Author Topic: Wiki-discussions  (Read 4869 times)

hobbes487

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2007, 06:16:23 pm »
I must say I agree with Zearc is this matter as well.  All I see is Zaerc trying to be helpful by adding a comment to a wiki page (which the author asked for), and then this Trout character decided to come along and attack Zaerc.  If you want to be an admin of the wiki you should behave in a professional manner and not attack people publicly on a wiki page.  If you disagree with a post you should PM the author about removing it, not publicly berating him/her.

This kind of activity definately discourages me from making any contributions to the wiki.  Also, I find it interesting that the person who is telling Zaerc his contributions are wrong has a grand total of 14 posts and 6 of them are from this thread.  Compare this to Zaerc's 426 and I think we can see who is giving better contributions to linuxMCE.  Zaerc has help me out with a comment on more than one occasion.

avajon

  • Veteran
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2007, 06:26:12 pm »
sure, we need people like Zearc (you did a grea job and you helped me with a lot of post's i read from you)

BUT we also need people like Trout! I contributed yesterday something about EIB on the wiki and he corrected all my mistakes (my english is sooooo bad). We need people like him, they do the stuff that new users find a good wiki.

So the only thing i can say is:

THANK YOU TO Zearc and Trout!

lg
avajon

bulek

  • Administrator
  • wants to work for LinuxMCE
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Living with LMCE
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2007, 08:32:10 pm »
sure, we need people like Zearc (you did a grea job and you helped me with a lot of post's i read from you)

BUT we also need people like Trout! I contributed yesterday something about EIB on the wiki and he corrected all my mistakes (my english is sooooo bad). We need people like him, they do the stuff that new users find a good wiki.

So the only thing i can say is:

THANK YOU TO Zearc and Trout!

lg
avajon


Couldn't agree more. We need both, Wiki administrators, please be more gentle, I'm also one of the contributors who don't see such damage if some comment is left on page. I do it mostly cause it can remind me or anyone other that some part needs to be worked on....

Regards,

Bulek.

Thanks in advance,

regards,

Bulek.

sandos

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2007, 09:30:55 pm »
Not to belittle Zaercs work, but I have to disagree with the others: I don't think he is fit as an admin. Why? Because he seems to be a drama queen!

Now why the f*ck did you need to rehash this small, insignificant bullshit issue over and over? Ever heard of "letting go" ? Did the world end because of the particular admins' behaviour? No. Unselfishness, ability to forgive others, ability to actually acknowledge that people are never ever perfect beings are very important when being an admin. You are going to meet people having trouble cooperating with anybody, and you should be able to deal with it a bit more gracefully than in this case.

How would I have handled the situation, or seen someone else handle it? Firstly, not to start a semi-flamewar on the forum over this issue. Secondly, to move the damn text to the talk-page! Now it might sound like I think you should do nothing in a situation like this, thats wrong. I just don't think the forum is the right venue, and the proper tone wasn't used. I mean, read his first post in this thread? Does it sound nuanced? Like he has any understanding for the admins' behavioir at all?


Now this is _only_ impressions from this thread, and reading the wiki page being discussed. I don't know much about Zaerc's other work, but I'm sure it has been fine. Sorru if I am missing something bigger behind the scenes (particulary stuff in the Wiki).

Note too that I don't necessarily think the admin did the right thing, but thats another story...

Zaerc

  • Alumni
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *
  • Posts: 2256
  • Department of Redundancy Department.
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2007, 10:48:44 pm »
Not to belittle Zaercs work, but I have to disagree with the others: I don't think he is fit as an admin. Why? Because he seems to be a drama queen!

Now why the f*ck did you need to rehash this small, insignificant bullshit issue over and over? Ever heard of "letting go" ? Did the world end because of the particular admins' behaviour? No. Unselfishness, ability to forgive others, ability to actually acknowledge that people are never ever perfect beings are very important when being an admin. You are going to meet people having trouble cooperating with anybody, and you should be able to deal with it a bit more gracefully than in this case.

How would I have handled the situation, or seen someone else handle it? Firstly, not to start a semi-flamewar on the forum over this issue. Secondly, to move the damn text to the talk-page! Now it might sound like I think you should do nothing in a situation like this, thats wrong. I just don't think the forum is the right venue, and the proper tone wasn't used. I mean, read his first post in this thread? Does it sound nuanced? Like he has any understanding for the admins' behavioir at all?


Now this is _only_ impressions from this thread, and reading the wiki page being discussed. I don't know much about Zaerc's other work, but I'm sure it has been fine. Sorru if I am missing something bigger behind the scenes (particulary stuff in the Wiki).

Note too that I don't necessarily think the admin did the right thing, but thats another story...

Maybe you should read this thread again, I am in no way interested in becoming an admin of anything. 

To answer your rather rude and malinformed question, I have added a significant amount of pages to the wiki, in contrary to the two other persons involved.  This is a big deal to me because there are very few other people actually contributing usefull information, for example I have added three of the five mainboards currently in the wiki (one of which I don't even own), but when people start trampeling over what little is actually added because they feel something is not in the correct place then there will be even fewer people contributing.  Apart from that you will find a huge number of pages with comments on them, that is how the wiki grows, just because two people decided that this is not acceptable (without any form of discussion) does not make it necessarily so.

In this particular case my addition was banished to the talk page, I did not agree and moved it back, as far as I'm concerned that should have been the end of it.  There was no need to move that over and over again, then delete it entirely and when that didn't work either to deface the page with a rant adressed to me. 

The baffling thing is that that was aparently the "right" thing to do, and now here you are telling me I'm wrong for making a fuss about it.  I guess I should have gone around defacing other wiki pages instead to "prove my point".  So your opinion has been noted, thanks for judging me without even knowing what this is about, it will be valued accordingly.  And what the "wiki-admin" did or didn't do is very much part of this story, funny how you'd like to overlook that. 

NB. If you don't have the guts to spell "fuck" properly, then maybe you shouldn't use the word at all.
"Change is inevitable. Progress is optional."
-- Anonymous


Hagen

  • Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • LMCE wannabe user
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2007, 11:00:54 pm »
Now this is _only_ impressions from this thread, and reading the wiki page being discussed. I don't know much about Zaerc's other work, but I'm sure it has been fine.
Zaerk is the guy that has helped us all from the start with helpful and knowledgeable answers, along with Totallymax and a couple of others.
When I help people here it is only by quoting Zaerk and total most of the times...
I hadn't noticed "Trout" here until he and Samme decided they should run the Wiki...
Now I know who's input I value the most, I allready said that, but here is the reason for it.

chewi

  • Veteran
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2007, 02:38:30 pm »
I don't want to talk about who started and who continued or who missbehaved and I also think it does not really matter... What matters is the outcome...
I would suggest, that the two of you stay out of each others way for a while to cool down and maybe you will both realize if or what in your behavior might have been imperfect. And in case, you want to discuss it with each other, or with me, please contact by private message or in the guestbook-part of my wiki-home or lets meet in IRC...

Hoping for a good cooperation in the future and to read a lot more from both of you...

Best regards, Chewi

Crosspost from the Wiki-Discussion-Page:
Quote
Hi, i took the liberty to add a new page to the wiki Editing_Text where I put the tricks the two of you offered.
And I linked to the new page from the appropriate passage within the article...
I hope, this will end the fight... And I hope I will read a lot from both of you on this wiki in the future.
Best Regards, Chewi

Zaerc

  • Alumni
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *
  • Posts: 2256
  • Department of Redundancy Department.
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2007, 03:39:38 pm »
This kind of thing is excactly what made me contact you about the Wiki some time ago.
I do user documentation for a living, but still I am a bit worried about "insiders" reactions to my writing.
And deleting constructive input is what I fear the most.
What is constructive input, and who should be the judge of that?

For any and all user documentation the phrase "less is more" goes a long way.
For "more" info dig deeper, but what is really missing from the wiki is a "quick reference guide" on how to setup, install (with keyboard shortcuts for video card outputs, resolutions and the "hold the left shift after the beeps" functions). A sort of "readme.txt". And not admins for the sake of being admins...
I have unfortunately taken on another (paid) evening job this week and the next, but that is something I would love to start with when I have time.

First of all I added that remark there as a suggestion, not to give lessons on editing text files, that is what trout turned it into when he was trying "to make a point".

Secondly your edit was right followed by an edit by Trout, removing a part added by the original author that obviously doesn't fit his agenda.  This clearly proves to me that this has changed absolutely nothing, there is no reasoning, no discussion and no accountability.  So I guess while he has made little to no actual contributions himself he still thinks he is the judge of what is worthy of being in the wiki or not, and I find that totally unacceptable.

So yeah I will stay out of his way by simply keeping away from the wiki, I'll either find another place that is not infested with people like him, or probably keep my experience to myself like just about everyone else around here.  Will be a bit of a shame to see my other contributions getting ripped to shreds by the correctness police but such is life.

I do appreciate your effort though, thanks, and it's good to see that at least some people care.
"Change is inevitable. Progress is optional."
-- Anonymous


Hagen

  • Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • LMCE wannabe user
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2007, 03:53:14 pm »
Secondly your edit was right followed by an edit by Trout, removing a part added by the original author that obviously doesn't fit his agenda.  This clearly proves to me that this has changed absolutely nothing, there is no reasoning, no discussion and no accountability. 
Lol, is this guy (Trout) for real?

Perhaps the Wiki needs structure, but harshly deleting content is not the same as structuring it?!
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 03:57:00 pm by Hagen »

Hagen

  • Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • LMCE wannabe user
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2007, 04:04:46 pm »
I do like the links posted by Rwilson on the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable
Clearly Trout hasn't read up on official Wiki policy.
I am certain that Paul wouldn't want LMCE to be associated with such behaviour either.

Samme

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2007, 07:41:37 am »
Also, I find it interesting that the person who is telling Zaerc his contributions are wrong has a grand total of 14 posts and 6 of them are from this thread.  Compare this to Zaerc's 426 and I think we can see who is giving better contributions to linuxMCE.  Zaerc has help me out with a comment on more than one occasion.

14 posts I might have, I don't know, but what does that have to do with anything? I'm a new user and I as everyone else here want to contribute to the project and since there was no admin for the wiki i e-mailed Paul and volunteered. My intention with this has never been or will be to be some kind of "wiki-admin-dictator" even if some of you might think that.

And about the "Zaerc vs. Trout" case, I agree with Trout on the matter that we should keep talk/discussions on the pages that are there for it. But then I can also agree that Trout maybe should'nt have made such comments etc about Zaercs contribution on the particular page.

I feel this thing got bigger then it has to be and I'm sorry for that - again this was not my intention.

Hagen

  • Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • LMCE wannabe user
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2007, 08:49:11 am »
My intention with this has never been or will be to be some kind of "wiki-admin-dictator" even if some of you might think that.

I feel this thing got bigger then it has to be and I'm sorry for that - again this was not my intention.
I don't really think anyone has doubted your intentions, but Trout suddenly became the focus after his behaviour towards one of the most active participants, and then anyone that tried to immediate .
Being less active (seemingly) on the forum shouldn't really matter, I agree, as the "work" is quite different. Paul himself is not active on the forum, yet people respect the work that he does immensely. Same for the Wiki.


Zaerc

  • Alumni
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *
  • Posts: 2256
  • Department of Redundancy Department.
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2007, 12:46:48 pm »
14 posts I might have, I don't know, but what does that have to do with anything? I'm a new user and I as everyone else here want to contribute to the project and since there was no admin for the wiki i e-mailed Paul and volunteered. My intention with this has never been or will be to be some kind of "wiki-admin-dictator" even if some of you might think that.

And about the "Zaerc vs. Trout" case, I agree with Trout on the matter that we should keep talk/discussions on the pages that are there for it. But then I can also agree that Trout maybe should'nt have made such comments etc about Zaercs contribution on the particular page.

I feel this thing got bigger then it has to be and I'm sorry for that - again this was not my intention.

The problem I have with this is that you condem me for making a valid contribution, but when someone defaces that same page to "prove a point" you don't say a word.

If you are new, then why don't you start by adding your own experience?  Instead you choose to make policy after the facts and use that to alienate people who actually contribute (instead of rearranging everything over and over without any regard of what the people were doing before you came along). 

Personally I think it's perfectly acceptable to leave a comment on a page, unless it is spam (or sour grapes nonsense like what we've seen in this instance).  In fact I always hope people will leave comments on the things I write, that helps me and everyone else improve the page.  Putting them on the talk page is simply not an option because they won't be noticed.  Most of my pages have started out being my personal blog, over time they get refined to be more general, the last thing we need is people going around and removing that, just because they can't find anything better to do.

But since you and "Trout" already agreed that this doesn't suit your ideas of what is "right", I guess it's now "official" policy to go around and remove anything that may (or may not) be usefull to others at your leasure.  And when I try to discuss this, all you can say is "you were wrong and now I don't want to talk about it anymore".  I think if you seriously want to be the wiki-admin then you're going to have to do a lot better then that, and not simply walk away when there is a dispute eventhough you side with the other party.

Let's leave Paul out of this, he has got enough issues on his mind already.  But I think he made you admin to deal with the spammers, not alienate the people contributing with rediculous policy.
"Change is inevitable. Progress is optional."
-- Anonymous


Samme

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2007, 05:04:38 pm »
First of all, yes, we'll leave Paul alone, I know too he's got his hands full, it was just an explanation how/why I became admin.

Honestly I don't feel that I've condemned you and/or your contributions, and about Trout defacing the same page, my opinion is that he should have mentioned it either on your talk page or the article's itself.

Maybe I was wrong, I'm not perfect, neither are anyone of all us hanging around here.

And also, about the comments you made on the page, maybe they belong there, I don't think so, Trout doesn't think so...but many seem to think so...so to hopefully put an end to this, we have a vote.

Question: Should a "Comment"-section be allowed on the article-pages or should comment's be left on the talk page?

1. Yes, it should be allowed.
2. No, keep it on the talk page.

This is just a suggestion - I'm all for democracy!

Say what you think, if you like it, we put up a vote on the wiki.

I hope we eventually all can get along - after all we have the same goal :)

Now it's Friday and I just got home from work, so anyway...now I'll have myself a drink, so please excuse me if I'm not around under the evening.

/ Samme

Zaerc

  • Alumni
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *
  • Posts: 2256
  • Department of Redundancy Department.
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki-discussions
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2007, 05:10:47 pm »

What you and Trout fail to realize is how lucky we are that a few people even contribute at all.

So I have a better idea, why don't we leave it up to the people that actually bother to take their time and effort to make contributions?  And then try not to hinder them to much with all sorts of restrictions and regulations.  A little courtesy goes a long way and the success of this community largely depends on people adding to the wiki. 

This is not the wikipedia, and it would be stupid to expect people to read a whole rulebook before making an edit.  It is already a pretty big step for most people to take, by making policy like this you will only scare them away more.  These pages are in a constant state of development, having comments on them is a natural part of the process.  And we desperately need more information and experience, way more then we need all the pages to be "clean".

Vandalism in my opinion should always be condemned, no matter how much you agree with the point they are trying to make.  The message you have been sending here is that it's ok to put a rant somewhere and then you will come in as the wiki admin and condemn the person the rant is addressed to, I think that is a very dangerous prescedent. 

I added something, somebody else doesn't agree and (re-)moves it, I don't agree and move it back.  That should of been the end of this.  The rest could have been discussed on the talk page.  I don't see any need for somebody (who had nothing to add to that page in the first place) to keep messing with it just because they don't think it's "worthy", "right" or would like to make some rules.  Again we need more information, not less.  Should it ever become to much, outdated, or even turn out to be plain wrong then it can always be split up, updated or (re-)moved.  The wiki is not about what I want, what you want or what Trout wants, it is about what we as a community need.

A better idea would be to set some general guidlines, but more in the form of suggestions and not as hard rules that some people will feel compelled to enforce at any cost.

Now that we're discussing these things I'm feeling confident we can work something out that is acceptable for all of us.  Like you said in the end we're all doing our best to make the most out of the wiki, I guess we just need to figure out how to avoid stepping on each others toes more then necessary.  And to be honest, apart from this incident, I'm glad you guys put in your time and effort, even if I don't always agree. 

Then again, there are plenty of things in the wiki I don't agree with, that doesn't mean they are wrong or even need to be changed.  And certainly not just because I have a high post count or have added a few pages here and there.  I didn't have that when I started out, nobody does.  But had this happened then, I would probably just simply have decided to quietly walk away.  In this stage we simply cannot afford to lose even a single serious contribution, and no amount of reorganizing and spell-checking (which are also important!) can make up for that.

But it does however strike me as very odd that this Trout person (who is obviously in the middle of this) has nothing to say for himself.  And it makes me wonder why people that aparently have so little interest in this community should dictate how the wiki must be strictly maintained.

Sorry for the long post, I didn't really mean for this to be so much of a lecture.  I'm certainly not the posterboy for encouraging people, let me be the first to admit that, but I will try to be a bit less confrontational (or as some people like to say "hostile").  Anyway, thanks for listening and have a good weekend.

"Change is inevitable. Progress is optional."
-- Anonymous