This is the general discussion page for the wiki! New founders should leave a nice welcome message and encourage new visitors and editors to leave a note to get the conversation started.
archived deletion discussion
I'd rather we did not delete any people pages for people who have a rich comment history or special connection to Pharyngula. Instead, let's make pages such as this more than two lines long and get some input from the actual person being written about as well. It isn't too hard to write a neutral or positive intro, give some insight into their character, and also provide a criticism section. It doesn't need to be a full-on attack like this. And don't forget we have multiple theists, some of whom are well-regarded for everything except their theistic beliefs. It might be fun to give everyone a God Delusion rating using the Dawkins' Scale. --Aratina
- Input from sandiseattle is important, for sure. If you see him around, point him to this.
- I am routinely castigated for bringing up "old shit" about regulars. At least these bottom-trawling expeditions themselves become old shit soon enough, shuffled into the thousands of other comment threads and eluding all but the most dedicated searchers.
- Collecting our complaints about each other into trivially-accessible Wikia articles will be stifling. Wikia has a massive Google PageRank. These pages will be cages; growth will become nearly impossible to notice, thus unrewarding and hardly worthwhile to attempt.
- Negativity bias is extremely difficult to overcome, and those who dislike sandiseattle will always be able to argue for the inclusion of this or that little annoyance because "it happened and it's a matter of public record."
- And it may well be, but let them do the work of a bottom-trawling expedition whenever they want it so bad. Necessitating the expenditure of significant effort each time will raise the cost of perpetual, trivial baiting. --Markovbaines
- Nothing to do with him being a theist, regardless. The rating thing is a fine idea for articles we keep.
- My objection is that we've refrained from having even entirely positive articles on privacy-conscious regulars who don't want to be mentioned here. That's been our precedent from the beginning, which threads from January will demonstrate.
- If sandiseattle doesn't want an article, then we shouldn't have one, even if it is entirely laudatory. --Markovbaines
- I missed the stuff from January about not putting people on here. Even the OMs? Surely they cannot gripe about getting their own page. That would be silly. --Aratina
- I wouldn't like to see people immune from warranted criticism. Things like having PZ intervene to tell people to stop (he's done it to me, for example) should be fair game for mentioning. If someone is known for an unquestionably illiberal position or accommodationist position, that should be fair game for mentioning, too.
- Maybe we need a rule like: You may not create or edit articles on unbanned people you dislike or have an ongoing feud with, and Keep It Impersonal? --Aratina
- Even the OMs. It was a request from an OM that resulted in the first such action. I've emailed the details to whichever address you have associated with your Wikia account.
- The issue is that some regulars are operating from within fundamentalist occupied territory, with only the flimsiest of privacy protection, probably because they didn't realize when they started out that they'd want more obfuscation later.
- So, some have calculated that they can afford to keep doing what they're doing, but no more than that: they comment on Pharyngula threads, which get shuffled into thousands of other pages, but feel they cannot afford the exposure that Wikia's PageRank may bring.
- I am not willing to push any member of the Ordo Mollis into more exposure than they're comfortable with. Consistency means treating the serfs equally.
- No one is immune from criticism. Anyone can start a fight on Pharyngula with anyone else for any reason. If fair game is one's attitude, one can bring up whatevs on any thread and face the consequences of being shouted down for it.
- The wiki format presents a barrier to entry for less skilled Pharyngulites; this is part of the reason so many register but then never edit; they can't figure it out to their satisfaction. Thus the wiki format favors certain elites like us, who will not face the same degree of shouting down that we'd face on a Pharyngula thread. --Markovbaines
It's one thing to comment negatively on banned people. However I think we should not have negative or primarily negative comments on unbanned people. --'Tis Himself
- I agree with that. I think criticism of unbanned people should be OK, but no need to have only that. --Aratina
- Won't work well in practice, Aratina. Who is going to have anything positive to say about someone who's "more or less tolerated, if only so other commenters have someone to zing"? --Markovbaines
I actually created the page. I have no reason to opt out. I actually thought I was being basically truthful to be honest. --Sandiseattle
- Thanks for clearing that up, sandiseattle. --Markovbaines
- You mean, you wrote that about yourself? I ask because I mistook it for an attack on you. If you are OK with it, great! We can probably add to it from there. --Aratina
Thank you Aratina for the idea that there should be something positive in the entry. --Sandiseattle
Aratina, I actually thought of it as neutral given the esteem in which I'm held at Pharyngula. It's just a start tho'. --Sandiseattle