On 17 Mar 2006 at 16:34, "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Can I just make the comment that this thread shows why email is much better adapted to serious discussions that Wiki software is. Most of the comments on AfD are "Delete, per nom" or "Keep <insert brief spiel here>". Whereas on email people are actually able to develop ideas like "it's a copyvio" beyond that simple troublesome phrase.
At least there's no (easy) way to top-post with fullquotes within wiki software, so that form of annoying idiocy isn' t present there.
And to think there was a proposed policy to ban offsite discussion about Wikipedia...:)
Just how were they going to try to enforce such a ban?
On 3/19/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
At least there's no (easy) way to top-post with fullquotes within wiki software, so that form of annoying idiocy isn' t present there.
*bite my tongue*
And to think there was a proposed policy to ban offsite discussion about Wikipedia...:)
Just how were they going to try to enforce such a ban?
They weren't.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
And to think there was a proposed policy to ban offsite discussion about Wikipedia...:)
Just how were they going to try to enforce such a ban?
They weren't.
To be fair, I believe at least the proposals I've seen didn't try to actually ban offsite discussion, but merely the use of such discussions as justification for policy changes or other on-wiki actions. That _would_ be enforceable.
It's also something I'd almost be in favor of myself, at least for those offsite discussions that aren't even public. The way I see it, if you can't say something in public, it's probably not something you should say at all.
On 3/20/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
To be fair, I believe at least the proposals I've seen didn't try to actually ban offsite discussion, but merely the use of such discussions as justification for policy changes or other on-wiki actions. That _would_ be enforceable.
It's also something I'd almost be in favor of myself, at least for those offsite discussions that aren't even public. The way I see it, if you can't say something in public, it's probably not something you should say at all.
There are a number of different formulations of similar ideas which have differing levels of force attached to them. It seems reasonable to say "Don't rock up claiming to have achieved consensus at some late night poker game with the boys, and expect on-wiki users to accept it". On the other hand, it's not reasonable to say "Don't talk about policy anywhere but here."
In general, common sense doesn't seem to be letting us down on this particular issue, does it?
Steve