88:
35:
378:
thing, if you don't trust yourself with writing an unbiased version of the article, would be to add another version of the article. In that case we don't have "Biased article + Discussion" but instead we have "Biased article (bias 1) + Biased article (bias 2)" and that would much better server the purpose of alarming glancing users of the page's status. Furthermore it is far better source for a later refactoring by someone who trusts himself to be unbiased.
71:
459:
otherwise who knows what kind of minefield they'll be walking into, and this will take less time and mental energy if the talk pages aren't cluttered up with tons of useless crap, which is poorly organized. Second, I think the energy spent in summarizing the discussion on most talk pages can result in new information for the main page. This is certainly what happened on
220:
respect for other people. If that would not be the case, the whole wiki-pedia idea is doomed and in order to get anything out of it we would at least need to rethink the whole authorisation handling in order only to allow a selected set of people the editing rights. As long as we need not do this, there is no point in hindering the creative spirit in any way.
212:
improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work just flushed without warning. Then again, oversensitivity can be detrimental to progress, and they could just restore it. What I'll do is; as long as the changes are a synthesis, immediate; when they're a competition, discuss (on a separate page). --
410:
Personally, I find long pages of discussion between two or more persons next to useless since it mostly hides the information that is in there somewhere from public view. These discussions tend to contain good points, but the problem is that they are stuck in the middle of a discussion. I'm sure that
200:
aimed at changing people's minds. But what's the point of doing that on the wiki (except some ancillary social reason)? To improve articles, presumably. But what's stopping us from just going right in and improving them? Why engage in the discussion? You'd have to have a good reason, I think. So just
346:
articles are supposed to be encyclopedia articles (right?), and encyclopedia articles don't have discussion right there on the page itself. The effect of having the discussion right there on the page itself makes it seem as though the discussion is just as important (an end in itself, as it were) as
527:
But as someone who's watched other Wiki's develop into resources, I tend to think of nearly every discussion as something which can eventually be refactored into useful information. If you look at Ward's Wiki, you'll see that there is now a large repository of information about
Extreme Programming.
514:
You'd have to have a good reason, I think. So just go in and make the changes, I say." And I took that and other comments (here and elsewhere), as an indication that you tend to think discussion is not very valuable for the
Knowledge, especially when the same effort could be spent on "pure" work on
496:
Why would I disagree? Refactoring discussion pages with a view to creating better articles is one of the best things that you can do with a convoluted, too-long discussion page. That will result in better articles and actually keep people focused on the task of article creation. Moreover, it allows
451:
and has little to recommend it other than historical value. Perhaps we could talk about a policy for cleaning up the /talk pages a bit... I'd recommend using the traditional wiki refactoring technique of adding a summary with whatever consensus we've arrived at the top, grouping separate discussion
385:
I have two cents as a newbie. I like the idea of everyone adding their knowledge to this
Knowledge. I do not like the idea of the discussion/forum stuff. There are doers and talkers. I will be doing some additions to the Knowledge, I wish the talkers would go just away! You are parasites, trying to
541:
Well, I see your point. I was mainly thinking about the situation where people have (as they sometimes will--not always a bad thing) created a huge Talk page. I agree, one can almost always glean useful information from that. I do think, though, that that isn't the format that's best to follow in
377:
I'd say you're wrong, Josh. If an article is biased or incorrect, a discussion on whether or not it is biased or incorrect and how does not improve the article itself. The best thing to do, instead of commenting it, is to rewrite it in order to remove the bias or incorrect things. The second best
358:
Why not? If an article is biased, or out and out wrong, then anyone who makes even a cursory glance at the page should be warned of the possibility. Isn't that at least as important as the contents of the page, since they are worthless without the grain of salt that tells you to take? Hiding such
219:
The immediate work with other peoples articles are best used with a respect for other peoples views, contributions, and work. I believe that all contributers to wikipedia, i.e. all that have enough enthusiasm and courage to press "edit this page right now" followed by "Save" also has the required
211:
I believe that when retitling, making additions, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc; immediate with no discussion is best. But with large deletions or replacements, it might be better to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author get discouraged and quit posting. One person's
458:
I fully expect that someone (probably Larry) will object that this takes away valuable time from creating encyclopedia articles, but I don't think that's necessarily true for a couple of reasons. First, I think most people want to at least read through the /talk pages before editing an article -
574:
possible for ya'll to approach partisan topics in a nonpartisan way--for whatever reason, though, a lot of
Wikipedians seem to resist it. But it just takes a bit of discipline (and knowledge and research). For example, I am totally non-religious, but I would not think of debating the merits of
195:
as yet another discussion forum, rather than an encyclopedia. As I see it--and you can feel free to disagree and act however you please, this being a wiki after all--all that emotional energy that goes into hashing through partisan and other issues could much more easily be channelled toward
254:
View 3. The decision to keep the discussion where it is, or move it to a *Discussion page, is contextual. Factors involved in the decision include such things as: how long is the discussion likely to continue, is resolution likely, is the discussion particularly flame-likely, etc. --
178:
View 4: Whatever you do, preserve information. If you think, in your judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on a /Talk page, along with a comment about
310:
View 3. I propose that there is a long-run and short-run purpose. The long-run purpose is to turn a discussion into a resource. The short-run purpose is to channel a discussion in a useful direction, i.e. to help aim it at the future time when it can be a resource. Adherents:
546:--although I think that if people are well-meaning, cool-headed, etc., they can accomplish more by simply adding the information they'd use in their arguments to the article itself. On the other hand, that can create a really biased article--in which case, I guess it
272:
in particular to encourage the practice of moving discussions to separate pages: the pages are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not discussions. What contextual factors would outweigh this? Sure, there might be some. Can I have an example, though? --
403:
Though I wouldn't state my views quite as drastically as gg above, I pretty much agree. It feels as if articles after reaching a certain size start accumulating /Talk text instead of being further revised. I'm definitely not innocent of this, either.
125:
View 1. As often as one sees something incorrect, obviously biased/partisan. It is better to change a page immediately, when one sees something perceived to be a problem, rather than to discuss changes that need to be made. Adherents of this view:
183:
you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain wrong, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment that it is in fact wrong to deter later editors.
330:
Occasionally a useful middle-ground is to separate the commonly-accepted summary from the discussion. A good way to do this is to place the summary at top, then use two horizontal lines and a word like
579:
myself on being able to present the religious point of view in as sympathetic way as possible. (Not that I have done this in my philosophy articles--I haven't adapted all of them for
Knowledge yet.)
196:
improving articles. The purpose of the wiki, as I see it, is--well, it's whatever people make it--but what I'd like it to be is the creation of good encyclopedia articles. Discussing things is
528:
In fact, I think it is the most useful resource on
Extreme Programming I've seen, and all of the really useful pages have come from lots of discussion, and multiple attempts at refactoring--
515:
articles. Of course, in some cases this is exactly the right attitude. This is particularly true when those engaged in the discussion are engaged in name calling and other unhealthy behavior.
359:
comments on a talk section would seem to give the page an air of legitimacy that is potentially harmful - in such a case we need big blinking lights on the page itself. --
104:
435:
There are a number of /talk or other discussion oriented pages which could use a bit of traditional Wiki refactoring. It took me a long time to read through
562:
don't think we want
Knowledge to go that route. That's mainly why I'm concerned about this. As long as the partisan wrangling stays on a few pages like
630:
379:
296:
246:
221:
131:
614:
510:
I was just guessing as to what you'd think based on your previous comments. You said, "What's stopping us from just going right in and improving ?
563:
139:
View 2. Only after a discussion has played out. It is better to let the original author of a page to make changes to it. Adherents of this view:
291:
View 1. There is one main purpose to refactoring and editing pages in general, and that is to create good encyclopedia articles. Adherents:
567:
558:
I keep this in mind, that it's only the habits we encourage that keeps
Knowledge from turning into another H2G2 or Everything2. I
21:
335:
before the discussion. If the discussion grows large or unweildy, it can later be separated into other page(s). --
94:
The talk page of an archived item is unlikely to be monitored, so start a discussion at an active venue like the
599:
342:
My main reason for opposing this habit, and advocating that people move discussion to discussion pages, is that
204:
to change it back, or, if he's reasonable, just make sure that the views on the table are fairly presented. --
201:
go in and make the changes, I say. The article author can always go in and look at your changes and decide
54:
34:
17:
587:
By the way, this discussion needs a new home, since it doesn't actually concern refactoring policy. :-) --
191:
I understand your point, Jimbo, but mainly what I'm concerned about is that people will start treating
460:
448:
185:
366:
In that case, I'd say you're right, Josh. But for general innocuous discussion, that's what the
95:
497:
one, if necessary, to continue the discussion with a better view to what's happened before. --
570:, etc., OK. But I don't like it. You know, another reason I don't like it is that I think it
529:
464:
436:
422:
412:
444:
241:
View 2. On a *Talk or *Discussion page, always (or almost always). Adherents of this view:
8:
61:
415:
could be reduced to half the length without losing anything, and still improve clarity.
542:
creating
Knowledge articles. That might, I guess, be the case for some topics, such as
336:
352:
292:
274:
242:
228:
Should discussion occur on the page itself or instead on a *Talk or *Discussion page?
205:
127:
421:
And yes, I'm writing as an addition to a discussion. Perhaps I should just dig into
474:
426:
360:
312:
256:
162:
213:
166:
386:
slow down or even stop the good thing that is happening here. Please go away! gg
443:. But there's useful content there, on the other hand all of the discussion on
152:
respected, but at the same time a minor tweak early on can avoid a flame war.
624:
440:
108:
425:
instead, picking out the good bits and pushing the rest off to /Talk. Hm. --
550:
a good thing to remove the bias to a Talk page. It's a bit of a conundrum.
155:
To refactor or not will often depend on the context, and so either rule 1
80:
158:(change immediately) or rule 2 (wait for the discussion to end) are too
484:
260:
170:
393:
What would you do if some indiscriminately removes your long article ?
367:
343:
268:
192:
603:
588:
498:
371:
79:
A discussion of how and when content in
Knowledge should be
543:
452:
items together, and placing them towards the bottom.
235:
View 1. On the page itself. Adherents of this view:
60:don't necessarily represent current information or
145:View 3. The middle road -- respect for a dialogue
118:How much and how often should refactoring be done?
105:Refactoring is essential to the Knowledge process
622:
631:Items in the Knowledge historical archive
600:Larry Sanger/What Talk pages are not for
14:
623:
92:Looking to revive discussion on this?
29:
284:What is the purpose of refactoring?
58:. As an archive item, its contents
27:
575:religion with anyone, and I would
28:
642:
161:extreme. Adherents of this view:
266:There's an excellent reason for
86:
69:
33:
13:
1:
512:Why engage in the discussion?
473:I second this suggestion. --
41:Knowledge historical archive
18:Knowledge:Historical archive
7:
447:is about an old version of
347:the article, which it most
52:in the English Knowledge's
10:
647:
351:is not, in my opinion. --
461:Logical fallacy/Straw man
449:Logical fallacy/Straw man
44:This discussion page is
50:preserved for reference
437:neutral point of view
423:neutral point of view
413:neutral point of view
445:Logical fallacy/Talk
149:dialogue should be
186:Lee Daniel Crocker
64:on project matters
55:historical archive
102:
101:
75:Item description:
638:
530:Mark Christensen
465:Mark Christensen
90:
89:
84:
73:
72:
42:
37:
30:
646:
645:
641:
640:
639:
637:
636:
635:
621:
620:
87:
77:
70:
40:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
644:
634:
633:
609:
607:
606:
594:
592:
591:
583:
581:
580:
554:
552:
551:
537:
535:
534:
533:
532:
521:
519:
518:
517:
516:
504:
502:
501:
492:
490:
489:
488:
487:
478:
477:
469:
455:
433:
431:
418:
407:
401:
399:
397:
396:
395:
394:
388:
387:
375:
364:
356:
340:
327:
320:
319:
317:
307:
301:
288:
280:
278:
264:
251:
238:
232:
225:
217:
209:
189:
175:
142:
136:
122:
114:
111:(and others!)
100:
99:
38:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
643:
632:
629:
628:
626:
619:
618:
616:
610:
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
590:
586:
585:
584:
578:
573:
569:
565:
564:abortion/Talk
561:
557:
556:
555:
549:
545:
540:
539:
538:
531:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
500:
495:
494:
493:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
471:
470:
467:
466:
462:
456:
453:
450:
446:
442:
441:Abortion/talk
438:
432:
429:
428:
424:
419:
416:
414:
408:
405:
400:
392:
391:
390:
389:
384:
383:
382:
381:
374:
373:
369:
363:
362:
355:
354:
350:
345:
339:
338:
337:CliffordAdams
334:
328:
325:
324:
318:
315:
314:
308:
305:
302:
299:
298:
294:
289:
286:
285:
281:
277:
276:
271:
270:
263:
262:
258:
252:
249:
248:
244:
239:
236:
233:
230:
229:
224:
223:
216:
215:
208:
207:
202:
199:
194:
188:
187:
182:
176:
173:
172:
168:
164:
159:
156:
153:
150:
148:
143:
140:
137:
134:
133:
129:
123:
120:
119:
115:
112:
110:
106:
97:
93:
85:
83:
82:
76:
67:
65:
63:
57:
56:
51:
47:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
19:
615:PolicyPolicy
612:
611:
608:
593:
582:
576:
571:
559:
553:
547:
536:
520:
511:
503:
491:
468:
457:
454:
434:
430:
420:
417:
411:a page like
409:
406:
402:
398:
376:
365:
357:
353:Larry Sanger
348:
341:
332:
329:
326:
322:
321:
316:
309:
306:
303:
300:
293:Larry Sanger
290:
287:
283:
282:
279:
275:Larry Sanger
267:
265:
253:
250:
243:Larry Sanger
240:
237:
234:
231:
227:
226:
218:
210:
206:Larry Sanger
203:
197:
190:
180:
177:
174:
160:
157:
154:
151:
146:
144:
141:
138:
135:
128:Larry Sanger
124:
121:
117:
116:
113:
103:
96:village pump
91:
78:
74:
68:
59:
53:
49:
45:
43:
598:Please see
483:So do I. --
475:Pinkunicorn
427:Pinkunicorn
361:Josh Grosse
333:Discussion:
323:Discussion:
313:Jimbo Wales
257:Jimbo Wales
163:Jimbo Wales
380:LinusTolke
370:is for. --
297:LinusTolke
247:LinusTolke
222:LinusTolke
214:Atlas 2091
167:Atlas 2091
132:LinusTolke
81:refactored
613:See also
568:drug/Talk
368:Talk Page
349:certainly
344:Knowledge
269:Knowledge
193:Knowledge
62:consensus
625:Category
304:View 2.
109:TimShell
98:instead.
46:inactive
20: |
198:usually
560:really
439:, and
22:Policy
577:pride
544:drugs
485:Kpjas
463:. --
261:Kpjas
171:Kpjas
16:<
602:. --
107:. --
48:and
604:LMS
589:LMS
499:LMS
372:LMS
181:why
147:qua
627::
572:is
566:,
548:is
295:,
259:,
245:,
184:--
169:,
165:,
130:,
66:.
617:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
