SciForums wiki brainstorm

Like D'ster or like Ron Harvey?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not both?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Any others?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was thinking more along the lines of copyrights!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's been suggested that we make articles on various subjects in science.

I suspect this will merely create a new dimension of conflict between different opinions, especially with the more controversial subjects.

For example: evolution. If we were to make an article about the science behind it, it would have to say that the process of evolution has mountains of strong evidence in favor, and virtually none against, and thus it simply cannot be questioned given our current evidence. It would have to say this because it is true. But some people here don't think this is true. These people will edit these articles to say that evolution cannot be proven, arguing that it indeed can't. This would result in edit wars. I'd rather not have to deal with anti-evolutionists in this manner.

However, I see the potential of expanding our content base by doing these sorts of articles. It may all be worth it. Who knows.

As for Search & Destroy's variation on this theme, if I understand it correctly, it might work. But the initial problem I have with it is how we deal with opinions we disagree with, or opinions which are obviously false. If something is obviously false and we edit the article accordingly, the adherents to that particular opinion may lash back. This idea could also lead to edit wars.

These are my thoughts.

 

That's another issue with it too. We shouldn't violate copyright laws on our wiki, I would say.

 

I'd like to formally introduce a question:

Should we strive to adhere to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, principles, and standards in full, in part, or not at all?

Here are pages demonstrating all of Wikipedia's official policies, guidelines, principles, and standards:

Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines
Wikipedia:Five pillars
Wikipedia:List of policies
Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Category:Wikipedia official policy

 

I still think there won't possibly be much more than 10 or 20 articles. Not much policy and guidelines can take place in those.

 

can we set up a test wiki somewhere then?

 

Twas a joke.
And nothing really to defend against.
Xev is what she is and not all bad.

However.
You bring up a point.
A wiki on sciforums 'history' will inevitably tend towards discussion about members who are no longer around to defend themselves...

 

Who's going to take up the (unpaid) full-time job of reverting the constant, virus-like vandalism (by me and others)?

 

plenty of nazis arround.

 

Hitler isn't here to defend himself either. That's history for you. Opinions on the past. Perfectly acceptable.

 

They'll need to interbreed with spiders to keep up with me.

By the way, can I propose that no pages on our new wiki are locked - ever. I think I just did.

 

I bet at least some stop by occasionally.

 

we can make a thread that serves as a wiki. The first few posts serve as the wiki which can be only moderated by the moderator. The rest of the thread can serve as suggestions for change, additions, inane comments.

 

Problem #1: that would be a thread, then. Not a wiki.

 

"Xev is a bitch, she's a big fat bitch, blah blah" can be considered an insult, which she's not here to defend. I believe discussion about members who are no longer here, and articles about them too, are alright if they don't include insults.

The other contributers to the wiki.

 

We'll see whether that proposal gets accepted.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sounds like SciForums itself.