Talk:Wikitiquette

From WolfWikis

Therefore, do not post something that you know will anger or inflame someone else just to be confrontational...

The big problem with this is that if you try to remain reasonable you typically get ignored. That too is bad etiquette I think.

.. Stay on topic. The topic of this wiki is how wikis contribute to composing practices, the teaching of writing, and education in general (specifically regarding pedagogy, theory, and practice)..

This is entirely new to me. I do not think that you own' this wiki. It belongs to the entire NCSU community.

Jcfolmer 10:25, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Staying on topic

I agree that the wiki (in general) and the wiki (specific) are possessions of the entire NCSU community. That is what wikis are all about, community collaboration. The reason the original post said "Stay on topic. The topic of this wiki is how wikis contribute to composing practices, the teaching of writing, and education in general (specifically regarding pedagogy, theory, and practice)..." is because I specifically created and categorized the wikitiquette page (see first paragraph on Wikis in Writing Education Research page) as a page in the Wikis in Writing Education Reserach Wiki. The Wolfwikis themselves are one large wiki engine (using Mediawiki software) which hosts multiple wikis, if I understand it correctly. The wikis individuals, professors, students, or staff, who create the wikis have created a wiki both as a page connected to the wiki (and wiki engine at NCSU) and an individual wiki with pages of their own creation linked to that wiki. In other words, staying on topic meant remaining on the topic of the wiki page(s) you were editing. I will keep in mind the general applicability of the wikitiquette page, in case other wiki users want to link it, for future additions and hope anyone else who chooses to become an editor respects the communities wishes. I really appreciate the feedback on this page and hope others will feel free to participate. Toby 14:52, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Anger and Inflamation (not a medical disorder ;)

While I agree that being ignored is very bad etiquette (unless what is said is so outrageous in a malicious and harmful way that it only needs to be deleted - but then is deletion really not ignoring?), I also think that as a general wiki rule, debate is not a one-sided argument. It is partly the critical examination of ideas of differing viewpoints supported by evidence. My post below #4 ("on that note...") explains what I mean pretty well with confrontation. Simultaneously, explaining your own viewpoint, even when it counters someone else's opinion is perfectly reasonable as well as expected. How else do individuals grow out of their comfort zones? What I mean to get at here, and perhaps this is where other editors can make the posting more specific, is that if someone simply rants and rails about their opinion and is not willing to hear out others, then the spirit of wiki collaboration is diminished and the objectivity created by multiple viewpoints (such as that created by the thousands, or millions, of users on Wikipedia, see the NPOV link.) is negated. Does this help/make sense? Toby 15:03, 17 November 2006 (EST)