by gimpilator » Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:59 pm
by Sarah Simon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:25 pm
Scott wrote:I am completely against this wiki idea.
by Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:30 pm
A wiki is a website which allows its users to add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser usually using a simplified markup language or a rich-text editor.
gimpilator wrote:When someone posts additions/corrections to one of my pages, I verify the information and then incorporate that into the page.
gimpilator wrote:If my submissions all of a sudden include a wiki without my consent, I may choose to no longer submit content.
gimpilator wrote:What is the real issue here? Old pages that are in need of renovation?
gimpilator wrote:Perhaps when a page has a low enough score or it's owner has been inactive for a few years, it could be transferred automatically to the adoption folder. Perhaps adoption pages should be entirely wiki until they are adopted by a new owner. What do you think about that?
gimpilator wrote:Why are we discussing changing SP on a separate website where not as many users are likely to see it?
by Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:36 pm
Sarah Simon wrote:A wiki waters down ownership and accountability. What's the point in someone pouring all sorts of creativity and well-researched content into a page if some dufus can come along and replace it with junk at a whim?
Sarah Simon wrote:Who mediates in a wiki pissing contest, where two contributing authors don't agree?
Sarah Simon wrote:I, for one, do not want my pages edited by a stranger.
by mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:48 pm
by Sarah Simon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:51 pm
by mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:19 pm
by Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:28 pm
Sarah Simon wrote:2. Communicate more clearly, your message is not getting through.
Sarah Simon wrote:Hint: Sometimes reframing the discussion in a way that doesn't raise hackles can be effective. Example: Perhaps we talk about a "small but dynamic conditions update" section of a page instead of "Wiki," eh?
by Matt Lemke » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:30 pm
by Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:32 pm
Matt Lemke wrote:Although having an open wiki is something that won't happen on SP, I am against the idea of having anyone edit my pages
by gimpilator » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:39 pm
Montana Matt wrote:If quality score is low (i.e. too many votes below 6 or 7) or if the page is clearly abandoned, it will appear on some list showing that it is up for adoption.
by mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:51 pm
by Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:02 pm
mrchad9 wrote:Matt has some good ideas with page adoption. I really think it is a separate component than the 'user updates on dynamic conditions' section we are proposing here.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests