On 06/09/14 17:06, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a
wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs?
You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,
collaborative discussion benefits from being a wiki (as opposed to, you
know, the actual content).
Very many people, myself included, believe that a wiki page is an
*atrocious* medium for discussion. It obfuscates who is talking to whom
under layers of markup, can make discussion flow (see what I did here?)
impossible to divine unless you are an old hand, and is otherwise
nearly-impossible for most newbies to partake in.
Hell, I've been around for over ten years and on large volume
discussions (you know, the ones we *want* lots of participation in),
commenting is a pain at best and I /still/ end up having to occasionally
have to peruse diffs just to figure out who said what in which order.
I've yet to find a rational motivation for expressing desire for that
horrid mess other than "it keeps the newbies away". And yes, that
rationale *has* been offered. More than once. In so many words.
Sadly, there *are* people who get offended that the vast unwashed masses
could start contributing to *their* project without having gone through
a painful, demanding rite of passage. Truth is, most people of the
world don't have the time for that, or if they do, (perfectly
reasonably) believe that you shouldn't have to pay to volunteer to help.
-- Marc
Where did I say wiki pages are a good discussion medium?
-I
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
