Wiki pages devoted to Wiki, its nature, form and postulated future development.
I think [taking meta-discussion to] MeatballWiki is useful for the evolution of Wiki. This reconciles opponents of WikiOnWiki in WardsWiki with proponents of Wiki meta-discussion. -- FridemarPache[, EarleMartin]
I don't see them as harmful, rather I see them perform the same function that CodingStandards do for ExtremeProgramming - namely make the Wiki more uniform and easy to follow. They are necessary, but should be kept as simple and straightforward as possible. PlainEnglish is an excellent idea.
It's interesting to note that this is a WikiOnWiki page.
I put 0, because such discussions easily transform wiki into a self-referential medium (like television sometimes). I don't mind about pages like PlainEnglish, but I think there is definitely too much discussion going on about such secondary items. -- ManfredSchaefer
When meta-discussion of a forum itself goes from being one topic among many to being the primary activity, the forum loses any real purpose. This may be happening to AdvoGato.
On the other hand, it is useful to see how suitable a forum is for discussing itself, just as it is useful to see how languages and programming systems are able to describe themselves.
As an example, from another page:
I've refactored this page. If any feels that it's worth restoring, email me and I can send you a copy. -- ShaeErisson
It looks more expunged than refactored. The page seemed silly to me, but not offensive, and it wasn't an accidental WikiWikiSandbox, so why remove its contents? I think it'd be gentler to wait a while and see if its authors take it anywhere before thinking about doing a content-ectomy on it.
Yes, that's why. I left their homepages as an act of hope. -- ShaeErisson
And, oh great one, you get to choose because...?
''Everyone gets to choose, because that's the way Wiki was built. Anyone can edit a page, and no-one can stop them. But this is veering dangerously close to WikiOnWiki, so I think I'll stop.''
Very wise. The inconsistency with what is said elsewhere could do real credibility damage. There is no semantic connection between a content-ectomy and page reduction. None at all. This page is not one of those ghastly WikiOnWiki discussions. Guys like MichaelPlump? are lucky any of their words were kept at all in fact. Is that absolutely clear?
I'm confused. How is it inconsistent?
I felt no uncertainty that deleting that text on PeopleIndex was a good idea for Wiki. I believe that the text which offended me would offend most of Wiki's users. Shae deleted the text and I concurred. We acted on Wiki's behalf, but we made the call. I think it was a good one.
Deleting the text that was on this page was a less obvious call. I don't remember exactly what was here, but I don't remember it being offensive unless coupled with the PeopleIndex text. At the time I felt it was a good idea to prune this page - Like pulling the roots of the plant, I guess. I'd be prepared to discuss whether or not we were right to delete the text of this page. But I am certain we were right to remove the text on PeopleIndex.
++Dangerous VEERing is right, but not in the direction claimed... I think I would like the opportunity, as a latecomer to this particular discussion archive, to read what has been posted. Why can't it be commented on, inserted into, appended, amended, accentuated, diminished? ...but deleted?...! True, deleting is a component of the editing process, but please don't do it in the interest of PROTECTing other members of the community from being offended... haven't we had our fill of that particular style of editing yet?++
If you would like the PeopleIndex text to appear on Wiki, why not put it on your WikiHomePage and see how Wiki responds to it? Most Wiki pages are a collaborative effort that reflect on all of us. Since your WikiHomePage reflects directly on you, Wiki may be more tolerant of what appears there than it is of what appears on other pages. It would also give everyone an opportunity to see what we removed and comment on whether or not we were out of line. -- WayneConrad
As one of the people who instigated this whole fiasco, I support Wayne's decision. Michael and I created this WikiPage with the belief that it would, basically, never be found. It was before I knew about RecentChanges and before I understood what was really going on here. I really like Wiki, and I'm sorry my CoWorker? and I made such a poor debut. -- RobertChurch
Yeah. If you really wanna know what I wrote on the PeopleIndex, I had listed my name under "People who sell crack to kids". That, of course, bring a reference to a 2Pac song. In retrospect, perhaps a Black Tar Heroin reference would've been better. Regardless, I also support your decision to remove it. I guess I don't really understand why you decided to scribble all over GangstaGeeks, but that's kinda beside the point, and I don't really care, anyway. No worries. In the future, I promise to behave. -- MichaelPlump?
The scribbling comes from another wiki citizen noticing that I edited this page immediately after it happened and doing a reality check. -- ShaeErisson
I'd be happy for this page to go back to where its founders started it. I'm extremely happy that the page's founders wear white hats. No worries here. -- WayneConrad
shifted from CivilityPatterns
Maybe there's a better place on wiki for the following remarks (WikiCivility perhaps, whoever had the idea of generalizing away from wiki above, well done!), but one thing that peeves me a little on wiki is when people shove their discussion or opinions right inside of or next to some fairly readable text.
My preference is to see the source fragment for some remark to be repeated near the bottom of the page, and the new material being appended.
So the idea is to have respect for any existing layout and readability.
Especially stuff near the top of the page inside a patternish style of bold headings.
Also, doesn't it annoy someone else as well, when either laziness or a need to alert the community lets some people think its OK to append right at the top of some page, forcing the original definition further and further down the page when these insertions become contentious, as they often do.
++i firmly reserve the right to insert and displace, to mingle disrupt and participate++in whatever style feels fitting++
Yes, inserting into the middle is rude and disrupts the page. The best response is to quietly edit the page yourself, making the result exactly as the other person should have done in the first place. See also http://clublet.com/c/c/why?HowToConverseDeeplyOnAWiki and TeachWikiTechniqueByEditing.