User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004: Difference between revisions

User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004 (edit)

Revision as of 10:52, 25 June 2004

940 bytes added , 25 June 2004

we have a disagreement here, 142.177.X.X

Jukeboksi

Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators

9,854

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 And I'm determined that opinioned edits will have a distinct wiki ([[Opinion Wiki]] which will then in time implement [[TCE]] functionality. In a discrete wiki this can be done with accessing '''SQL''' directly instead of modifying [[MediaWiki]] code, which leads to simple design and implementation.
-::This is just wrong.  All edits are "opinionated", especially with the subject matter we're going to deal with.  Trying to move everything YOU think is opinionated elsewhere will just result in the [[politics as usual]].  What would move is necessarily [[factionally defined]], there's no objectivity there.  The right answer is a method for [[edits, votes and bets|objective scoring or voting or betting], like [[answer recommendation]] for instance.  Qualitative argument (talk page style) can be structured as [[TIPAESA]] but proliferating wikis is just wrong.  Only one decision is being made:  whether to publish the research or not.  That requires more focus, not more spread out text all over the place.
+:This is just wrong.
+::No, it's not.
+:All edits are "opinionated", especially with the subject matter we're going to deal with.
+::Nope. If you have an opinion in the form of a [[campaign]], either running the campaign or just voting for it that is different from objective facts that require some kind of [[audit]] propably [[wiki]] style with relying heavily on simple peer-review.
+:Trying to move everything YOU think is opinionated elsewhere will just result in the [[politics as usual]].
+::There won't be that much moving once we lay out the ground [[rules]] of what goes where.
+:What would move is necessarily [[factionally defined]], there's no objectivity there.
+::Nope, the [[CGO]] lays out the rules for all [[wikis]] and then [[sysops]] enforce those rules. Simple as that.
+:The right answer is a method for [[edits, votes and bets|objective scoring or voting or betting]], like [[answer recommendation]] for instance.  Qualitative argument (talk page style) can be structured as [[TIPAESA]] but proliferating wikis is just wrong.
+::I disagree.
+:Only one decision is being made:  whether to publish the research or not.  That requires more focus, not more spread out text all over the place.
+::It's a difficult question of how to deal with what to publish and what to not without receding to [[sysop power structure]] but it is clear to me that the [[Publish Wiki]] will draw somehow approved content from [[Publish Wiki]] and aggregated opinions from [[Opinion Wiki]] ie. '''Facts from research and opinions on the subjects of research from opionion wiki''' --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 13:52, 25 Jun 2004 (EEST)
 ----
 .6.2004