Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: Reply to User:RpbLa
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Advocacy article templates: new section) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: Reply to User:RpbLa) |
||
Line 103:
:Moreover, participating in wiki discussions about content is difficult, and in my experience, wikis are a good complement to an online forum, not a replacement for it. There are a lot of people on the [[election-methods mailing list]] that will quickly and helpfully reply to complicated inquiries, but don't feel comfortable replying on a wiki <code>Talk:</code> page.
:As I've said before, EM-list is not the only valid vetting forum. I think that any sufficiently open (and reasonably neutral) discussion forum will suffice. But it doesn't seem to make sense to let people introduce new concepts into the main namespace without first vetting that concept someplace else. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 03:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
"Because this is a wiki, it is really easy to overwhelm the rest of the existing editing community with drive-by garbage."
Yes, agreed.
"Moreover, participating in wiki discussions about content is difficult, and in my experience, wikis are a good complement to an online forum, not a replacement for it. There are a lot of people on the election-methods mailing list that will quickly and helpfully reply to complicated inquiries, but don't feel comfortable replying on a wiki Talk: page."
Yes, agreed. Did you see [[Electowiki_talk:The_caucus#StructuredDiscussions|my proposal to turn on StructuredDiscussions]], to make Talk pages more like a forum? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
== Advocacy article templates ==
| |||