky"]	+ ''2005-12-14 11:01:13'' [[nbsp]] recently, there seems to be a lot of strange editing behavior on the wiki. where would be a good place to discourage [wiki:WikiPedia:Sock_puppet sock puppets]? --["CraigBrozinsky"]
Line 202:	Line 185:
	+ The wiki adjusts for users who live in different time zones. Check your ["User Preferences"]. Pacific Standard Time is -8 hours from UTC (Universal Coordinated Time) --["ArlenAbraham"]
Line 204:	Line 188:
	+ I'm sure there are other security firms that provide service in Davis. It's just an issue of finding them, making pages of them, making a ["Security Services"] page, and going out and photographing a security guard (the fun part). --["ArlenAbraham"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-03-05 11:51:34

Comment on lock, allowing feedback.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 204:	Line 204:
	+ ------ + I just locked Steve out of his public profile, combined with an include to allow him to voice his opinions. This aims to be a temporary test to see if we can work together in a different manner. I'm not going to edit related entries while that lock is in place. I ask the wiki community to please take his viewpoint into consideration and edit gracefully, allowing his points to be included in the entry. This is not a license to run amok on his entry, and I'll regret having done this if any abuse of his entry occurs. ''The end goal is to work together.'' --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WilliamLewis — 2007-03-04 12:26:58

Revert to version 193 (rm out of place advertising).

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 204:	Line 204:
- ------ - ''2007-03-04 12:18:32'' [[nbsp]] - - American Planning Association Student Chapter at UC Davis - Last meeting of the quarter this TUESDAY, MARCH 6 from 5-6PM in 2120J - WICKSON (up the stairs and to the right). - - GUEST SPEAKER Terry Rivasplata, Sacramento Valley APA Section Director and - Senior Planner for Jones & Stokes! Bring your questions about CEQA, General - Plan updates, land use laws, environmental planning, and the difference - between the private and public sectors! - - At the 2006 State APA Conference, Terry Rivasplata received the Planners - Emeritus Network Honor Award for his ongoing contributions and advice on - CEQA compliance and general plan issues. During his 13 years at the - Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Terry co-authored several - editions of the State’s General Plan Guidelines. He has also assisted in - reviewing many of the bills proposed by the State Legislature related to - planning and the environment. Virtually anyone involved in California - planning owes a debt of gratitude to “Mr. CEQA.” - - See you Tuesday! - Colin B. Clarke - APA Student Chapter, UCD --["ColinClarke"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ColinClarke — 2007-03-04 12:21:35

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 205:	Line 205:
- ''2007-03-04 12:18:32'' [[nbsp]] Last meeting of the quarter this TUESDAY, MARCH 6 from 5-6PM in 2120J --["ColinClarke"]	+ ''2007-03-04 12:18:32'' [[nbsp]] + + American Planning Association Student Chapter at UC Davis + Last meeting of the quarter this TUESDAY, MARCH 6 from 5-6PM in 2120J + WICKSON (up the stairs and to the right). + + GUEST SPEAKER Terry Rivasplata, Sacramento Valley APA Section Director and + Senior Planner for Jones & Stokes! Bring your questions about CEQA, General + Plan updates, land use laws, environmental planning, and the difference + between the private and public sectors! + + At the 2006 State APA Conference, Terry Rivasplata received the Planners + Emeritus Network Honor Award for his ongoing contributions and advice on + CEQA compliance and general plan issues. During his 13 years at the + Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Terry co-authored several + editions of the State’s General Plan Guidelines. He has also assisted in + reviewing many of the bills proposed by the State Legislature related to + planning and the environment. Virtually anyone involved in California + planning owes a debt of gratitude to “Mr. CEQA.” + + See you Tuesday! + Colin B. Clarke + APA Student Chapter, UCD --["ColinClarke"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ColinClarke — 2007-03-04 12:18:32

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 204:	Line 204:
	+ ------ + ''2007-03-04 12:18:32'' [[nbsp]] Last meeting of the quarter this TUESDAY, MARCH 6 from 5-6PM in 2120J --["ColinClarke"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-02-23 13:12:19

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 202:	Line 202:
	+ ------ + ''2007-02-23 13:12:19'' [[nbsp]] Anybody have ANY idea where to link ["Maguid Security"] from? --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2007-02-09 20:16:34

moving

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
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"]	+

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ErieVitiello — 2007-01-30 15:09:01

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 205:	Line 205:
	+ ------ + ''2007-01-30 15:09:01'' [[nbsp]] I'm having trouble with posting times on the event board. My event shows at the correct time on my computer and an hour later on my assistant's computer. The time of the event that she posted shows correctly on her computer and wrong on mine. --["ErieVitiello"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

MaxMikalonis — 2007-01-30 15:08:14

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 203:	Line 203:
	+ ------ + ''2007-01-30 15:08:14'' [[nbsp]] Perhaps, check and see if you are in the same timezone. Go to settings and make sure you both are UTC -8.00 hrs --["MaxMikalonis"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ErieVitiello — 2007-01-30 15:02:44

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 201:	Line 201:
	+ ------ + ''2007-01-30 15:02:44'' [[nbsp]] I'm having trouble with posting times on the event board. My event shows at the correct time on my computer and an hour later on my assistant's computer. The time of the event that she posted shows correctly on her computer and wrong on mine. --["ErieVitiello"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2007-01-20 09:08:02

rm Steve O. query, added notice location query

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
- ----------- - I'm starting to become uncomfortable with the edits that are occurring directed ''toward'' Steve Ostrowski. Maybe I'm reading too much into the edits, and they weren't intended in any sort of negative way. Specifically the tipping point between debate and abuse seems to have occurred this weekend. That's not to say that edits today and yesterday weren't proper, just that there seems to be a general air of disconnect that he's an individual person. Am I being paranoid, or is anybody else seeing an ugly mob starting to gather? Is this something to be concerned about? -- ["JabberWokky"] - I dunno, should it? You seem pretty aware of the situation and I would defer to your judgment. At least I know what to watch for. --["StevenDaubert"] - If I was sure of my judgment, I wouldn't post it here. I'm raising the issue because if the situation were such that I ''was'' sure, it would already be ugly. I'm trying to raise the issue just before it appears. That means I could easily be wrong. But then, I'm just wasting a couple edits. -- ["JabberWokky"] - Indeed, there is a generalized sentiment against one Steve Ostrowski, of course, the actions taken due to this sentiment do little to help any of the reasons for the sentiment, but I think it will cool down over time, when this is not a big thing to worry about. Speaking for myself, my edits (two of them actually mine as I left my username logged in somewhere, both faked reversions) were meant in humor, I think everyone else feels this way as well and does not actually wish to hurt steve personally, but more wish to make humor from his actions which many have grievances against. Given the possible outcomes of mob actions against an individual the risk of forming a solidified clique on the wiki, these actions can lead to bad ends and I would like to thank you JabberWok for being keen on keeping the community together. ~ ["DavePoole"]	+ ---------- + ''Should included notices (Photo Request, Stub, etc) go at the top or bottom of the entry? Wikipedia uses the top, presumably so they stand out more. Since some of ours (like Photo Request) sit on entries for quite awhile, and a placement at the top detracts from the entry. I'd say they should go at the bottom in general, as they stand out quite nicely on their own, and thus don't get "in the way" when a visitor (especially a non-wiki savvy one) reads the entry. STOP and Copy/Paste would probably be exceptions, as they indicate far more serious notifications that affect the entry and should be known before the entry is read (that there's a dispute, or that the content may not be legal to use elsewhere). Thoughts?'' --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

DavidPoole — 2006-12-17 17:43:35

replied to jabberwok, just sitting under a tumtum tree

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 203:	Line 203:
	+ Indeed, there is a generalized sentiment against one Steve Ostrowski, of course, the actions taken due to this sentiment do little to help any of the reasons for the sentiment, but I think it will cool down over time, when this is not a big thing to worry about. Speaking for myself, my edits (two of them actually mine as I left my username logged in somewhere, both faked reversions) were meant in humor, I think everyone else feels this way as well and does not actually wish to hurt steve personally, but more wish to make humor from his actions which many have grievances against. Given the possible outcomes of mob actions against an individual the risk of forming a solidified clique on the wiki, these actions can lead to bad ends and I would like to thank you JabberWok for being keen on keeping the community together. ~ ["DavePoole"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-12-17 15:49:08

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 201:	Line 201:
- - I dunno, should it? You seem pretty aware of the situation and I would defer to your judgment. At least I know what to watch for. --["StevenDaubert"]	+ I dunno, should it? You seem pretty aware of the situation and I would defer to your judgment. At least I know what to watch for. --["StevenDaubert"] + If I was sure of my judgment, I wouldn't post it here. I'm raising the issue because if the situation were such that I ''was'' sure, it would already be ugly. I'm trying to raise the issue just before it appears. That means I could easily be wrong. But then, I'm just wasting a couple edits. -- ["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

StevenDaubert — 2006-12-17 15:37:53

comment

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 201:	Line 201:
	+ + I dunno, should it? You seem pretty aware of the situation and I would defer to your judgment. At least I know what to watch for. --["StevenDaubert"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-12-17 14:25:40

My spidey sense is tingling. Or maybe it's just time to dust.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
	+ ----------- + I'm starting to become uncomfortable with the edits that are occurring directed ''toward'' Steve Ostrowski. Maybe I'm reading too much into the edits, and they weren't intended in any sort of negative way. Specifically the tipping point between debate and abuse seems to have occurred this weekend. That's not to say that edits today and yesterday weren't proper, just that there seems to be a general air of disconnect that he's an individual person. Am I being paranoid, or is anybody else seeing an ugly mob starting to gather? Is this something to be concerned about? -- ["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-15 17:47:02

heh.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 198:	Line 198:
- ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: ----- - ''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"] - ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Other version: ----- - A soapbox is useless if no one stands around to listen. -- ["EdwinSaada"]
Line 203:	Line 199:
- ----- /!\ End of edit conflict -----

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-15 17:46:30

minor

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 194:	Line 194:
- ''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"] 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.	+ ''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.
Line 198:	Line 198:
	+ ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: ----- + ''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"] + ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Other version: -----
Line 200:	Line 203:
	+ ----- /!\ End of edit conflict -----

Wiki Community/General Discussion

GrahamFreeman — 2006-12-15 17:45:51

extraneous "or". this is why it pays to have other people proofread your work.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
- ''2006-12-15 17:06:57'' [[nbsp]] The issue at hand is whether or 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"]	+ ''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"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

GrahamFreeman — 2006-12-15 17:11:06

clarify

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
- ''2006-12-15 17:06:57'' [[nbsp]] The issue isn't whether or not Steve is successful in getting his messages out - it's whether or not he's successful in reducing its value to the community of Davis in the process of abusing it to further his own personal goals. --["GrahamFreeman"]	+ ''2006-12-15 17:06:57'' [[nbsp]] The issue at hand is whether or 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"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

GrahamFreeman — 2006-12-15 17:07:19

threading

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
- ------ - ''2006-12-15 17:06:57'' [[nbsp]] The issue isn't whether or not Steve is successful in getting his messages out - it's whether or not he's successful in reducing its value to the community of Davis in the process of abusing it to further his own personal goals. --["GrahamFreeman"]	+ ''2006-12-15 17:06:57'' [[nbsp]] The issue isn't whether or not Steve is successful in getting his messages out - it's whether or not he's successful in reducing its value to the community of Davis in the process of abusing it to further his own personal goals. --["GrahamFreeman"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

GrahamFreeman — 2006-12-15 17:06:57

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
	+ ------ + ''2006-12-15 17:06:57'' [[nbsp]] The issue isn't whether or not Steve is successful in getting his messages out - it's whether or not he's successful in reducing its value to the community of Davis in the process of abusing it to further his own personal goals. --["GrahamFreeman"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

GrahamFreeman — 2006-12-15 17:03:58

attributed comment

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 198:	Line 198:
- A soapbox is useless if no one stands around to listen.	+ A soapbox is useless if no one stands around to listen. -- ["EdwinSaada"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-15 12:44:25

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 198:	Line 198:
	+ A soapbox is useless if no one stands around to listen.

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ArlenAbraham — 2006-12-15 10:39:27

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 197:	Line 197:
	+ Yeah, but if we ban him, he'll just ["The Davis Enforcer" his own wiki]. -- ["ArlenAbraham"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

GrahamFreeman — 2006-12-14 23:26:48

threading

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 196:	Line 196:
- ------ - ''2006-12-14 23:26:08'' [[nbsp]] Well said. --["GrahamFreeman"]	+ ''2006-12-14 23:26:08'' [[nbsp]] Well said. --["GrahamFreeman"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

GrahamFreeman — 2006-12-14 23:26:08

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 196:	Line 196:
	+ ------ + ''2006-12-14 23:26:08'' [[nbsp]] Well said. --["GrahamFreeman"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-14 23:18:05

+expansion.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 194:	Line 194:
- ''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"]	+ ''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"] 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.

Wiki Community/General Discussion

WilliamLewis — 2006-12-14 13:37:05

+ reply

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 195:	Line 195:
	+ If someone deliberately and continually refuses to play by the rules, they should not be allowed to play at all. --["WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-14 13:25:10

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 194:	Line 194:
- ''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 ["SteveOwtroski"]. 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"]	+ ''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"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-14 13:22:12

edit.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 194:	Line 194:
- ''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 ["SteveOwtroski"]. He simply reverts and refuses to use talk pages, and he's definitely an established user. He's even said on his own page when asked about it, and on his blog, he'll continue to do so to get what he wants. That's whack. --["EdwinSaada"]	+ ''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 ["SteveOwtroski"]. 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"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-14 12:56:08

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
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 ["SteveOwtroski"]. He simply reverts and refuses to use talk pages, and he's definitely an established user. He's even said on his own page when asked about it, and on his blog, he'll continue to do so to get what he wants. That's whack. --["EdwinSaada"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-12-10 14:42:21

Update (found the order page)

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 192:	Line 192:
- ''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?'' -- ["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. [http://guide.sacbee.com/customer_service/story/10758106p-11676299c.html The link is here to order back issues].'' -- ["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-12-10 14:39:42

Request for a copy of the SacBee

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 191:	Line 191:
	+ --------------- + ''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?'' -- ["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-12-01 12:03:55

Reply to AA.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 190:	Line 190:
	+ In general I agree. I was thinking something to tag types of entries and present a sidebar. Things like {pet}. I thought of it applied to dWiki because of the discussion that was removed about titling pets. I'm just tossing out the topic to see what the community thinks. --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

ArlenAbraham — 2006-12-01 11:51:19

reply to jw re: tags, threaded and removed a lot. still needs cleanup.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 47:	Line 47:
- ''2005-05-16 01:02:12'' [[nbsp]] Aren't all of Michael Giardina's articles property of the Aggie, or does the Aggie itself have some sort of copyleft license? --["KennethWaters"] - * Yes, they are property of the aggie, but if you talk to the ["Ryan P. Fuller" editor in chief] and include "reprinted with the permission of The California Aggie" it's ok. See [http://nees.ucdavis.edu/aggie_article.html this article] for an example. - ["ArlenAbraham" arlen] - * Actually that's not ok, because the entries here are licensed under the creative commons by license. Reprinting is one thing allowing them to be edited, modified, and sold for profit is another altogether. --["KennethWaters"] - * I do not think the Aggie holds sole copyright on columnists work. I believe they operate much like the cartoonists and photographers, and own their work. Unless Michael signed over his copyright rights on his work then he still owns it and can do with it as he pleases. You could get permission to reprint from the Ed in Chief, but that's because you're not actually asking the person who wrote it. --["PhilipNeustrom"] - * Added this back in. Not sure why ["MichaelGiardina"] chose to delete these comments. MG, perhaps rather than deleting the comments, you could respond to them (to either dispel or confirm them). That would be a lot more constructive. --["EricKlein"] - * Eric, this comment strand is no longer necessary on the wiki. I have removed the pages. --["MichaelGiardina"] - * It's a durn shame you removed them; unless there was a reason, the primary discussions regarding them were technical in nature (copyright, namespace collisions). They were quite nice, and added a good deal to the Wiki. What was your reason for removing them? --["JabberWokky"] - * For copyright reasons, they can't be placed on the wiki in pages. Plus, most people elsewhere on the wiki seemed frustrated and felt it wasn't appropriate, as the posts were personal information that is not editable nor in the spirit of the wiki. Anyhow, I really appreciate the positive comments. If others are interested in the columns, perhaps they'll get reposted as links towards the Aggie site (where they are hosted) in the appropriate locations around the wiki. Thanks guys! I appreciate the positive comments. If you want to find the columns, you can type Giardina into ["The California Aggie"]'s search box and a list will be generated. Hope people will keep reading and editing the wiki, it's a great resource. Also hope people will continue to read the columns. --["MichaelGiardina"] - * I definitely think that you/someone/anyone should reinstate your comments (i.e., ["Warning Signs"]) with your Aggie article linked. While it's odd to post the column in its entirety, a link to the article would provide the relevant information. I actually really like your columns and felt bad telling you to take them off. -- ["SummerSong" ss] - * I also enjoyed the articles, and think it would be great it you could link them from somewhere (either your own page, or a page dedicated to linking to them. Since this Wiki is about Davis, and your articles are a part of Davis, I think they added positively to the site. --["EricKlein"] - * Well I've added the links to the appropriate pages so rest easy ["VivianPham"] - * I think this discussion brings up important issues that we can integrate into some other permanent page. Specifically, the ideas about [wiki:Wiki:WalledGarden walled gardens], copyright laws, when to make subpages, and posting content not editable by other people could be integrated somewhere. Would the ["Wiki Style Guide"] be appropriate? Alternatively, are the things mentioned above something we should be flexible on, and therefore not document anywhere? - * I liked the articles as well, I do read them in the Aggie. I didn't want all mention of them deleted at all dude, so I readded them to your page, and other people started integrating them which is great. My concern was more about it setting future precedent on the wiki - ------ - ''2005-05-30 12:14:59'' [[nbsp]] I am a little skeptical of the usefulness of having the entire davis municipal code on here. Seems a bit redundant with the resources the city puts online, and plus it would seem to be a pain in the ass to update. I know being able to comment on the law is the plus side of this, but most of the law is not very noteworthy. Make someone instead should make a Noteworthy Municipal Codes page, or something. --["JaimeRaba"] - ------ - ''2005-06-09 15:31:13'' [[nbsp]] The point of having the muni code up here is so that people can discuss it and link other wiki pages to it. --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------
Line 68:	Line 50:
- ''2005-06-29 14:25:00'' [[nbsp]] what's up with ["BannedGroup"]? --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------
Line 71:	Line 51:
- ------ - ''2005-07-07 01:30:32'' [[nbsp]] It's a personal page, so I don't see a point in deleting it. Probably just a joke, anyway. Who cares? --["MikeIvanov"]	+ ''2005-07-07 01:30:32'' [[nbsp]] It's a personal page, so I don't see a point in deleting it. Probably just a joke, anyway. Who cares? --["MikeIvanov"]
Line 75:	Line 54:
- ------ - ''2005-07-13 13:51:10'' [[nbsp]] Here's an idea: We make a series of restaurant guides that does more than just list all the restaurants in Davis, hehe. We assemble links to all the guides, make a intro page, have people vote on their favorite and fill out info on each of the restaurants, and, behold--a truly comprehensive evaluation of the local cuisine. What do you think? --["SummerSong" ss]
Line 83:	Line 60:
- ------ - ''2005-07-24 22:49:43'' [[nbsp]] At Jim: Those of us who have been around the wiki long enough know if a page already exists or not, which is why we're pretty quick on editing/killing new entries. You'll be that way soon enough, I'm sure -- especially because you have an excellent knowledge of Davis history growing up here and all. - - At Phil: I'd like to see {{{["../Subpage"]}}} implemented so it's easy to link between subpages on the same level. This was sort of an issue with all of the ["ASUCD Elections"] pages. --["BrentLaabs"] - ------ - ''2005-07-26 01:46:13'' [[nbsp]] Perhaps this was mentioned before or perhaps this is for the "technical discussion" section, but I'll ask this here anyway: On Wikipedia, there is a tab above each article that goes to discussions about the article (if, for example, there is a dispute, a warning is placed on the main article and suggests the reader to look at the discussion). What is the feasibility of instituting this on the Daviswiki? It'd be a nice way of organizing the wiki and making it seem less of a message board. Not to mention it can avoid the unnecessary "talk" pages. Not that topics like "abortion" or "rape fraternities" aren't important and worth discussing about, but they seem out of place on the Wiki. --["JesseSingh"] - This has been discussed before. See ["Talk page debate"]. Ultimately, we decided in favor of more transparency and less confusion for the new user. --["MikeIvanov"]	+ ''2005-07-24 22:49:43'' [[nbsp]] At Jim: Those of us who have been around the wiki long enough know if a page already exists or not, which is why we're pretty quick on editing/killing new entries. You'll be that way soon enough, I'm sure -- especially because you have an excellent knowledge of Davis history growing up here and all. + At Phil: I'd like to see {{{["../Subpage"]}}} implemented so it's easy to link between subpages on the same level. This was sort of an issue with all of the ["ASUCD Elections"] pages. --["BrentLaabs"]
Line 93:	Line 65:
- ------ - ''2005-08-09 14:43:40'' [[nbsp]] it seems that the muni code doesn't iterate all the way down all of the time, was this intentional? --["ArlenAbraham"] - ''The structure is there as far as I know. I put up some end-node pages, but backed off on putting them all up as a result of the discussions that resulted at the time. Alternatively I may have totally misunderstood your question.'' -- ["JasonAller"] - ''for example ["Davis Municipal Code/5"] doesn't list everything, but ["Davis Municipal Code/1"] does. i guess it makes sense now that you told me you didn't make it the whole way through, but it seems to me that it should be an all or nothing affair. perhaps instead of making sub-pages for each part of the code, you can just indent them on the parent page. either way, i've been looking for parts of the code (eg ["illegal in davis"]) and not been able to link to them. perhaps add them as needed?'' - ["ArlenAbraham" arlen] - ''I just added the one page to chapter 5 when it became relevant. Feel free to follow the format and add ones that you want to link to.'' -- ["JasonAller"] - ------ - I'm kind of curious as to the demographics of wiki editors. Things like age, gender, who's affiliated with the college, who does and doesn't live in Davis, etc --["MichelleAccurso"] - ------ - ''2005-08-24 11:59:31'' [[nbsp]] Wow everyone, I'm impressed that you wanted to debate the Tank page so much. I feel flattered. However, Mike and I worked that out a couple of days ago. Although I would have preferred leaving it another day or two, an artist has to let go of his art eventually. --["BrentLaabs"] - Eh, I kind of liked it, and so did the other guys. Plus bringing it back allowed everyone to go "Move this to ["Newsweak"]! So I will! --["MichelleAccurso"]
Line 109:	Line 71:
- ------ - ''2005-08-25 08:01:05'' [[nbsp]] Is the mosquito picture on the front page used with permission? A Google image search (for "tiger mosquito") returns it as the first result, showing the image attributed to Bart Drees of the Texas A&M Department of Entomology. I haven't been up on the wiki recently though, so maybe I missed something. --["CarlMcCabe"] - This is absolutely a copyright violation -- you should have just removed it as soon as you noticed that! - * No worries - I just added a new, Public Domain image from the USDA (via Wikipedia). Happy Mosquitoes! -- ["JabberWokky" jw] - ------ - ''2005-08-25 09:51:54'' [[nbsp]] What's up with posting the August 23rd City Council disruption on multiple pages? Makes sense to post it on ["breaking news"] and ["west nile virus"], but does it really need to appear on every page that mentions mosquitoes? I can appreciate that some people are very upset by the thought of being sprayed, and it's significant, yet this is beginning to feel like media oversaturation. --["AlphaDog"] - * I posted it to Breaking News (since at the time it was, the morning after) and copied it over to Mosquitoes as a long term entry (someone has since created a West Nile page and moved it to there). I note that several of the other mentions seem to be rather politically biased (note the entry on the mayor's page). Phrases such as "as useful as a noodle thick vibrator" seem a little excessive. -- ["JabberWokky" jw] - * I used the Alexandrian solution on the ["Ruth Asmundson"] entry. It would be nice to go back one version and reword the writeup. I don't have the time (walking out the door), but I did render it down to the news links and context and left those in. -- ["JabberWokky" jw]
Line 134:	Line 88:
- ''2005-09-01 16:01:35'' [[nbsp]] y'all have yet to answer my question posed on ["Asmundson Hall"] --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------
Line 144:	Line 96:
- ------ - ''2005-09-15 16:39:22'' [[nbsp]] since when did we start putting the answers to the mystery photo in bold type, directly beneath the photo? shouldn't that belong on the guesses and '''spoilers''' page? --["ArlenAbraham"] - I agree that it defeats the point of keeping spoilers seperate.
Line 166:	Line 115:
- ''2005-10-26 20:14:49'' [[nbsp]] The '''News''' section of the front page is hardly ever updated now that there aren't any system failures, and other exciting things going on. Maybe we can take it off to reduce clutter and bring it back if something newsworthy happens? Any thoughts? --["ArlenAbraham"] - I agree! I say kill it until there's more site news. - Or how about changing it to news about local happenings. Not events, obviously, but the latest gossip, ASUCD election results, the usual interesting headlines. - ------ - ''2005-10-28 09:33:12'' [[nbsp]] Several times I have seen strange phenomena (UWP), here's one: According to the 10-27 Recent Changes, under Visor Lady, JesseSingh made an edit between TravisGrathwell and JeffreyNonken, yet there is no evidence of this in the Visor Lady info. I assume this is just caused by God or extraterrestrials. --["SteveDavison"] - * That was a delete. I used to remember why deletions don't show up in info, but i've since forgotten. - ["arlenabraham" arlen] - ------
Line 180:	Line 122:
- ------ - ''2005-11-01 02:48:34'' [[nbsp]] Thanks, check out our ["Wiki Logo" other holiday logos] --["MikeIvanov"]	+ ''2005-11-01 02:48:34'' [[nbsp]] Thanks, check out our ["Wiki Logo" other holiday logos] --["MikeIvanov"]
Line 187:	Line 128:
- ------ - ''2005-12-05 16:21:28'' [[nbsp]] sandbox for ["Featured Page"] yay or nay? --["ArlenAbraham"]
Line 212:	Line 151:
- ''2006-01-29 06:26:26'' [[nbsp]] is a page w/ free stuff a good idea? they can date each posting and i am gonna assume that new posters will clean out those more than a week old. good idea? something already on wiki? --["EricWu"] - ------
Line 215:	Line 152:
- ------ - ''2006-02-18 00:28:43'' [[nbsp]] ["Wanted Pages"] is starting to fill up with users without profiles (or deleted profiles). I'm split on the issue -- should a stub profile be created to satisfy the link, or should the name in the comments have their links stripped? Neither seems a great solution. --["JabberWokky"] - * An easier idea might be to just strip usernames from Wanted Pages. It can check against the usernames database (like on ["User Statistics"]) and remove them. There could be an option to include the names on that page. --["BrentLaabs"] - * It's so weird not to see DudeNude there in huge letters now. --["RoyWright"] - * I'm pretty sure Philip fixed this in Sycamore -- ["ArlenAbraham"]
Line 225:	Line 157:
- ------ - ''2006-02-27 10:32:00'' [[nbsp]] I think a good wiki page would be ["Non-American with Disabilities Act compliant businesses"] but that's a mouthful for just saying that restaurant X doesn't have a wheelchair ramp. I also don’t know of any buildings/establishments that are ''non'' wheelchair accessible, but I’m sure they exist and people should know about them. --["ArlenAbraham"] - ------ - ''2006-02-27 11:32:55'' [[nbsp]] Or, when someone notices such a business, (s)he could make a clear note of it on that business's page so that disabled people are aware of it. It's not like disabled people come to the Wiki to find out where they '''can't''' go... --["RoyWright"] - ------ - ''2006-04-03 09:32:26'' [[nbsp]] What the heck is wrong with the little wikipedia and www icons? --["RoyWright"] - Should be fixed. It was an issue with page caching and the april fools code. --["PhilipNeustrom"] - - That was fast! --["RoyWright"] - ------ - ''2006-04-07 19:36:39'' [[nbsp]] Where is the UCD Fire Department? I'd like to know so I can get a picture of that ladder truck and the Haz-Mat vehicle I saw today. --["TusharRawat"]
Line 268:	Line 189:
	+ I think tags work well for something like flickr where i'm too lazy to write a description, and in one click i can see everyone else's photos of the same thing, but i'm not sure if they'd be appropriate for the wiki. Xapian searches seem to be working well. --["ArlenAbraham"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-12-01 10:20:44

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 266:	Line 266:
	+ ------ + ''2006-12-01 10:20:44'' [[nbsp]] Just out of curiosity, how does everybody feel about tags? --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-01 09:53:54

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 99:	Line 99:
- ''2005-08-11 07:32:38'' [[nbsp]] The "Getting Started" part of the front page is way too low. You usually won't see it unless you scroll down. (Depending on monitor/resolution/etc). Should be moved or edited and bumped up somehow. Not going to help newcomers very much. --["EdwinSaada"] - ------

Wiki Community/General Discussion

EdwinSaada — 2006-12-01 09:52:46

a lot of this page can be wiped. really old stuff here.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 164:	Line 164:
- ''2005-10-13 23:46:18'' [[nbsp]] How about: when a page gets a certain number or length of comments, they(the comments and reviews) get their own subpage. The ["Bistro 33"] page is getting realllly long. --["EdwinSaada"] - ------
Line 167:	Line 165:
- ------ - ''2005-10-18 17:27:51'' [[nbsp]] No idea where to put this, but thought it worth a read. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia Founder Admits Quality Problems]. "if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven't met a wiki-fiddler. For them, it's a religious crusade." --["EdwinSaada"] - I like [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&cid=13822145 this reply] best.
Line 183:	Line 178:
- ------ - ''2005-10-29 20:21:33'' [[nbsp]] it would. but it's nothing that you can't really do already. only problem is it might end up looking elitest. what if someone disagrees with the groups idea/plan? --["EdwinSaada"]
Line 200:	Line 193:
- ------ - ''2005-12-21 18:22:50'' [[nbsp]] Format/Organization: How about re-titling all the pet/animal pages? Not just change Alex to Alex the dog, but just make a new format from the ["Wiki Animals"] page. Either Wiki Animals/Pet Name or Pets/Pet name. Just looks better imo, and seems more organized. And it's not really a big change. Thought I'd ask for thoughts about it rather then just do it. I figure as more people join and add more pets, there'll be way too many pages like that, and laying down some sort of structure helps. --["EdwinSaada"] - ''Of those two Pets/ is clearly preferable. You know you've opened a big can of worms (pets, of course) by proposing that. That is the first step toward moving the Wiki from a flat organization to a hierarchical organization. i.e. Pets/Cats/xxx, Pets/Dogs/xxx, Restaurants/Chinese/xxx, Departed/Re-Runs Thrift, etc. That may be a good thing, but it's a huge discussion topic in any case.'' --["SteveDavison"] - * I thought about that too, but it's not a real worry. It's simply too early to do that, as there's only some 20 to 30 pet pages, and I don't think there'd be the need (Just as restaurants and stuff aren't broken down). A list format on the Wiki Animals page could simply structure and organize them into cat, dog, etc, and then the Pets/Name would be linked from there. The main reason is a lot of pets have normal names (keith, Alex, etc), and it helps distinguish pages. What I've seen is human sounding names are pages like Keith the dog while non-human names like "little girl" don't use Little Girl the mouse. It just looks weird to me, and would be more structured if it was simply Pets/name. I remember some people didn't want pets to have their own pages at all early on. I don't think this would apply to much else in the wiki, except maybe Arlen suggested below maybe departed businesses. And really, that's simply to separate the very broad categories of current and departed businesses easily, without further breaking it down. I guess you could say the pet name change would separate the pets from usernames, and also make the title uniform (no more 'the dog' or 'the cat' on just ''some'' of them). Not "Uncle Taqeuedasueu's" as one page, and "Uncle Steven's, the chinese restaurant" on the other. horrible example, but yeah. But to rant backwords, this doesn't necessarily lead to a micro breakdown, it's just this very broad general one I'm suggesting, though I do of course see your point in that it could. But I don't think anyone would really want to take it all the way. Hope not, anyway. -["EdwinSaada" ES]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JasonAller — 2006-10-29 15:59:58

spelling

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 4:	Line 4:
- ------	+
Line 7:	Line 7:
- * ''There is no difference. A business owner has equal right to edit their entry as you do. That goes both ways - you can add your views, and they can add theirs. A couple businesses have been listing specials and deals (one of the cell phone stores udates their deals fairly often). That's a good thing - it's more information on the Wiki, and constant updating keeps the information current and useful. If they started deleting bad reviews, they would be behaving as a poor editor (it doesn't require a business owner to do this - Saul deleted a few when he first arrived)... and poor editing often is best combated through education rather than a kneejerk reaction.'' -- ["JabberWokky"]	+ * ''There is no difference. A business owner has equal right to edit their entry as you do. That goes both ways - you can add your views, and they can add theirs. A couple businesses have been listing specials and deals (one of the cell phone stores updates their deals fairly often). That's a good thing - it's more information on the Wiki, and constant updating keeps the information current and useful. If they started deleting bad reviews, they would be behaving as a poor editor (it doesn't require a business owner to do this - Saul deleted a few when he first arrived)... and poor editing often is best combated through education rather than a kneejerk reaction.'' -- ["JabberWokky"]
Line 10:	Line 10:
- ''2005-03-30 17:32:03'' [[nbsp]] 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. [[BR]][[BR]] 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"] - - [[BR]] They're probably just not aware of the daviswiki, but it amazes me how tolerant businesses have been of negative comments. I've only been on the Wiki since January, but I've never seen an instance of a business owner trying to remove something bad. hmmm... maybe I should test the waters by listing where I found a band-aid in a tuna-fish sandwich? Anyway, due to their controversial and transient nature, dual-page-representation made perfect sense for the elections. However, for more stable businesses, I fear that dual-representation would clutter and confuse things greatly. Naive searches might lead people only to the biased business owner's page rather than the objective community based one. --["CraigBrozinsky"]	+ ''2005-03-30 17:32:03'' [[nbsp]] 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"] + + They're probably just not aware of the daviswiki, but it amazes me how tolerant businesses have been of negative comments. I've only been on the Wiki since January, but I've never seen an instance of a business owner trying to remove something bad. hmmm... maybe I should test the waters by listing where I found a band-aid in a tuna-fish sandwich? Anyway, due to their controversial and transient nature, dual-page-representation made perfect sense for the elections. However, for more stable businesses, I fear that dual-representation would clutter and confuse things greatly. Naive searches might lead people only to the biased business owner's page rather than the objective community based one. --["CraigBrozinsky"]
Line 27:	Line 29:
- ''2005-04-23 11:15:31'' [[nbsp]] philip, you might want to force a reload. when i vistited the site, i couldn't see the rules --["ArlenAbraham"]	+ ''2005-04-23 11:15:31'' [[nbsp]] philip, you might want to force a reload. when i visited the site, i couldn't see the rules --["ArlenAbraham"]
Line 45:	Line 47:
- ''2005-05-16 01:02:12'' [[nbsp]] Aren't all of Michael Giardina's articals property of the Aggie, or does the Aggie itself have some sort of copyleft license? --["KennethWaters"]	+ ''2005-05-16 01:02:12'' [[nbsp]] Aren't all of Michael Giardina's articles property of the Aggie, or does the Aggie itself have some sort of copyleft license? --["KennethWaters"]
Line 65:	Line 67:
- -
Line 84:	Line 84:
- ''2005-07-24 22:49:43'' [[nbsp]] At Jim: Those of us who have been around the wiki long enough know if a page already exists or not, which is why we're pretty quick on editing/killing new entries. You'll be that way soon enough, I'm sure -- especially because you have an excellent knowledge of Davis history growing up here and all.[[BR]][[BR]]At Phil: I'd like to see {{{["../Subpage"]}}} implemented so it's easy to link between subpages on the same level. This was sort of an issue with all of the ["ASUCD Elections"] pages. --["BrentLaabs"]	+ ''2005-07-24 22:49:43'' [[nbsp]] At Jim: Those of us who have been around the wiki long enough know if a page already exists or not, which is why we're pretty quick on editing/killing new entries. You'll be that way soon enough, I'm sure -- especially because you have an excellent knowledge of Davis history growing up here and all. + + At Phil: I'd like to see {{{["../Subpage"]}}} implemented so it's easy to link between subpages on the same level. This was sort of an issue with all of the ["ASUCD Elections"] pages. --["BrentLaabs"]
Line 99:	Line 101:
- I'm kind of curious as to the demographics of wiki editors. Things like age, gender, who's afflitated with the college, who does and doesn't live in Davis, etc --["MichelleAccurso"]	+ I'm kind of curious as to the demographics of wiki editors. Things like age, gender, who's affiliated with the college, who does and doesn't live in Davis, etc --["MichelleAccurso"]
Line 150:	Line 152:
- I was thinking in terms of moral obligation rather than legal obligation. In either case, I don't have a clear answer. On the one hand, its easy to intellectualize the Wiki as a no-holds-barred free-speech tool. On the other hand, when things become personal, I think a lot of people would want material permanently removed. ["CraigBrozinsky" cb] [[BR]]	+ I was thinking in terms of moral obligation rather than legal obligation. In either case, I don't have a clear answer. On the one hand, its easy to intellectualize the Wiki as a no-holds-barred free-speech tool. On the other hand, when things become personal, I think a lot of people would want material permanently removed. ["CraigBrozinsky" cb]
Line 152:	Line 154:
- The history isn't lost, it's just not displayed (yet). As for any combination of deleteing and renaming, let me know if there are any problems in this respect from now on (because there shouldn't be). --["PhilipNeustrom"]	+ The history isn't lost, it's just not displayed (yet). As for any combination of deleting and renaming, let me know if there are any problems in this respect from now on (because there shouldn't be). --["PhilipNeustrom"]
Line 173:	Line 175:
- Or how about changing it to news about local happennings. Not events, obviously, but the latest gossip, ASUCD election results, the usual interesting headlines.	+ Or how about changing it to news about local happenings. Not events, obviously, but the latest gossip, ASUCD election results, the usual interesting headlines.
Line 200:	Line 202:
- ''Of those two Pets/ is clearly preferable. You know you've opened a big can of worms (pets, of course) by proposing that. That is the first step toward moving the Wiki from a flat organization to a heirarchical organization. i.e. Pets/Cats/xxx, Pets/Dogs/xxx, Restaurants/Chinese/xxx, Departed/Re-Runs Thrift, etc. That may be a good thing, but it's a huge discussion topic in any case.'' --["SteveDavison"] - * I thought about that too, but it's not a real worry. It's simply too early to do that, as there's only some 20 to 30 pet pages, and I don't think there'd be the need (Just as restaurants and stuff aren't broken down). A list format on the Wiki Animals page could simply structure and organize them into cat, dog, etc, and then the Pets/Name would be linked from there. The main reason is a lot of pets have normal names (keith, Alex, etc), and it helps distinguish pages. What I've seen is human sounding names are pages like Keith the dog while non-human names like "little girl" don't use Little Girl the mouse. It just looks weird to me, and would be more structured if it was simply Pets/name. I remember some people didn't want pets to have their own pages at all early on. I don't think this would apply to much else in the wiki, except maybe Arlen suggested below maybe departed businesses. And really, that's simply to seperate the very broad catagories of current and departed businesses easily, witout further breaking it down. I guess you could say the pet name change would seperate the pets from usernames, and also make the title uniform (no more 'the dog' or 'the cat' on just ''some'' of them). Not "Uncle Taqeuedasueu's" as one page, and "Uncle Steven's, the chinese restuarant" on the other. horrible example, but yeah. But to rant backwords, this doesn't neccessarily lead to a micro breakdown, it's just this very broad general one I'm suggesting, though I do of course see your point in that it could. But I don't think anyone would really want to take it all the way. Hope not, anyway. -["EdwinSaada" ES]	+ ''Of those two Pets/ is clearly preferable. You know you've opened a big can of worms (pets, of course) by proposing that. That is the first step toward moving the Wiki from a flat organization to a hierarchical organization. i.e. Pets/Cats/xxx, Pets/Dogs/xxx, Restaurants/Chinese/xxx, Departed/Re-Runs Thrift, etc. That may be a good thing, but it's a huge discussion topic in any case.'' --["SteveDavison"] + * I thought about that too, but it's not a real worry. It's simply too early to do that, as there's only some 20 to 30 pet pages, and I don't think there'd be the need (Just as restaurants and stuff aren't broken down). A list format on the Wiki Animals page could simply structure and organize them into cat, dog, etc, and then the Pets/Name would be linked from there. The main reason is a lot of pets have normal names (keith, Alex, etc), and it helps distinguish pages. What I've seen is human sounding names are pages like Keith the dog while non-human names like "little girl" don't use Little Girl the mouse. It just looks weird to me, and would be more structured if it was simply Pets/name. I remember some people didn't want pets to have their own pages at all early on. I don't think this would apply to much else in the wiki, except maybe Arlen suggested below maybe departed businesses. And really, that's simply to separate the very broad categories of current and departed businesses easily, without further breaking it down. I guess you could say the pet name change would separate the pets from usernames, and also make the title uniform (no more 'the dog' or 'the cat' on just ''some'' of them). Not "Uncle Taqeuedasueu's" as one page, and "Uncle Steven's, the chinese restaurant" on the other. horrible example, but yeah. But to rant backwords, this doesn't necessarily lead to a micro breakdown, it's just this very broad general one I'm suggesting, though I do of course see your point in that it could. But I don't think anyone would really want to take it all the way. Hope not, anyway. -["EdwinSaada" ES]
Line 248:	Line 250:
- ''2006-06-18 09:58:09'' [[nbsp]] I think the number of fake acounts 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"]	+ ''2006-06-18 09:58:09'' [[nbsp]] 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"]
Line 259:	Line 261:
- I also think those pages are dumb, but a lot of people like standing on top of soap boxes. One thing that I don't know is how visible those pages are to JoeUser who doesn't obsessivly watch Recent Changes. While I think the pages are dumb, I'm not sure deleting them is the best idea. People use the wiki as a fourm because it's easy to use, lots of people use it, and people like to argue. We could go around wantonly deleting pointless debate, but more pointless debate would just grow back. I think what we need to is attack this beast slowly. I don't have a plan of action here, but perhaps we can start by making a page on why people shouldn't have open ended debates, then deleting or sumarizing existing pages. For example on the abortion page, we can have a link to something like discussion and then the discussion page can talk about why discussing abortion on the wiki is pointless. I think a lot of people are going to object to this plan. The wiki has the potential to be an instrument for social change, and some people feel that abortion should be illegal in davis and will try their damnedest to make this happen. I want to see choice voting happen, and I would probably participate in a discussion on choice voting. Is a discussion about choice voting ok on the wiki? How do we decide what discussion is relevant and what is not? The Measure X page was huge and didn't really acomplish anything. Pages like Measure X and abortion become so large that they only serve the people activly involved in discussion. Ugh, now i'm rambling... --["ArlenAbraham"]	+ I also think those pages are dumb, but a lot of people like standing on top of soap boxes. One thing that I don't know is how visible those pages are to JoeUser who doesn't obsessively watch Recent Changes. While I think the pages are dumb, I'm not sure deleting them is the best idea. People use the wiki as a fourm because it's easy to use, lots of people use it, and people like to argue. We could go around wantonly deleting pointless debate, but more pointless debate would just grow back. I think what we need to is attack this beast slowly. I don't have a plan of action here, but perhaps we can start by making a page on why people shouldn't have open ended debates, then deleting or sumarizing existing pages. For example on the abortion page, we can have a link to something like discussion and then the discussion page can talk about why discussing abortion on the wiki is pointless. I think a lot of people are going to object to this plan. The wiki has the potential to be an instrument for social change, and some people feel that abortion should be illegal in davis and will try their damnedest to make this happen. I want to see choice voting happen, and I would probably participate in a discussion on choice voting. Is a discussion about choice voting ok on the wiki? How do we decide what discussion is relevant and what is not? The Measure X page was huge and didn't really accomplish anything. Pages like Measure X and abortion become so large that they only serve the people actively involved in discussion. Ugh, now i'm rambling... --["ArlenAbraham"]
Line 264:	Line 266:
- Oh, I agree totally. Debate on the Wiki is very important, and I'm ''not'' looking to just stomp on everything calling itself a Debate. That's why I referred to a "good" debate (Cult/Talk)... there are several more, some of which have lasted for a long long time and are chaotic -- Measure X is a good example of using the Wiki as a Forum for a Davis issue. I'm referring to "open debates" about non-Wiki, non-Davis issues. Yes, they need to be approached on a case by case basis. I'm bringing it up because the rapid appearance of several that are, in my mind, starting to cross out of the domain of the Wiki. As I say, that line is one that the community should draw together, and (somewhat ironically), I'm trying to start debate on the issue to feel out the opinions of others. Fundamentally, I'm worrying about the long view -- what the shape of the Wiki will look like in, say, 2010. Rather than thinking about an edit of a specific entry, I'm thinking what series of edits can be done to "prune and shape" a growing, organtic whole into a better end result. Talk pages or long blocks of comments are fantastic because people know they will dwindle and disappear, enriching the entry. Reviews (a specific form of comment) stand alone as a sampling of individual opinions without compromise. Debates on Davis issues function as minutes of a town hall open forum, a record of the zeitgeist of the community on certain issues. But even the real world town forums should not lapse into tangents too far astray. Mosquito spraying or Measure X, yes. Even "Too damn Hot..." makes perfect sense (my earlier comment regarding it was in the heat of passion on the issue). The Wiki should have character. But I've always been leery of Abortion Debate as a topic too far astray from that "town hall meeting" qualification. Having a "General Debate" on the topic of Food or an unprompted debate on "Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism" worries me that the scope of debate has exited the boundaries of what is appropriate -- what is prompted for by the needs of the Wiki. DavisWiki is not Google Groups or Blogger. Unless the community just likes debating on the Wiki and feel that's a path the site should take... in which case I'll be perfectly happy with it. ''But I worry that debate has become the purpose, rather than debate having a purpose''... which is a very subtle and ''very'' fundamental shift which I feel will have profound effects on the shape of the Wiki as a whole. --["JabberWokky" jw]	+ Oh, I agree totally. Debate on the Wiki is very important, and I'm ''not'' looking to just stomp on everything calling itself a Debate. That's why I referred to a "good" debate (Cult/Talk)... there are several more, some of which have lasted for a long long time and are chaotic -- Measure X is a good example of using the Wiki as a Forum for a Davis issue. I'm referring to "open debates" about non-Wiki, non-Davis issues. Yes, they need to be approached on a case by case basis. I'm bringing it up because the rapid appearance of several that are, in my mind, starting to cross out of the domain of the Wiki. As I say, that line is one that the community should draw together, and (somewhat ironically), I'm trying to start debate on the issue to feel out the opinions of others. Fundamentally, I'm worrying about the long view -- what the shape of the Wiki will look like in, say, 2010. Rather than thinking about an edit of a specific entry, I'm thinking what series of edits can be done to "prune and shape" a growing, organic whole into a better end result. Talk pages or long blocks of comments are fantastic because people know they will dwindle and disappear, enriching the entry. Reviews (a specific form of comment) stand alone as a sampling of individual opinions without compromise. Debates on Davis issues function as minutes of a town hall open forum, a record of the zeitgeist of the community on certain issues. But even the real world town forums should not lapse into tangents too far astray. Mosquito spraying or Measure X, yes. Even "Too damn Hot..." makes perfect sense (my earlier comment regarding it was in the heat of passion on the issue). The Wiki should have character. But I've always been leery of Abortion Debate as a topic too far astray from that "town hall meeting" qualification. Having a "General Debate" on the topic of Food or an unprompted debate on "Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism" worries me that the scope of debate has exited the boundaries of what is appropriate -- what is prompted for by the needs of the Wiki. DavisWiki is not Google Groups or Blogger. Unless the community just likes debating on the Wiki and feel that's a path the site should take... in which case I'll be perfectly happy with it. ''But I worry that debate has become the purpose, rather than debate having a purpose''... which is a very subtle and ''very'' fundamental shift which I feel will have profound effects on the shape of the Wiki as a whole. --["JabberWokky" jw]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JasonAller — 2006-10-19 18:25:42

thier -> their

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 201:	Line 201:
- * I thought about that too, but it's not a real worry. It's simply too early to do that, as there's only some 20 to 30 pet pages, and I don't think there'd be the need (Just as restaurants and stuff aren't broken down). A list format on the Wiki Animals page could simply structure and organize them into cat, dog, etc, and then the Pets/Name would be linked from there. The main reason is a lot of pets have normal names (keith, Alex, etc), and it helps distinguish pages. What I've seen is human sounding names are pages like Keith the dog while non-human names like "little girl" don't use Little Girl the mouse. It just looks weird to me, and would be more structured if it was simply Pets/name. I remember some people didn't want pets to have thier own pages at all early on. I don't think this would apply to much else in the wiki, except maybe Arlen suggested below maybe departed businesses. And really, that's simply to seperate the very broad catagories of current and departed businesses easily, witout further breaking it down. I guess you could say the pet name change would seperate the pets from usernames, and also make the title uniform (no more 'the dog' or 'the cat' on just ''some'' of them). Not "Uncle Taqeuedasueu's" as one page, and "Uncle Steven's, the chinese restuarant" on the other. horrible example, but yeah. But to rant backwords, this doesn't neccessarily lead to a micro breakdown, it's just this very broad general one I'm suggesting, though I do of course see your point in that it could. But I don't think anyone would really want to take it all the way. Hope not, anyway. -["EdwinSaada" ES]	+ * I thought about that too, but it's not a real worry. It's simply too early to do that, as there's only some 20 to 30 pet pages, and I don't think there'd be the need (Just as restaurants and stuff aren't broken down). A list format on the Wiki Animals page could simply structure and organize them into cat, dog, etc, and then the Pets/Name would be linked from there. The main reason is a lot of pets have normal names (keith, Alex, etc), and it helps distinguish pages. What I've seen is human sounding names are pages like Keith the dog while non-human names like "little girl" don't use Little Girl the mouse. It just looks weird to me, and would be more structured if it was simply Pets/name. I remember some people didn't want pets to have their own pages at all early on. I don't think this would apply to much else in the wiki, except maybe Arlen suggested below maybe departed businesses. And really, that's simply to seperate the very broad catagories of current and departed businesses easily, witout further breaking it down. I guess you could say the pet name change would seperate the pets from usernames, and also make the title uniform (no more 'the dog' or 'the cat' on just ''some'' of them). Not "Uncle Taqeuedasueu's" as one page, and "Uncle Steven's, the chinese restuarant" on the other. horrible example, but yeah. But to rant backwords, this doesn't neccessarily lead to a micro breakdown, it's just this very broad general one I'm suggesting, though I do of course see your point in that it could. But I don't think anyone would really want to take it all the way. Hope not, anyway. -["EdwinSaada" ES]
Line 237:	Line 237:
- ''2006-02-27 10:32:00'' [[nbsp]] I think a good wiki page would be ["Non-American with Disabilities Act compliant businesses"] but that's a mouthful for just saying that restaurant X doesn't have a wheelchair ramp. I also dont know of any buildings/establishments that are ''non'' wheelchair accessible, but Im sure they exist and people should know about them. --["ArlenAbraham"]	+ ''2006-02-27 10:32:00'' [[nbsp]] I think a good wiki page would be ["Non-American with Disabilities Act compliant businesses"] but that's a mouthful for just saying that restaurant X doesn't have a wheelchair ramp. I also don’t know of any buildings/establishments that are ''non'' wheelchair accessible, but I’m sure they exist and people should know about them. --["ArlenAbraham"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

KevinRobinson — 2006-10-18 15:40:36

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 275:	Line 275:
	+ ------ + ''2006-10-18 16:40:36'' [[nbsp]] 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"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

AlphaDog — 2006-10-05 07:25:57

re: big pics on events board

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 90:	Line 90:
	+ * ''2006-10-5'' Okay, this is a very late addition to this discussion, but I noticed the same thing today, especially the addition of several very large images. For example, the Grad has posted the same large image on a weekly basis. How about a pixel size limit to ["events"] postings, e.g. please thumbnail images or something? It makes it very difficult to scroll through the events listing as a user when KDVS [for which I have the utmost respect] posts half a dozen large band images. --["Alphadog"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-08-12 08:29:59

Mosquitos -> Mosquitoes

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 111:	Line 111:
- * No worries - I just added a new, Public Domain image from the USDA (via Wikipedia). Happy Mosquitos! -- ["JabberWokky" jw] - ------ - ''2005-08-25 09:51:54'' [[nbsp]] What's up with posting the August 23rd City Council disruption on multiple pages? Makes sense to post it on ["breaking news"] and ["west nile virus"], but does it really need to appear on every page that mentions mosquitos? I can appreciate that some people are very upset by the thought of being sprayed, and it's significant, yet this is beginning to feel like media oversaturation. --["AlphaDog"] - * I posted it to Breaking News (since at the time it was, the morning after) and copied it over to Mosquitos as a long term entry (someone has since created a West Nile page and moved it to there). I note that several of the other mentions seem to be rather politically biased (note the entry on the mayor's page). Phrases such as "as useful as a noodle thick vibrator" seem a little excessive. -- ["JabberWokky" jw]	+ * No worries - I just added a new, Public Domain image from the USDA (via Wikipedia). Happy Mosquitoes! -- ["JabberWokky" jw] + ------ + ''2005-08-25 09:51:54'' [[nbsp]] What's up with posting the August 23rd City Council disruption on multiple pages? Makes sense to post it on ["breaking news"] and ["west nile virus"], but does it really need to appear on every page that mentions mosquitoes? I can appreciate that some people are very upset by the thought of being sprayed, and it's significant, yet this is beginning to feel like media oversaturation. --["AlphaDog"] + * I posted it to Breaking News (since at the time it was, the morning after) and copied it over to Mosquitoes as a long term entry (someone has since created a West Nile page and moved it to there). I note that several of the other mentions seem to be rather politically biased (note the entry on the mayor's page). Phrases such as "as useful as a noodle thick vibrator" seem a little excessive. -- ["JabberWokky" jw]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

BrentLaabs — 2006-08-07 22:20:16

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 272:	Line 272:
	+ ------ + ''2006-08-07 23:20:16'' [[nbsp]] 6995 pages... almost 7000! --["BrentLaabs"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-07-30 18:51:58

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 271:	Line 271:
	+ * It probably should be done. There's a footnote macro just perfect for that... before the macro accepted links (the Dark Days), I used to use the following format: During the 19th annual Dixon Lambtown USA mutton bustin' competition, the winner stayed on a bucking lamb for 5.35 seconds. ( '''[http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/07/30/news/154new0.txt Source]''' ). You can see that format here and there... either that or the footnote macro should be decided on for the ["Wiki Style Guide"]. --["JabberWokky" jw]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

AndrewChen — 2006-07-30 17:47:51

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 269:	Line 269:
	+ ------ + ''2006-07-30 18:47:51'' [[nbsp]] 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"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-07-23 22:04:58

Reply to Sharla.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 267:	Line 267:
	+ + Sharla -- you posted this while I was writing the above. Seed topics have always been something I've seen as important and defended; Juvenile Justice is certainly a example of a excellent topic. I even think colors can be turned into the basis for good Davis relevant entries. I'm talking about chatter between a few people that just goes back and forth about topics unrelated to Davis, the Wiki, and have no general intent other than as a place to chat. Hopefully my above comment clarifies what I was referring to. --["JabberWokky" jw]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

JabberWokky — 2006-07-23 22:00:27

I care about this issue because I care about the Wiki.

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 262:	Line 262:
	+ + Oh, I agree totally. Debate on the Wiki is very important, and I'm ''not'' looking to just stomp on everything calling itself a Debate. That's why I referred to a "good" debate (Cult/Talk)... there are several more, some of which have lasted for a long long time and are chaotic -- Measure X is a good example of using the Wiki as a Forum for a Davis issue. I'm referring to "open debates" about non-Wiki, non-Davis issues. Yes, they need to be approached on a case by case basis. I'm bringing it up because the rapid appearance of several that are, in my mind, starting to cross out of the domain of the Wiki. As I say, that line is one that the community should draw together, and (somewhat ironically), I'm trying to start debate on the issue to feel out the opinions of others. Fundamentally, I'm worrying about the long view -- what the shape of the Wiki will look like in, say, 2010. Rather than thinking about an edit of a specific entry, I'm thinking what series of edits can be done to "prune and shape" a growing, organtic whole into a better end result. Talk pages or long blocks of comments are fantastic because people know they will dwindle and disappear, enriching the entry. Reviews (a specific form of comment) stand alone as a sampling of individual opinions without compromise. Debates on Davis issues function as minutes of a town hall open forum, a record of the zeitgeist of the community on certain issues. But even the real world town forums should not lapse into tangents too far astray. Mosquito spraying or Measure X, yes. Even "Too damn Hot..." makes perfect sense (my earlier comment regarding it was in the heat of passion on the issue). The Wiki should have character. But I've always been leery of Abortion Debate as a topic too far astray from that "town hall meeting" qualification. Having a "General Debate" on the topic of Food or an unprompted debate on "Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism" worries me that the scope of debate has exited the boundaries of what is appropriate -- what is prompted for by the needs of the Wiki. DavisWiki is not Google Groups or Blogger. Unless the community just likes debating on the Wiki and feel that's a path the site should take... in which case I'll be perfectly happy with it. ''But I worry that debate has become the purpose, rather than debate having a purpose''... which is a very subtle and ''very'' fundamental shift which I feel will have profound effects on the shape of the Wiki as a whole. --["JabberWokky" jw] + +

Wiki Community/General Discussion

SharlaDaly — 2006-07-23 21:48:29

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 261:	Line 261:
	+ + 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"]

Wiki Community/General Discussion

PhilipNeustrom — 2006-07-23 21:12:13

Differences for Wiki Community/General Discussion

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 260:	Line 260:
- I may be best to discuss removing specific things rather than to say that any debate or discussion on the wiki is pointless. Let's try and avoid making Davis Wiki boring. --["PhilipNeustrom"]	+ I may be best to discuss removing specific things rather than to say that any debate or discussion on the wiki is pointless. Let's try and avoid making Davis Wiki boring. While I generally agree that debate about certain things, such as vegetarianism, aren't really locally relevant, there are a number of global issues that folks may feel are relevant to Davis itself or would like to maybe discuss with Davis itself. But it's probably best to have these dealt with on a case-by-case basis? --["PhilipNeustrom"]