CZ Talk:We aren't Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris day (certainly don't ignore the difference.) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Of course we won't be able to say this forever. When we have our first vandalism outside of that self-registration period, we can change this to read, "We have had virtually no vandalism." Vandalism isn't much of a challenge, first of all; and it's not a challenge for us to shut down. But it's really important that we include this in a list of differences--it's one of the biggest (and most positive) differences between the projects. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT) | Of course we won't be able to say this forever. When we have our first vandalism outside of that self-registration period, we can change this to read, "We have had virtually no vandalism." Vandalism isn't much of a challenge, first of all; and it's not a challenge for us to shut down. But it's really important that we include this in a list of differences--it's one of the biggest (and most positive) differences between the projects. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Certainly from the perspective of a serious editor, low levels of vandalism is a huge attraction to edit here rather than wikipedia. In my mind that, along with the protected, approved pages, are the two most important distinctions. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 00:41, 21 March 2007 (CDT) | :Certainly from the perspective of a serious editor, low levels of vandalism is a huge attraction to edit here rather than wikipedia. In my mind that, along with the protected, approved pages, are the two most important distinctions. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 00:41, 21 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
Hey Steve, I noticed that you made several formatting changes, which I reverted. So I thought I should explain why. The headings seemed redundant. The document itself is short, and does not need headings that repeat headings that are in bold. We could simply put == around the now-bold headings, such as "How is the Citizendium similar to Wikipedia?" But this would have the body of the text, such as "In quite a few ways," responding to the heading, which seems like poor style. Theoretically, an article should make sense without having to read a heading title (surrounded by ==). | |||
The introductory lines you added were also redundant with the evident structure of the page, and so unnecessary; give the reader a little credit for being able to figure it out. "Wikipedia style" has a very annoying tendency to spell out absolutely everything in its help pages, even when it becomes more tiresome and confusing to have the exhaustive explanation. Let's not do that. | |||
In long bulleted lists, putting spaces between items increases readability, so I would agree to that, except that the text is also structured by the bold headings after the numbers. So it's easy to keep your place as you read. | |||
You also had de-spirited some of my punchier formulations, which I have reverted. :-) I appreciated the other clean-ups though. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:08, 25 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:08, 25 March 2007
Larry, do you think that number four might be regarded as a challenge? I'd say ignore them. Chris Day (Talk) 23:38, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Of course we won't be able to say this forever. When we have our first vandalism outside of that self-registration period, we can change this to read, "We have had virtually no vandalism." Vandalism isn't much of a challenge, first of all; and it's not a challenge for us to shut down. But it's really important that we include this in a list of differences--it's one of the biggest (and most positive) differences between the projects. --Larry Sanger 00:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
- Certainly from the perspective of a serious editor, low levels of vandalism is a huge attraction to edit here rather than wikipedia. In my mind that, along with the protected, approved pages, are the two most important distinctions. Chris Day (Talk) 00:41, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
Hey Steve, I noticed that you made several formatting changes, which I reverted. So I thought I should explain why. The headings seemed redundant. The document itself is short, and does not need headings that repeat headings that are in bold. We could simply put == around the now-bold headings, such as "How is the Citizendium similar to Wikipedia?" But this would have the body of the text, such as "In quite a few ways," responding to the heading, which seems like poor style. Theoretically, an article should make sense without having to read a heading title (surrounded by ==).
The introductory lines you added were also redundant with the evident structure of the page, and so unnecessary; give the reader a little credit for being able to figure it out. "Wikipedia style" has a very annoying tendency to spell out absolutely everything in its help pages, even when it becomes more tiresome and confusing to have the exhaustive explanation. Let's not do that.
In long bulleted lists, putting spaces between items increases readability, so I would agree to that, except that the text is also structured by the bold headings after the numbers. So it's easy to keep your place as you read.
You also had de-spirited some of my punchier formulations, which I have reverted. :-) I appreciated the other clean-ups though. --Larry Sanger 09:08, 25 March 2007 (CDT)