RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3220Goal: $6000

Chicken coop

Jump to: navigation, search

As the mod that closed the thread I think you should monitor it and revert changes to the locked thread.

Tmtoulouse (talk)01:04, 19 August 2011

Thanks for the heads up.

Seme Blue03:20, 19 August 2011

Hm, I'm wondering if maybe we should change it so that such discussions aren't "closed," but really just "over." The warning could instead read "This discussion has ended on <variable>. If you reply, don't expect anyone to see it."

Otherwise, we need to develop a procedure for closing Coop threads. Like maybe a week after the decision has been reached?

ADtalkModerator03:35, 19 August 2011

Well you guys are the mods, but to me if a mod has made the call that a thread/discussion is destructive/harmful to the site and as such closed a thread it should be closed. Otherwise its a toothless gesture and grounds for the potential wheel warring we are trying to avoid.

Tmtoulouse (talk)03:39, 19 August 2011
 

I don't think there's much difference between "closed" and "over," but as we've seen with the trolltop templates, just hiding comments doesn't get people to stop replying/arguing.

I think we need Coop procedures in general, but I agree that a week after a decision is the best timeframe for closing cases.

Seme Blue03:40, 19 August 2011
Ceiling cat.jpg W A R N I N G

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, and will be visible to anyone.
To protect your privacy, please log in or create an account.
See our privacy policy for further information.

Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work unless you have permission.

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
Your changes will be visible immediately.

Please note:
 
 

I don't mean to imply any wrongdoing, I just think this is something mods need to figure out. We do want to curtail endless handwringing and get some of the ugliness out of prominence, but we also want to allow free discussion and minimize mod interference.

ADtalkModerator03:38, 19 August 2011

I'm not a mod, but to me I think this becomes too much control. too much trying to make all of us wilde insane fools become some kind of army. Why can't you just move the relevant sections to some random page called "chaso hell" or some such, and let people keep whining. People will whine. they like to do it. People will fight. they want to do it. Maybe the mob's job is just to move it out of the "real world" of things like the Coop, and get it to a place the children can whine without harming anyone.

Whinging, bickering, even endlessly is not in and of itself harmful, it's harmful in that it blocks other conversation. so if it's not about an "action item" can;t you just say "this argument and anything else related has been moved to the chaos page - do enjoy playing over there", and keep the business of the coop, or the business of main space, etc., working?

Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot03:47, 19 August 2011

You know, that's not a bad idea...

Seme Blue03:56, 19 August 2011
 

Removing said page from recent pages would be a good idea.

Tmtoulouse (talk)04:29, 19 August 2011
 

So after the close of a discussion, we could move any continuing conversations to the talk page with a link back to the section of origin?

ADtalkModerator05:27, 19 August 2011

If people (mods or whomever) are good about it, I suspect the conversation will naturally "stick" to the new page. That is, if i've had a conversation with someone on both their personal talk page, adn teh talk page of an article, the conversation usually tends to cycle to one page. Moving it let's people not feel censored, but also gets it out of stuff we all do monitor or watch. I'm better at ignoring stupidity when it's off on it's own place, and not center focus to something I'm actually reading. I suspect other people are, too.

Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot05:30, 19 August 2011

I'm on board with this. Is it possible to move this LiquidThread to Community Standards talk, where we can hammer out some actual language to set this up? Or can you not swap a LiquidThread to a normal talk page?

ADtalkModerator05:38, 19 August 2011

This is why I was opposed to liquid threads in the first place. There might be a way to export a liquid thread, but I do not know what it is, and no doubt there will be complications.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX05:45, 19 August 2011
 

I'm on board too, definitely. I think we also need some guidelines on when and how to close discussions and votes.

As far as I know, there's no (yet extant) way of exporting a liquidthread as wikitext.

Seme Blue06:19, 19 August 2011