FlightGear wiki:Village pump: Difference between revisions

: As can be seen in the logs, Gijs has just begun drafting some kind of style guide - I guess some more feedback would be good. But no matter the outcome, I don't mind adjusting my behavior/contributions accordingly, or adapting the [[Instant-Cquotes]] according to the requirements laid out there.

: However, overall, I'd suggest to keep a healthy balance here - some wiki maintainers have increasingly strict requirements, and are obviously trying to adopt wp's best practices. Then again, our main issue is not having good ideas and coming up with guidelines, it's having the manpower -and time- to actually apply/enforce those.  

: Which is something that also applies in the core/fgdata/scripting department: There's an increasing amount of contributions that wouldn't have passed a review a few years ago - but like I've mentioned a few days ago: some "immature" contributions have meanwhile allowed "unskilled" (=new) contributors to become domain experts.  

: The same thing could very well happen in the context of the wiki: Back when we discussed certain wiki changes (such as making you, Johan_G, a wiki admin) - the whole idea was about turning an avid contributor into an '''expert''' over time, by providing the time, expertise -but also a playground and "grace period"- to experiment with changes, even if those may be relatively immature in the beginning. Meanwhile, you have become an expert when it comes to wiki templates - and I'm always grateful for any advice/help in this area.

: And this can be seen in many other FG areas. We've seen this particular debate come up a number of times on the forum, and generally end-users are not too happy about having stringent requirements.  

: And there'd be at least half a dozen features that wouldn't be in FG today if fgdata requirements were similarly elevated/enforced (including the PFD/ND, Avidyne code etc).  

: Likewise, censorship/banning is a questionable measure, too - it has rarely, if ever, served us really well when dealing with real end-users (i.e. not just bots). Besides, in that case, you may want to get in touch with Gijs/Simon to have my account status downgraded/revoked, because I am not sure if you can really ban a fellow admin (I think I am in the same group as you).  

: But regardless if I remain involved in wiki maintenance or not, if any admin considers to use banning on real users, banning guidelines would probably be appropriate, too - i.e. could be based on wp (verbatim). Which would help ensure that certain tactics/language remain off limits. And it should also help to move such discussions to the User: namespace, so that people don't stumble across them accidentally - even though I am not sure that this would have prevented the 3rd user from interfering like he did...

: But even apart from the fact that I generally don't consider censorship/banning appropriate tools, I would have been in a bad position to make this judgement, given that I was the one responding to those attacks in an equally-heated tone.  

: Never mind, I'll check if I can ban myself right away :-) --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 17:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

::: Hello Johan

::: Thanks for your answer. I'm studying to get a vocational school teacher, the last 6 months I was working as a freelance lecturer at a nursing school. So I not only have to read a lot of books, text and writing informative handouts, also had to create a lot of educational text for my students. Not always easy. For both sides, the students and me, it is important to get the needed information in a short time. At my university text is considered as scientific when the language is: comprehendible using short easy-to-read sentences , objective and unemotional. Though this wiki of course does not have to be seen scientific, we probably want the same: spreading knowledge. So I think the same rules applies to this wiki.

:::So in my eyes text full of quotes from the forum doesn't help here. Sometimes (but only sometimes!) it is needed to highlight certain facts with statements, therefor a quote can be helpful. As you said. But articles like [[http://wiki.flightgear.org/Status_of_AI_in_FlightGear]] aren't very helpful, not for user or (future) developers, and wasting space.

:::So I'm totally against such articles and especially the useless use of quotes.  

:::How to deal? Proposal: www.wikipedia.org has a nice feature, they sign good articles with a star. Maybe we should do the same, so it is an orientation for those writing an article here. I think it is better then setting up "rules", especially as readability is also subjective.   

:::--[[User:HHS|HHS]] ([[User talk:HHS|talk]]) 19:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

--[[User:HHS|HHS]] ([[User talk:HHS|talk]]) 19:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

--[[User:chriscalef|chriscalef]]