Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
imported>AxelBoldt mNo edit summary |
request to solicit input to governance on main meta page |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Oh, and apologies, 207, I should have framed it better the first time around. I didn't intend to try to set priorities for meta "as a whole", more like reflect the stuff that has repeatedly come up in talk pages. All the links solicit other people's opinions about wiki, I am not trying to impose that, and the only reason governance matters now more than other topics is Sanger's departure. That's it that's all. | Oh, and apologies, 207, I should have framed it better the first time around. I didn't intend to try to set priorities for meta "as a whole", more like reflect the stuff that has repeatedly come up in talk pages. All the links solicit other people's opinions about wiki, I am not trying to impose that, and the only reason governance matters now more than other topics is Sanger's departure. That's it that's all. | ||
----- | |||
request to solicit input to governance on main meta page | |||
All right, here I am, proposing a change to the meta main page. The same change as above: to put Larry's quote re: anarchy and a solicitation for contributors and users to comment on [[governance]] and the wiki [[value system]]. I don't care how this is phrased, I don't care who is perceived as running it, but I will note that the [[visions]], [[worst cases]] and [[best cases]] files have got a trickle of participation, and [[threats]] might soon too. So there is some willingness to share these perceptions of the project, and some procedure (e.g. only, mine in [[status quo]]) could knit them together to understand the collective will here. | |||
Without that, I don't see how to avoid falling back into anarchy, or empowering a clique of people who happen to have IP ban and page lock power, and who may or may not be able to take the project from 31,000 questionable articles to 100,000 balanced, neutral articles that satisfy someone who is not an English-as-a-first-language citizen of the U.S.A.. - if that's not the goal, pardon me, I thought it was, but I think we all should know what each other think it is. That's what [[best cases]] is for. If we just asked everyone to contribute to that on the meta main page, or to complain in [[worst cases]], we might be able to get around personal debates and into the values we have to assess in order to take this project forward. | |||
Thanks, 24. | |||
Revision as of 01:37, 11 April 2002
Should this wiki show 'meta.wikipedia.com' or 'metapedia', rater than just 'wikipedia' on the front page and elsewhere? Dave McKee
Yes! :-) --LMS
There is a serious bug in the links to bug reporting and acquiring source code on the meta.wikipedia main page. It makes it difficult to report bugs!
Upon clicking them a message appears and an infinite loop appears in progress until back paging:
Message
You are being reidrected to wikipedia.com
Warning Cannot add header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/groups/w/wi/wikipedia/htdocs/fpw/wiki.phtm/:5) in /home/groups/w/wi/wikipedia/htdocs/fpw/wiki.phtml on line 81
The original bug I wished to report is that there is a line wrap (actually a refusal to wrap in the rendered page delivered) problem in the article http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Discussion+on+business+models+and+organizational+charters+applicable+to+large+free+wikis
Discussion+on+business+models+and+organizational+charters+applicable+to+large+free+wikis
The above was copied from the meta.wikipedia main page and bracketed but does not implement a link to the existing document. Perhaps it is an interwiki link or needs to be relocated to meta.wikipedia and original pages and links deleted.
Update: Preview shows that this file now has the rendering wrap failure. Perhaps this is my browser interacting badly with the editor or render engine? Using Navigator 4.7/Win 98 at the moment. user:mirwin
OK, the original text is now carefully framed to be neutral. If you don't agree that Sanger's departure has created some governance questions that we should keep front and center for now, you can always move that part off to a file called "governance" or something. But it seems at least as central as the software concerns to me. We should at least solicit an opinion from the people who show up at meta, in a way that makes it quickly useful to the rest of us, e.g. value system
If you see that the meta has been "neutralized" to the point where all mention of governance has been removed, by all means, restore it, this is going to be everyone's responsibility... sooner or later some consensus will arise. There aren't a lot of us using the meta anyway.
Oh, and apologies, 207, I should have framed it better the first time around. I didn't intend to try to set priorities for meta "as a whole", more like reflect the stuff that has repeatedly come up in talk pages. All the links solicit other people's opinions about wiki, I am not trying to impose that, and the only reason governance matters now more than other topics is Sanger's departure. That's it that's all.
request to solicit input to governance on main meta page
All right, here I am, proposing a change to the meta main page. The same change as above: to put Larry's quote re: anarchy and a solicitation for contributors and users to comment on governance and the wiki value system. I don't care how this is phrased, I don't care who is perceived as running it, but I will note that the visions, worst cases and best cases files have got a trickle of participation, and threats might soon too. So there is some willingness to share these perceptions of the project, and some procedure (e.g. only, mine in status quo) could knit them together to understand the collective will here.
Without that, I don't see how to avoid falling back into anarchy, or empowering a clique of people who happen to have IP ban and page lock power, and who may or may not be able to take the project from 31,000 questionable articles to 100,000 balanced, neutral articles that satisfy someone who is not an English-as-a-first-language citizen of the U.S.A.. - if that's not the goal, pardon me, I thought it was, but I think we all should know what each other think it is. That's what best cases is for. If we just asked everyone to contribute to that on the meta main page, or to complain in worst cases, we might be able to get around personal debates and into the values we have to assess in order to take this project forward.
Thanks, 24.