A new attempt at an Adventist Wiki

[tall73]

After some discussion there is a growing realization that we did not get off to a good start on our Adventist wiki. For those who are not aware of it, the Adventist wiki will determine the rules for our congregational forum.

For this reason we are looking at starting a new one, with a blank slate.

In particular we want to have a set of guidelines approved so that we don't get off track.

Here are the proposed guidelines that were worked up in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5708882-we-need-a-facilitator.html

1. All changes need to have discussion and consensus. To ensure this each proposed addition, or any counter-proposals, will be voted on prior to adding. After an initial discussion period to form the poll options a poll will run 4 days. Polls will be public. The votes of those who are not Seventh-day Adventist contributors will not be counted.

2. The process will begin with the big items first such as forum/sub-forum organization, who can debate, etc. and then move to specific rules.

3. Any changes made without the process outlined in point 1 will be rolled back.

Ideas from the old wiki can still be proposed and voted on, but the desire is to start the process fresh with some guidelines in place.

I am posting this here to get feedback from the Adventist membership.

 

[TrustAndObey]

 

[DarylFawcett]

As I was a part of the discussion in the other thread I want to state my agreement of this process.

 

[woobadooba]

I agree

 

[Sophia7]

After some discussion there is a growing realization that we did not get off to a good start on our Adventist wiki. For those who are not aware of it, the Adventist wiki will determine the rules for our congregational forum.

For this reason we are looking at starting a new one, with a blank slate.

In particular we want to have a set of guidelines approved so that we don't get off track.

Here are the proposed guidelines that were worked up in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5708882-we-need-a-facilitator.html

1. All changes need to have discussion and consensus. To ensure this each proposed addition, or any counter-proposals, will be voted on prior to adding. After an initial discussion period to form the poll options a poll will run 4 days. Polls will be public. The votes of those who are not Seventh-day Adventist contributors will not be counted.

2. The process will begin with the big items first such as forum/sub-forum organization, who can debate, etc. and then move to specific rules.

3. Any changes made without the process outlined in point 1 will be rolled back.

Ideas from the old wiki can still be proposed and voted on, but the desire is to start the process fresh with some guidelines in place.

I am posting this here to get feedback from the Adventist membership.

I agree with this proposal, also.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Is there anybody who doesn't agree with this process?

 

[DarylFawcett]

As the name of this topic may still be somewhat confusing to others here, can this topic be renamed to A new attempt at an Adventist Wiki SDA Forum Rules Discussion?

 

[woobadooba]

As the name of this topic may still be somewhat confusing to others here, can this topic be renamed to A new attempt at an Adventist Wiki SDA Forum Rules Discussion?

I think the title that Tall gave it is fine.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Fine for those of us who knows what the Adventist Wiki is all about.

If I hadn't been involved in this previously, I wouldn't have a clue what another attempt at Adventist Wiki was referring to, therefore, I would most likely have dismissed it as a topic of non-interest to me, whereas a topic about the formulation of forum rules for the SDA section would be of great and immediate interest to me.

Do you get my drift now? If you don't, I hope that ohers here do, especially the creator of this thread, which was my idea in the first place.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I like Tall's title too, but I do agree with Daryl for the reasons he stated. I don't think I would've realized what it was about either.

Who do we ask to add to the title? Can the mods do that?

 

[DarylFawcett]

The Maritime SDA OnLine software allows the originator of the topic via the opening post to change the title. The moderators there can also do it. I don't know if the software here allows tall73 to do it, or even whether it allows the moderators to do it. If so, then I suggest it be done, but, if not, then we either live with it, or create another new topic to replace this one.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The Maritime SDA OnLine software allows the originator of the topic via the opening post to change the title. The moderators there can also do it. I don't know if the software here allows tall73 to do it, or even whether it allows the moderators to do it. If so, then I suggest it be done, but, if not, then we either live with it, or create another new topic to replace this one.

I think the mods here can change it.

I know for a fact that the OP cannot change their thread title once they submit it. Not on this site anyway. I've been on others where you could.

 

[tall73]

If I recall you can change the thread title as OP for a short time.

But it was too late now.

The mods can do it however.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I started a thread called "B.C." and for some reason the "c" didn't captialize. I couldn't change it and I tried right after I submitted it?

 

[thecountrydoc]

The basic concept suggested is probably as good as its going to get. I do however see the logic in Daryl's suggestion that there be some indication about the content of the thread for those that just browse the thread topics and only actually look at the ones that that srtike their fancy. That being said, I'll go along with either version.

Doc

 

[DarylFawcett]

As time is of the essence, I created another thread under the topic name I suggested with a link to this one here, which will hopefully meet my concern in a roundabout way.

 

[SassySDA]

Fine for those of us who knows what the Adventist Wiki is all about.

If I hadn't been involved in this previously, I wouldn't have a clue what another attempt at Adventist Wiki was referring to, therefore, I would most likely have dismissed it as a topic of non-interest to me, whereas a topic about the formulation of forum rules for the SDA section would be of great and immediate interest to me.

Do you get my drift now? If you don't, I hope that ohers here do, especially the creator of this thread, which was my idea in the first place.

Oh my gosh, I don't believe this. Some people are simply born to debate I guess.

The title is FINE.

I agree with the proposal.

 

[smooze]

 

[smooze]

nope

 

[TrustAndObey]

LOL Sassy, there's no room for doubt there sista!