imported>Import: Imported current content

2026-01-28T11:54:25Z

Imported current content

New page

=== Signature/ place of the II ===
{{discussionlink| link = help:contents|text = Signing a comment}}

{{extract

|extract =

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#Alle van Meeteren 10:51, 30 July 2006 (EDT)|

1 - Alle welcomes Jim Scarver's strategy of signing articles and contributions in discussions.

]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#JimScarver 12:07, 30 July 2006 (EDT)|

2 - Jim pleads for individual voices on article pages.

]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#Alle van Meeteren 13:21, 30 July 2006 (EDT))|

3 - Alle fears a mess.
]]

|by = Alle van Meeteren

}}

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 10:51, 30 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey

|name = Signature/ place of the

|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}

|page = {{PAGENAME}}

|next = Signature/ place of the

|former = Signature/ place of the

|nr = 1

}}

Jim Scarver described our strategy with undersigning articles and contributions in a discussion today. I agree. I am glad Jim makes a difference between an article-page and a talk-page. On an article-page sounds a neutral voice when the objective reality is described, or our collective voice. On talk-pages, each of us is speaking as individual. I hope StarPilot will also agree with this method.
I will think about the exceptions Jim introduces. In my opinion, we do not discuss on an article-page. So, such an exception may not lead to a discussion.

==== [[User:JimScarver|JimScarver]] 12:07, 30 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey

|name = Signature/ place of the

|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}

|page = {{PAGENAME}}

|next = Alle van Meeteren 13:21, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

|former = Alle van Meeteren 10:51, 30 July 2006 (EDT

|nr = 2

}}
Please do consider the value of personal comments in articles. I do NOT agree that article pages should exclude personal comments. I believe that will lead to an impersonal system that fails to cherish individuals. Individual views are welcome in articles in my view. PLEASE do not strip all the personal views from the articles. It results in streiching [[WE]] to were there is not yet agreement or eliminating conflicking viewpoints while making the site impersonal.

I do agree that long winded discussions make articles less focused and there needs to be some kind of compromize. Moving it to a talk page is a simple solution assuming we have a simple metapage alternative. Leaving a link to the talk page, where discussion has been eliminated, for those looking for the personal comments, which have been removed, may be desirable.

Replying should be easy, I am lost by all the markup here. It would be simplest to reply at the bottom in time order. I suppose I could have as easily replied on top of your comment, but I was hesitant to do so as it would not be clear what I was responding to.

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 13:21, 30 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey

|name = Signature/ place of the

|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}

|page = {{PAGENAME}}

|next = Signature/ place of the

|former = JimScarver 12:07, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
|nr = 3

}}

Jim,

My fear is that an article-page grows unreadable if different voices are discussing on such a page. When the discussion is stale, nobody will remove it. One contribution is depending on another contribution, but in a unclear way. So, if you think our articlepages will become too sterile without personal voices (I doubt it), that voices should be stand-alone voices there. Not reacting on eachother, but just making there point.

With a good use of are talk-pages all lively action will be there. The article pages should make the visitors anxious to read thos talk-pages, should suck them in our discussions. A good, transparant article page shall do that, even if it is written in a we-style. (What is 'streiching'?)

=== Signature/ place of the I ===
==== [[User:StarPilot|StarPilot]] 11:26, 11 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey

|name = Signature/ place of the

|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}

|page = {{PAGENAME}}

|next = Signature/ place of the

|former = Alle van Meeteren 09:09, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

|nr = 4

}}
A Dialog, such as on this page, is a sequential occurance. It's best to keep it oldest to newest in order, to allow people that are reading the page for the first time to follow the flow of the conversation. The current order above this reply is more like an email reply thread, where the last person to talk is first. In Email, this is acceptable, because as a recepient of the email, you may not be concerned with what came before, and therefore you can start with the latest reply. However, in a normal human discussion, this is extremely inefficent as it forces the reader to do extra processing.

Second issue:
Every thing a person writes is always in the voice of the [[WE]]. Everything. Whether signed or not. Whether it's a dissertation on how the H absordtion lines have changed from the beginning of time or a rant on how bad it is to have things out of order. Articles can be owned. For instance, [[InformationPhysics]] is certainly [[JimScarver]]'s work, and should keep his signature. Trying to stamp out personal voices will lessen [[WikiWorld]], as seperate voices allow the [[WE]] to debate with itself on what the truth or main belief on a matter is.

Third issue:
Why don't you just have people sign at the start and end and get it over with? Signature first is a standard BBS feature, but even then, they still have a signature afterward, because only one is easy to miss, and with long posts, it helps to know you haven't wandered into someone else's posting without realising it (this can be important, as different people communicate with different tones and that can affect the context). Of course, if you just call for a standard format, such that all posts must be sectioned off on their own, and all replies simply copy the relevant one or two lines down, where needed, it keeps it very clean. An examination of [[WikiWorld]] articles shows we've tried many approaches, with differing degrees of success. I believe the optimal answer depends on the size and the complexity of the discussions myself, but I'm just one small voice in the [[WE]]. ;-)

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 09:09, 11 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey

|name = Signature/ place of the

|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}

|page = {{PAGENAME}}

|next = StarPilot 11:26, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

|former = JimScarver 07:19, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

|nr = 3

}}
Jim,

I'm glad you agree with me over the place of the signature. I was only talking about signing in dialogs. In content there should be no signature at all. Perhaps, you have noticed that I made a link to discussion pages in content? In my opinion that is the indirect way individual voices can be made heard inside the content. If an individual thinks he can write as a representant of the [[WE]], he is that representant inside the content, but he is not speaking for himself, then.

==== [[User:JimScarver|JimScarver]] 07:19, 11 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey

|name = Signature/ place of the

|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}

|page = {{PAGENAME}}

|next = Alle van Meeteren 09:09, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

|former = Alle van Meeteren 10:46, 7 July 2006 (EDT)

|nr = 2

}}
Signatures at the bottom benifit us in that WE do not prejudge what is being said by who is saying it.

In dialogs it may be better on top, e.g. Talk pages. But in content is should be at the bottom or not at all, in my view.

==== [[User:Alle van Meeteren|Alle van Meeteren]] 10:46, 7 July 2006 (EDT) ====
{{tosurvey

|name = Signature/ place of the

|namespace = {{NAMESPACE}}

|page = {{PAGENAME}}

|next = JimScarver 07:19, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

|former = Signature/ place of the

|nr = 1

}}
I prefer to see who made a comment at the start of my reading the comment, and not afterwards. That is more efficient, I think.

== ToDo ==
<tasks> [1] Find consensus about the relation between talkpages and articlepages. (Alle van Meeteren)

</tasks>

Talk:Wiki-signature - Revision history

imported>Import: Imported current content