Some thoughts about protocol
- See something wrong? fix it.
- Want to create a topic? Go for it.
- See something incorrect? Correct it.
- See a disorganized topic? Organize it.
- Got specialized knowledge? Share it.
- See a flame? Snuff it (or reword it to preserve the discussion while taking out the sharp edges.)
- Add something substantial? Sign it, and consider adding a date time stamp ( "# N #" or "# U #" macros... no spaces) to help folks locate new changes. Especially important for large pages, where no one but you knows why it is showing up in Recent Changes.
- See an old date time stamp? Delete it.
- Contributing in Thread Mode? Eventually, go back and steer it to Document Mode.
- Add something not really notable? Uncheck the Include page in Recent Changes List checkbox before save.
- Suggestions? Let us know in Wiki Wish List.
- Bugs in the Wiki? Let Steven know in Wiki Bug Reports.
- See a sabotaged page? Let us know in Wiki Admin.
- If you cite copyrighted material, please use
< blockquote > tags around the citation and proper attribution. Include the author's name if possible. Tell what publication it came from. If it's on the web, link to it.
If you disagree with the thoughts of an author, it is tempting to just replace their statements with your own. Instead, respond in Thread Mode: add your statement, support for why it is more accurate, and for extra credit, what misconception lead to the "mistake." If two people disagree on something, I think it is more valuable to future readers (the original author included) to see both statements and their support. The mistake may be made by others, and if they don't see it spelled out, it is likely that they will not realize it's incorrectness, and continue to make the same mistake, even though they have read the "correct" statement.
Eventually, enough support will be given and that the mistake will be acknowledged, and the page can be morphed into Document Mode, perhaps with common mistakes noted.
- Carl Karsten
Don't bother folks with no news
When performing Wiki Housekeeping that is just cosmetic, spelling and grammar correction, but not actually contributing thoughtful content to the topic, uncheck the "Include page in Recent Changes List." You may still want to include a comment for those who look at *all* changes on the wiki, but this avoids filling the Recent Changes list and RSS feeds with non-information. -- ?tr
Play nice with fresh changes
Refactoring a fresh topic is more "touchy" than refactoring one that's older. The way topics usually improve is with Thread Mode interplay. However as a topic falls in the Recent Changes listing, it loses momentum and that's usually the best time to refactor and summarize it. If you take your editorial cleaver to a topic that's just a few hours old, chances are most people will miss its evolution, and not get a chance to appreciate the discourse. Also the original authors may still be unduly wedded to their point of view, and resent the quick refactoring. Play nice, and be patient. But do refactor.-- Steven Black
Question. Is there any consensus on the order the names should come in "Contributors:" byline? Typically, people add their names in the order they make additions to the topic (if they add them at all). When refactoring from Thread Mode to Document Mode, I often add names to the list if I note people have made substative comments in thread mode and have not already added their names to the list. I feel I should at least do that if I am blending their wisdom into the topic while also removing their signature from the threaded comments. However, when I do this I'm never quite sure what order the wisdom was added in. Up till now, I've not really payed much attention, just copying the names to the bottom as I come to them. However, it seems like there might be a standard for this... I'm inclinded to want to put the names into alphabetical order (as they are in Mathematics Literature). Wikis aren't about "getting credit" for ideas, and having an unbiased way to order author's names might help preserve and promote this idea. -- ?lc
Anyone Agree / Disagree / Care?
What is the protocol or notation to use when you organize someone else's work? Given the potential that you may have messed it up, if you leave them as the author, it could be like mis-quoting them. Putting your name is plagiarism, and putting theirName refactored by myName seems like a waste of space? -- Carl Karsten
If the item is sharp and relevant then I recommend moving the contributor's signature, along with yours, to the contributors line. If it's not valuable, as in "I agree with Phil here" followed by an echo of what Phil said, then no need. Personally, I feel that after a while the signature on a post is less valuable, and removing it is often a good first step towards Document Mode. See also Problems With Thread Mode. -- Steven Black
I've just started a Page called Road Map that might make navigation a little easier. If it doesn't, let me know there and we can remove it. -- Andrew MacNeill
See also: Thread Mode, Document Mode, Mechanical Mode, More About Housekeeping
Category Learning Wiki Category Housekeeping
( Topic last updated: 2005.08.19 09:43:56 AM )