https://www.wikiworld.com/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Talk%3ALearning_site 2026-05-06T15:41:22Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.45.1 https://www.wikiworld.com/index.php?title=Talk:Learning_site&diff=2305&oldid=prev 2026-01-28T11:54:25Z

<p>Imported current content</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{discussionlink| link =talk:SocialContract#What is WikiWorld?|text = WikiWorld is not an objective site. It&#039;s a learning and philosophy site. }}<br /> {{extract<br /> <br /> |name = Learning<br /> <br /> |extract = Alle started to refact the discussion-pages. StarPilot understrikes the fact that WikiWorld is people having dialog, and not an objective site.<br /> <br /> |by = [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 03:12, 12 July 2006 (EDT)<br /> <br /> }} <br /> <br /> <br /> === Learning ===<br /> <br /> ====[[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 03:12, 12 July 2006 (EDT)====<br /> <br /> StarPilot,<br /> <br /> I noticed WikiWorld is not WikiPedia, not an objective site. Dialog is important for WikiWorld, but we have to learn to have a good dialog together. A good dialog is not the same as putting texts together. One have to understand what the partner in the dialog wanted to say, and to show what one understands.<br /> <br /> What I am doing here is learning, is thinking about our dialog. To learn is to look to things in another way than you used to do, to try to do things in a better way. Why don&#039;t you refact the pages, so that I can learn from your vision? Why don&#039;t you try to follow my changes, to look if the work as I think they work?<br /> <br /> ====[[User:StarPilot|StarPilot]]====<br /> <br /> <br /> Alle van Meeteren, WikiWorld is not an objective site. It&#039;s a learning and philosophy site. Both require dialog if people are to actually learn them. Somewhere between 75% to 90% of WikiWorld is nothing more then individual people having a dialog. That&#039;s the entire article. This is important, as most users are not going to link to the discussion on, say, SocialContract, by using SocialContract. Indeed, I think the main meat of this article is the discussions itself.<br /> <br /> On the logic and anal-retentative scales for humans, I&#039;m fairly up there. I have a fairly good understanding of when a &quot;typical&quot; human just won&#039;t care if things are made neater--- they only care how easily they can use something, how easy it is to find what they want, and that what they want to learn isn&#039;t too difficult to do so. WikiWorld is currently leaving that world very far behind. I see this as counter to the purposes of WikiWorld. As KenSchry has said to me repeatily, this isn&#039;t Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> I hope this series of postings will communicate to you the information you seek from me. But if there is anything I forgot about because I lost track of the matter with the refactoring you do, please feel free to call it to my attention. New viewpoints only enrich WikiWorld.</div>

imported>Import