Mods, can you help us out with the Wiki process?

[DarylFawcett]

I just noticed Tall73's posts.

If everybody else is doing it via Wiki, then why not us?

I, therefore, submit that we should go back to what is presently on the Wiki and look at each one beginning with 1.2 and 1.2 and get a consensus on that and then go on to 2.1 etc.

 

[TrustAndObey]

LOL! Is it any wonder I'm confused?

I didn't mind discussing the rules in the wiki honestly. I just didn't like people adding and deleting like their opinion was better than someone else's.

I didn't mean to state we CAN'T delete something. I meant it had to be the consensus BEFORE we delete something.

We need a cyber lawyer.

 

[tall73]

Generally the wiki process, whether on wikipedia, here, etc. is that you get a stub...an initial idea. Then people discuss it. They eventually refine it more and more, adding info, correcting info, deleting info etc.

It is actually not that uncommon, especially early on, to have a whole article deleted. But since there is a history it is no big deal. Sometimes what you start out with are two very different groups putting what they want. Then they have to get down to the hard business of working together to come up with something that is livable.

If we go with this other idea, which is not being followed on the main rules, etc. of posting rules in the threads which are later put into polls then there will

a. be 5-6 threads to look through, etc.

b. tons of suggestions that all have to be voted up or down, and some will be contingent on others. That is not a unified approach at all.
;
The wiki process is to get people to the table, and have them work together to get agreement.

We had, or have, not sure, as I haven't looked lately (been dealing with main site rules), agreement on a sub-forum structure with a trad. sub-forum and a debate forum.

Other aspects that are up for discussion need to just continue to be worked out.

Don't stress it too much if someone edits it. Sometimes it just serves to highlight the two sides.

Then you have to refine the issue again together.

When problems come in is when there is a breakdown and it keeps just going back and forth. Then you need to get back to specifics or try again to look at each others perspectives.

 

[tall73]

LOL! Is it any wonder I'm confused?

I didn't mind discussing the rules in the wiki honestly. I just didn't like people adding and deleting like their opinion was better than someone else's.

I didn't mean to state we CAN'T delete something. I meant it had to be the consensus BEFORE we delete something.

We need a cyber lawyer.

I agree in general, but most wikis will have some major deletions at some point.

There will always be an initial point, then a counter, etc. The idea is that as you go along you get less dramatic swings as folks start to come to agreement.

So there is no reason to panic just yet.


Believe it or not that might be happening. We might have some major structure down and we are just moving to more specific rules.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, that isn't necessarily what I was witnessing though.

It wasn't working and ideas were being deleted without discussion, and editing without discussion. It was anarchy.

We could just start one thread in here and discuss each rule one by one before adding it.

Not everybody was willing to go all over this site to get to the wiki and it is a little confusing.

All I know is it wasn't working and we weren't getting the consensus on most things before it was posted on the wiki.

 

[honorthesabbath]

I have a question for one of the mods too. According to this CF rule...

These are the SDA Forum rules pending an approval vote. A poll will be created after we have allowed a reasonable time period for all SDA members who are interested to voice their opinions. Voting will be open only to Seventh-day Adventists. Use of socks in order to vote more than once will not be allowed.

What happens when someone claiming to be SDA but has refused to don the icon tries to vote in our forum? How do you mod's determine then who is eligable to vote in this SDA forum? Do they all of a sudden get to use the SDA icon, just for voting privileges and then refuse it again after the voting is over? Just curios--thank you.

 

[tall73]

I have a question for one of the mods too. According to this CF rule...



What happens when someone claiming to be SDA but has refused to don the icon tries to vote in our forum? How do you mod's determine then who is eligable to vote in this SDA forum? Do they all of a sudden get to use the SDA icon, just for voting privileges and then refuse it again after the voting is over? Just curios--thank you.

It says all SDA not those bearing an SDA icon. The mods are generally aware of who is an SDA.

 

[tall73]

Tall, that isn't necessarily what I was witnessing though.

It wasn't working and ideas were being deleted without discussion, and editing without discussion. It was anarchy.

We could just start one thread in here and discuss each rule one by one before adding it.

Not everybody was willing to go all over this site to get to the wiki and it is a little confusing.

All I know is it wasn't working and we weren't getting the consensus on most things before it was posted on the wiki.

The wiki is a bit hard to find. Perhaps we need a link with a sticky.

But the wiki has one advantage, and that is that everyone can see the current state of things easily, and it also provides for discussion.

If the process is breaking down then we need to remind each other to stick with the process and continue to refine.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The wiki is a bit hard to find. Perhaps we need a link with a sticky.

But the wiki has one advantage, and that is that everyone can see the current state of things easily, and it also provides for discussion.

If the process is breaking down then we need to remind each other to stick with the process and continue to refine.

A sticky would be alright, but our disagreements are a little blaring when most denominations have under 100 discussion posts and ours is huge.

We weren't getting the consensus first though. I might be willing to compromise on something that other Tradtionals are not willing to bend on at all.

Is it so wrong to ask for a consensus BEFORE posting a suggested rule in the wiki?

 

[tall73]

No it is not. But this is a learning process for all. So let's stop fighting over the process and go work on the rules.

As to our disagreements...is that really surprising? We were not well united before.

You should see the main rules discussion. They are into thousands of posts. That is alright. Wherever there are a lot of opinions the process takes longer.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Why, because YOU said so?

Tall, this has to be a vote and it has to be what the consensus of this forum wants.

I'm not trying to disagree with you, I just refuse to be bullied about this (even if it's a polite bully ).

If there is a set of rules we need to follow them.

If there isn't, we need to vote on how to do it.

We're confusing the mods and most people in here are just as confused as I am.

I will NOT agree to someone deleting posts and adding wikis without popular opinion.

It is insanity.

I haven't deleted a single suggestion. I won't do it because my opinion is not any better than someone else's.

I don't care what others have done and I think it should be a clean slate right here, but we need to make this fair for everyone.

EVERY opinion should be considered and if the consensus says no, then it's no. If the end result is something I don't feel I am comfortable with, I'm free to leave and I will.

But it won't be from lack of TRYING to make this fair.

 

[Sophia7]

Is it so wrong to ask for a consensus BEFORE posting a suggested rule in the wiki?

No, but some people are not doing what they expect others to do. Several things have been added today without a consensus. I just mentioned a couple of them in the wiki. So it's all right for some people to edit things without getting a consensus first but not others?

 

[TrustAndObey]

No, but some people are not doing what they expect others to do. Several things have been added today without a consensus. I just mentioned a couple of them in the wiki. So it's all right for some people to edit things without getting a consensus first but not others?

I know you're not talking about me because I haven't deleted ANYTHING. If you can't say the same thing, check your motives.

(EVERYBODY, not just you Sophia, that was a general statement).

The only thing I've added was deleted right away and that was BEFORE I knew how we were supposed to be doing this whole thing.

It was a suggestion and I never expected it to be the "law" without a vote.

We're going to have to vote on how to do this for our forum. Otherwise, this will go on forever and we'll have other people making our rules FOR us.

 

[tall73]

Why, because YOU said so?

Tall, this has to be a vote and it has to be what the consensus of this forum wants.

I'm not trying to disagree with you, I just refuse to be bullied about this (even if it's a polite bully ).

Well no offense but if you don't know what a wiki is, and clearly the mods do not, because a wiki is not where you just put the final product, then what would you like me to help you with?

I did not bully you. I told you to go observe for yourself how the main forum rules are crafted in the general wiki. If you don't want to that is your choice.

If there is a set of rules we need to follow them.

I have asked several times to be shown their set of rules. I don't see it.

What we have is a wiki that acts as any other wiki,.

If there isn't, we need to vote on how to do it.

We're confusing the mods and most people in here are just as confused as I am.

I would say the mods are confusing us. If they had rules why didn't they post them? Otherwise why are they doing it differently than in the other sections?

I will NOT agree to someone deleting posts and adding wikis without popular opinion.

It is insanity.

Sounds great. But it is happening so we need to find a way to deal with it . The only real way to deal with it is to get folks to the table and ask them to be reasonable and work through the issues one by one. That is the whole point of a wiki.

The term wiki was not invented here in the last few days.

I haven't deleted a single suggestion. I won't do it because my opinion is not any better than someone else's.

I don't care what others have done and I think it should be a clean slate right here, but we need to make this fair for everyone.

EVERY opinion should be considered and if the consensus says no, then it's no. If the end result is something I don't feel I am comfortable with, I'm free to leave and I will.

so where did I say otherwise? My point is that if deletions do occur you don't throw out the whole process. That is why there is a history to start with so that you can always see all the ideas ever posted in the wiki.

 

[Sophia7]

I know you're not talking about me because I haven't deleted ANYTHING.

No, I wasn't talking about you.

 

[djconklin]

The term wiki was not invented here in the last few days.

Ah, but I'd bet most people aren't really aware of how it works. I wasn't till about 6 months ago and here no one told us (if they did I didn't see it, or remember it!) where the wiki was to the rules for this forum.

 

[Sophia7]

Ah, but I'd bet most people aren't really aware of how it works. I wasn't till about 6 months ago and here no one told us (if they did I didn't see it, or remember it!) where the wiki was to the rules for this forum.

A link has been posted in several threads here, but I would suggest starting a new thread to direct people to the wiki and requesting that it be made a sticky.

 

[tall73]

Please see this thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t5708882-we-need-a-facilitator.html

 

[TrustAndObey]

Okay, this fight is over too now right?

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
Ah, but I'd bet most people aren't really aware of how it works. I wasn't till about 6 months ago and here no one told us (if they did I didn't see it, or remember it!) where the wiki was to the rules for this forum.

A link has been posted in several threads here, but I would suggest starting a new thread to direct people to the wiki and requesting that it be made a sticky.

That would be a great idea.

I can't imagine there being too much debate about some of the rules. Rules lawyers however might want to tighten things up a bit in places--which could be just fine!