Consumerium:Intermediate page format: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
**and then perhaps individually authored opinions or comments, which might be seen only by those who trust those people as individuals | **and then perhaps individually authored opinions or comments, which might be seen only by those who trust those people as individuals | ||
''See [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=intermediate_page metaweb intermediate page] for an idea of how an intermediate page should be constructed'' | ''See [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=intermediate_page metaweb intermediate page] for an idea of how an intermediate page should be constructed, though they are more likely to call their editor-groupings a [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=phyle phyle] than a [[faction]] for reasons having to do with their mandate to extend [[w:Neal Stephenson]]'s work.'' | ||
Revision as of 18:25, 26 February 2004
Consumerium intermediate page format suggested at Talk:Main_Page
- Consumerium:Consensus - Summarizes majority user opinions, with documented sources, similar to Neutral point of view but with some means of balancing systemic biases
- and then factionally defined
- Consumerium:Criticisms of Xs - Arguments against product/company.
- Consumerium:Praise for X - Arguments for product/company.
- and then perhaps individually authored opinions or comments, which might be seen only by those who trust those people as individuals
See metaweb intermediate page for an idea of how an intermediate page should be constructed, though they are more likely to call their editor-groupings a phyle than a faction for reasons having to do with their mandate to extend w:Neal Stephenson's work.