Meat Ball Deletions / Reform Society Etiquette Discussion





  In the context of WikiCanonicalization? this etiquette

was offered as an example. Although the main point was #4, one may find fault with #5. The fact is that this small innocent page may serve as a positive or negative example depending how you look at it.

Contributors: HelmutLeitner, LionKimbro

Use as a positive example:

  • It's good to have an etiquette
  • It's good to point to other wikis of similar topics to show the users the best place for their contributions (in fact that was the point in WikiCanonicalization?)
  • It's good to point out that "squabbling" is not appreciated.
Use as a negative example:

Pointing to wikis:

I think that the wiki list is of low quality. It has only only a few entries, pointing obvious off-topic-posters to different places. It is not maintained and the last change to it was 5 months ago. Most wikis do better. Typically there will a list (see German GründerWiki:WikiVerzeichnis) or a category (see MeatBall:CategoryOnlineCommunity) for this purpose. If you compare, this list falls short.

If we analyze the content of the list, then we see, that it only serves to point OT-posters away. It does not show contributors the best place for their contributions. It does not contain similar or competing online communities (one point of WikiCanonicalization?). While I don't know the English scenery of "social theory system", I know about 5-10 German systems that would qualify. We may assume that there are at least 10-20 similar English communities but none is mentioned.

About "squabbling":

This part shows a lack of sensibility and respect. It's a common task for all wiki communities to work towards improving communication culture. Tell people that you don't want certain behaviour, but don't point them to another community and tell them that that's the right place for it. There is no right place for it. You are not entitled to speak for or define appropriate behaviour for another wiki community.

WardsWiki carries a special burden. It is the origin, the center and a showcase of wiki culture and cooperation. It was never easy to be in the center and to attract and cope with all kinds of people. A lot of members (contributors, gnomes or helpful spirits) worked very hard to keep up quality. A founder - and especially a "reform society thinker" - should be aware of this situation. If there is no engagement to be helpful, there should be at least the sensibility not to worsen the situation.

Lions Unrefactored Response

I didn't mean to say that #4 on http://www.reformsociety.com/Etiquette was an idea demonstration of how to implement a WikiCanonicalization? redirection page.

But this is a good local for discussion.

What I think it gets right: It refers people to where they need to go.

What it gets wrong: It encompases too much. ( DseWiki:DasRichtigeWiki seems even more extreme!)

I do not believe that every, or even most, wiki subjects should have redirection links from a wiki.

(In OneBigWiki?, this theme is reiterated

Why create another space with any overlap with MeatBall? The answer is that it would be helpful to have the part that would probably not be welcome on MeatBall: namely huge lists of known wikis. -- OneBigWiki?

What wikis do you want to include in your list? Those that are most likely sources of confusion.

Consider the 6 subjects listed:

  • Programming practices and projects.
  • Religious matters.
  • Material on the game of Go.
  • Whimsical pages.
  • Book reviews.
  • Extreme programming.
That seems like a bit much. Consider them point by point.

Programming practices and projects. It is conceivable to me that people were writing about reforming programming practices. But, it really wasn't what the site was about. So the community refers to the Portland Pattern Repository, so people know where to go. Fair enough! Good redirection. I like this one.

Religious matters. Refers to AndStuff?. Sounds fair enough. I looked at the site, and that seems appropriate. Way to go. I can easily imagine people were talking about religion on the reform site, when it really wasn't what it wanted to deal with either.

Material on the game of Go. Now this one confuses me. Am I really to believe that people were talking about reforming Go? If they did, surely it must have been a joke. I would refer that person to GreenCheese?, if that were the case, not to SenseisLibrary?. I would not have included this one, because it doesn't contribute anything. (Unless, for some strange reason, hoards of Go players were dominating the ReformWiki?.)

Book Reviews. Another weird one, that I would not have included. Were people posting reviews to "The Last Unicorn" to the site? That sounds a bit odd.

Furthermore, there should be an exception to the "No book reviews" rule: If a book is about reform, then it should be able to have a mention. The review should definitely go onto BookShelved?. But suppose that the book has important things to say about educational reform. That's very on topic. Those things should be described (and connected with the rest of the site) in a page on the ReformWiki?. (This connects with ResponsibleWikiOverlap? ideas.)

(...to be written...)

BTW: YES, I agree. The site should list peer sites (that is, other sites that are also about reform), if there were any at the time. Wiki-space is still a bit young. Many wikis are actually "first" in their field, and they may not even have neighboring (tangentially related) wikis to refer to.

Another thing it gets wrong: It refers you to the wrong destination. The canonical place for talking about XP is presently Ward's XP wiki, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ExtremeProgrammingRoadmap, not the San Diego Extreme Programming wiki. I think that's generally understood- the San Diego XP page frequently links into Ward's wiki. I am guessing that whoever wrote that entry lives in San Diego, and was promoting their own community. That's bad mojo. That's against WikiCanonicalization?. Maybe WikiSubversion? or something like that.

Original text moved from WikiCanonicalization?

I don't want to criticize again, but it's inevitable. http://www.reformsociety.com/Etiquette is really disgusting in its "Don't squabble here. If you feel a squabble is inevitable, please take it to WikiWiki?. The friendly Wiki:WikiGnomes will tidy up after you." showing a lack of respect that disqualifies the writer and the whole reformsociety system. Sorry. -- HelmutLeitner