Difference between revisions of "User talk:Troll Bridge on the River Kwai"

Latest revision as of 05:19, 17 May 2005

Hi, I've been stalking checking out your edits. Got a few different comments for ya.

First off, thank you for the respect you show to reference my text. I don't claim any special authority to make these coinages; they are just observations from the porch, so to speak.

That said, I think you and I are going down the wrong road here. I don't know the rules on Anarchopedia -- not sure if there are any rules -- but it's probably bad form for me to sign comments or whatever in article mainspace. I got off track when you quoted my text from my Wikipedia Talk page -- I claim all responsibility. Unless you see a reason to do otherwise, I'd rather delete all "sigs" from mainspace. I cop to my edits, but don't need to take credit for them.

Another thing that threw me off track is that our little Charter Caucus project pretty much ignores all such rules; by definition, all its subpages are pretty much discussion pages, and I encourage people to sign their edits.

You might want to check en: c2: ThreadMode. I don't see any problem with signing on "article pages", provided that anyone is free to refactor the information so as to maximize its usefulness to the reader - the page history being enough to establish attribution. If you have a problem with that, by all means write in the talk namespace instead. This is just a standard convention, of course.

Which brings us to your involvement in the Caucus. Naturally, we welcome all members with an interest, and as you're already a logged-in member, nothing to say on that score. But we'd appreciate it if you put your handle on Charter/Members -- if for some reason the word "members" makes you queasy, there's also a Guest list.

Sorry, but I really have to disagree here. For the sake of the most credible critics of online groupthink, we will have to stay out of any membership or "community".

Interesting stuff on ethics. We can use more stuff like that.

Thank You! for your participation. [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 01:08, 25 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Make a choice. You can insist that every contributor here must become a member of some sort of social group or be ignored. If you do that, we will respect your privacy - I will make no further contribution here.

If you want our help, then you will have to give due process and consideration to the perspectives of anon editors and these who choose not to sign up as "caucus members" - this is nothing more than a simple defense against mindless "Wikipedianism".

• If you don't care whether articles have sigs, I don't either. Fine by me either way.

• Who's "we"? Is that the royal we? Or do you speak for others as well?

• I don't have to make a choice; I'm not a gatekeeper. I took it upon myself to squat here in the corner, put out a few chairs, invite some Wikipedians in, drag some texts from one place or another that might be relevant. If the caucus needs rules, much less someone to enforce them, then our effort is doomed. It just looks like common sense to have a central list of contributors to the caucus -- no matter what you choose for a label. If you can think of a way to express that in a totally nonpolitical fashion, please let me know.

Would you be offended if I put another heading on the Members page and added you to it? Do you have any suggestion for the heading title? "Contributors"? "Visitors"? "Editors"? "Nonmember Users"? "Users who have edited caucus pages"? Let me know what works for you. It's not as though you can edit in secret -- page history tells all.

I don't think a lot is at stake here with listing caucus members, believe me. If you do, then you automatically win, as far as I'm concerned.

FWIW, I have very little stake in current Wikipedian culture, which I think has gone down the shitter -- if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have called an off-project caucus. I have no interest at all in imposing cookie-cutter, rubber-stamp conformity on anyone, or excluding points of view from this caucus. This is not a faction or coalition, let alone a party -- merely a room full of whoever walks in, each representing himself -- vocally, I would hope. [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Charter Caucus[edit]

This caucus is semi-active. We've been laying the groundwork, and I appreciate your recent contribs. Eventually -- in good wikitime, I guess -- it will be time for a full-scale barnraising, mass solicitation of members, etc.

I don't actually have any experience doing this; as in all things, I'm a sort of bright fool. It's clear to me this caucus is needed, but I don't pretend to know where the bus is going, and I'm certainly not the driver.

Your every suggestion is welcome. [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 00:19, 17 May 2005 (CDT)