RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Revamp 20090111
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
If you build it, they will come. Or, at least, show by their indifference that it was a waste of time ;) ħuman
23:41, 11 January 2009 (EST)
- Are we going to bicker on the page now? What about RA's can we merge the two somehow? - User 23:44, 11 January 2009 (EST)
- I was hoping we would bring the best ideas from there to here, entire convos if appropriate. What I wanted was to see what "we had" compared to "what we are going to have", and since RA kinda ignored any of my offers to help him manage it, here we are. Probably just you and I ;) What was hard for me at the other page was there were three things to keep track of - the many discussions, of course, the ever-changing page it was about, and the original guidelines. Gave me a headache. ħuman 00:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- Sorry, I'm more of a "rewrite as I go" sort of person. : |
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:37, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- No problem, but as I said, I was trying to coach you in how, possibly, to manage a multi-user thing with many different people's styles accommodated. Providing a "reference" and creating space for discussion (and for people to present new "versions") helps, I think. Forcing other people to follow one's style makes it harder for them to add much (hence the reason you think every person who commented on your version, except me, agreed with it. perhaps we were reading a different talk page?) ħuman 00:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- I've explained myself about that before—what I meant was that they agreed with the idea that the community standards should be updated. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:58, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- Right, and this sort of structure makes it easier to discuss which ones and how to update them. "see the old, here's comments on them" versus, "here's a new one, what do you think". No big deal. If they pop in here, fine. If they don't, fine. You are, of course, free to copy in/add comments in any section that interests you. And, of course, add "new" sections at the bottom (I think the "religion" guideline falls under that?). ħuman 01:03, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- Right, and this sort of structure makes it easier to discuss which ones and how to update them. "see the old, here's comments on them" versus, "here's a new one, what do you think". No big deal. If they pop in here, fine. If they don't, fine. You are, of course, free to copy in/add comments in any section that interests you. And, of course, add "new" sections at the bottom (I think the "religion" guideline falls under that?). ħuman
- I've explained myself about that before—what I meant was that they agreed with the idea that the community standards should be updated.
- No problem, but as I said, I was trying to coach you in how, possibly, to manage a multi-user thing with many different people's styles accommodated. Providing a "reference" and creating space for discussion (and for people to present new "versions") helps, I think. Forcing other people to follow one's style makes it harder for them to add much (hence the reason you think every person who commented on your version, except me, agreed with it. perhaps we were reading a different talk page?) ħuman
- Sorry, I'm more of a "rewrite as I go" sort of person. : |
- I was hoping we would bring the best ideas from there to here, entire convos if appropriate. What I wanted was to see what "we had" compared to "what we are going to have", and since RA kinda ignored any of my offers to help him manage it, here we are. Probably just you and I ;) What was hard for me at the other page was there were three things to keep track of - the many discussions, of course, the ever-changing page it was about, and the original guidelines. Gave me a headache. ħuman
