Difference between revisions of "Talk:Allan Francovich"
m (Text replacement - "WikiSpooks" to "Wikispooks") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I'm writing this here for now, in lack of any where better, although it applies to a lot of pages in the main: Wikispooks namespace. For me, the best Wikispooks pages are the ones which contain ''original material'', synthesised from multiple sources. The editing and refining of other arguments posted by other people is, for me, what a wiki is all about. | I'm writing this here for now, in lack of any where better, although it applies to a lot of pages in the main: Wikispooks namespace. For me, the best Wikispooks pages are the ones which contain ''original material'', synthesised from multiple sources. The editing and refining of other arguments posted by other people is, for me, what a wiki is all about. | ||
| − | I see a clear problem with having chunks of source material on a WS page, where it is editable, but where we don't want people to edit it. There is [[ | + | I see a clear problem with having chunks of source material on a WS page, where it is editable, but where we don't want people to edit it. There is [[Wikispooks:Document Editing Rules | a dedicated namespace ('Document:')]] for stuff which (like obituaries) we don't want people editing. Short quotations from books, speeches, obituaries etc. are fine, as they don't disrupt the flow of articles. Well chosen short segments can give a flavour of the original material, while allowing the editor to make a point about how they fit into the article as a whole. |
With the original source posted in the "document:" archive, quotations can easily be linked in to the full text, should people wish to divert and read it. I have a problem with extended chunks of 3rd party material inserted in articles as they disrupt readability and so detract from the original work that I think is the highpoint of the material here on Wikispooks. | With the original source posted in the "document:" archive, quotations can easily be linked in to the full text, should people wish to divert and read it. I have a problem with extended chunks of 3rd party material inserted in articles as they disrupt readability and so detract from the original work that I think is the highpoint of the material here on Wikispooks. | ||
Revision as of 17:10, 14 October 2018
Less Extended Quotations in The Main Namespace, Please!
I'm writing this here for now, in lack of any where better, although it applies to a lot of pages in the main: Wikispooks namespace. For me, the best Wikispooks pages are the ones which contain original material, synthesised from multiple sources. The editing and refining of other arguments posted by other people is, for me, what a wiki is all about.
I see a clear problem with having chunks of source material on a WS page, where it is editable, but where we don't want people to edit it. There is a dedicated namespace ('Document:') for stuff which (like obituaries) we don't want people editing. Short quotations from books, speeches, obituaries etc. are fine, as they don't disrupt the flow of articles. Well chosen short segments can give a flavour of the original material, while allowing the editor to make a point about how they fit into the article as a whole.
With the original source posted in the "document:" archive, quotations can easily be linked in to the full text, should people wish to divert and read it. I have a problem with extended chunks of 3rd party material inserted in articles as they disrupt readability and so detract from the original work that I think is the highpoint of the material here on Wikispooks. Robin (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2013 (GMT)
