Brain MRI

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Nx
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'm not trying to say "we're there." We're not, you're right. But we do need to actively work toward wherever "there" is, which in my mind (getting back to the topic at hand) is helped by further organizing the article rating system.

Blue (pester)03:14, 27 September 2011

Unfortunately, Blue, getting "there" whatever that means, is going to mean lots of changes that cause the same problems you all fight for, and get into battles over. (I avoid, intentially). Which as ADK says, often makes projects like this fail, or make other people bail.

That said, the wiki will, if it really wants to be serious, need to decide what that means. It's one thing to say "we have a mission statement", it's another for that mission statement to mean anything. Half our articles are pure crap. 1/3 of our articles are ok, but they don't really say anything other than "wiki pedia light", and those few gems that really say "THIS IS RATIONAL WIKI" (like gold brain articles) are 10? 100? so so few.

But what do you focus on? making articles more factual? making articles more informative? making articles more critical? All the funny one liners get stripped from good articles, cause they sorta lessen the impact, but then you say "wait, now it's back to wiki light'.

It's going to be painful, i suspect. But at the same time, something great to be part of, i think.

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits03:19, 27 September 2011

The wikipedia light articles are good support articles, their purpose is to help you if you don't know what something means. We could of course link to WP as well, but WP is tl;dr and doesn't really serve that purpose (quickly finding out what that term means) well. WP is better when you want to know all the gory details.

-- Nx / talk03:25, 27 September 2011

NX, i do think they have their place - I just think right now, we do more wp light, than the really amazing gold articles that brought me hear 2 years ago.

And that's not criticism. those are hard to write, they are hard to even conceptualize. What makes a really snappy RW article, that says to the world, you MUST read this.

It's not surprising we have so few, I just am eager to see the new ones the editors write in the future.

I'm guessing those "gold" articles are usually on Evo, since the entire world does politics, and with the new project you all had started when i returned (It looked like you were taking over the intellectual property of an evo site) it will probably be another evo article that is the kind of Gold Brain.

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits03:30, 27 September 2011

Interesting point, I think I have been side-tracked into doing things that WP does already but more snarky. But we get things right occasionally. Comet Elenin and Project Blue Beam being the two most prominent of the last 12 months or so. The trouble is finding the right thing.

ADK...I'll meditate your fat!11:26, 27 September 2011

Well that's exactly right, and i'm not sure it's something you can set out to do, but more "this is the right time and the right place for this article", and it really does a job of the topic.

As a personal writer/editor, I'm not that clever, nor insightful. I don't have much that is novel or interesting to say, I'm better at summarizing what others have to say. I can distill Pinker and Levinson and explain cognitive linguists, but i can't say "so here's why you should care". So I can improve our "wiki light", but I'm not sure how i could even add to a really stellar gold. But I assure you, if i come up with something, I'll share it. muwhahahaha.

I've read the Elenin (and it was timely and good), but what is "blue beam".

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits14:02, 27 September 2011