Wiki Community/For Editor Review/Talk

InfoInfo ArticleArticle

This page is for discussing the contents of Wiki Community/For Editor Review.

Editors (and other pages) Linking to this Page


Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2009-08-01 11:37:58   I created this page to initiate editor sharing and review without resort to the [WWW]Google Group. I believe firmly in the Google Group and the advisability of holding certain discussions "offline" from RocWiki. However, many editors may not elect to particpate in the group, take time to visit it, or check their alternate GMail email address to keep up with what is going on. I would hope that this page will engender more inter-editor dialogue and sharing and improve RocWiki. —BradMandell

2009-08-01 11:48:33   PS: I agree wholeheartedly with the underlying concepts behind PeteB ideas on "Community Decision Making". I hope this mechanism can improve that process within RocWiki - and develop some habits and processes that allow quick decisions. Ideas and Suggestions encouraged. (:>) —BradMandell

2009-08-01 12:57:19   I put a comment to visit this page in a lot of the active editors' User Pages in hopes of attracting interest for active folks who may not pay much attention to the Google Groups - NOT SPAMMING (:>}

You will appear in the list above, hope I did not miss anyone - if I did, it is not because you are not important !!

If you want to remove yourself from the list, just edit my comment on your User Page - Thanks

2009-08-01 21:32:45   This is a good idea. I like both the concept and the execution. I agree that we should be having more discussions on the wiki, and fewer on the google group —EastSideStephen

2009-08-01 21:39:41   It certainly has potential but the fact is so much gets done that it will shift off the Recent Pages, and unless people bookmark it they won't see there's been changes —PeteB

2009-08-02 04:29:10   Thanks Stephen, appreciate the support.

You are right Pete, that is why I put the suggestion for Bookmark or RSS in the top paragraphs next to the TOC , maybe I need to highlight it more.

The Recent Changes page is also my first focus when I come into RocWiki and I keep visiting it often while I am working. I normally review every change and try to contribute something to each "active" page. If I have been away from RocWiki for a while I usually click on the 7 Days link and go back, but a longer absence keeps me in the dark on some activity.

Maybe some REALLY ClEVER SOMEONE could come up with a macro, or set of macros, to generate a page with a list of pages changed in the last NN days, perhaps even with filters for NOT COMMENT CHANGES, ONLY COMMENT CHANGES, and maybe even NOT EDITED BY SIGNED ON USER. That page/pages could be linked here on the For Editor Review page and/or individual editors could use it on their own tracking page. —BradMandell

2009-08-19 11:40:54   The HIPAA idea is good but can we streamline it a bit? I would suggest cutting it down to something like, "Due to HIPAA Medical regulations, medical personnel are prohibited from discussing anything to do with patients. Please consider this when posting." I think it would be more concise and clear. Mentioning HIPAA specifics when we are not a medical site is touchy and unless we're going to post the whole entire law I think tightening it up would be a prudent consideration (this came from my father who is over here reading-he is a 60-year active physician). —PeteB

2009-08-19 13:09:46   Pete, I defer to Davis Wiki on this one, although I did shorten it a bit. They actually have medical professionals engaged in the wiki. They even have a dentist that monitors online questions and responds to them. This is no disrespect for your father, just that they have the combined and specific medical and wiki experience and concerns.

Many pages on this wiki reference the source of material without duplication of its content, as I did to HIPAA in the Include text. Since this is a serious issue, I don't feel that we need be too concerned about a few words. I have also created a Talk Page with additional info. Perhaps the technique used in NPOV, with a separate definition link might address your concerns. The Davis Wiki version does not even mention the posting side, but as information for the viewer of the comments. Many may assume something is true, factual, etc simply because there is no response, when that may be far from the truth. —BradMandell

2009-08-19 15:17:55   I have a whole bunch of open ended questions, but I'll start with a statement. Let's agree to keep conversations about the specifics of "For Editor Review" pages off this page. Sound reasonable?

How does the For Editor Review page relate to the NPOV, Troll and Stub page lists?

As for a macro, the one we really want is a button on every page that allows the visitor to "report" the page they're on, moving it for review without them having to actually edit Yet Another Page. Unfortunately, that's not really feasible at this time without some serious hacking.

Finally, we do need to have some sort of informal guideline for when we can (for that matter, who is this "we"?) generally move links between the categories and when they should be totally removed from the page. In 2011 we don't really need a direct to a page that was reviewed in 2009. Nothing hard and fast is strictly necessary in my opinion, but we do need some sense of perspective. If someone's really curious, they can go back in the history. —DaveMahon