Talk:KISS
Notes from the peanut gallery
KISS stands for Keep It Superiorly Simple.
This article was created as a comment as to the need to keep things at WikiWorld as simple as possible, so that outside participants (ie, the reading audience) can follow the thoughts, articles, and in particular, the discussions (during and most particularly after).
Jim's original comments stand as a working Consensus of what very diverse thinkers have settled on, to be able to communicate efficiently with one another here at WikiWorld. The introduction of new participants has caused a movement to test "old versus new" formats.
The comments and mention about Wiki and WikiSimple is because Wiki itself is built on the KISS principle, and has its very own *developed* philosophy (hence, it is correctly included in Jim's piece).
Our new friend Alle van Meeteren changed this article to more properly represent his opinion. In true WikiWorld fashion, KenSchry pointed out that he preferred JimScarver's original version. (Link to discussion sectioning related to the text:{{{text}}}) I obviously agreed. That's why I set it back (with some minor spelling/grammar changes and some linking). We have set it back to the majority opinion. Discussion is welcome, but we may need to put it in a more proper place.
Alle, feel free to change this page to a *small* page of just:
KISS stands for Keep It Superiorly Simple.
And split Jim's (and ours if you like) comments into a new page or add it into Writing on WikiWorld. That's really where this belongs. This is called *refactoring*. If you don't do it, someone else will, eventually.
relation between KISS and Wiki
Alle van Meeteren 02:41, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
In my opinion the remark about the Wiki ("Wiki means quick, and exhibits control, freedom, and simplicity; Wikis are not only fast, but also WikiSimple."), is a loose remark. There is not a logical connection with the rest of the article about the KISS-principle. My first suggestion was to scrap the sentence, having no influence on the KISS-principle. StarPilot sees a function for the sentence. He says: "The comments and mention about Wiki and WikiSimple is because Wiki itself is built on the KISS principle, and has its very own *developed* philosophy (hence, it is correctly included in Jim's piece)." I am aware of a relation between the KISS of our instrument, and the KISS we ourselves are struggling with, but if the article want to take advantage of this relation, it have to be more explicit on this relation. Is it more than a coincidence?
signing an article
Alle van Meeteren 02:52, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
In my opinion article pages should not by signed. Article-pages are objective or the product of our collective, not the expression of individual persons. An alternative can be that persons co-sign pages.
StarPilot 17:36, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
Signing an article is fine.
Again, you are stuck on "Articles" being somehow special. They aren't. They are just another page here at WikiWorld. If someone wants to take up with the author of a page on something they said, it is often very helpful to know who that author is. As WikiWorld has now twice shown that history of pages get lost, signing one's contributions helps others know who thought it and posted it. This makes it much easier to go to their user page and leave them a note, or even email them (if you specifically want to talk with that person, and don't want to take the chance they miss it).
I think this discussion should be refactored to a page on signing. Perhaps you should start a trial page for it?
Alle van Meeteren 02:08, 29 July 2006 (EDT)
WE disagree. How do you solve that problem?
self evident
Alle van Meeteren 03:43, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
"KISS means plain enough to be self evident once it is understood while being excluding ambiguity."
This sentence shows the tension inside the KISS-principle. Once it is understood (definitely a threshold) it is self evident (there is no treshold anymore). KISS is a goal for the writer, not an objective requirement. It is relative to the understanding of the reader. What is not KISS for a general public on the moment, can be KISS in a future, when the general public get used to the message. It is impossible to say what shall become KISS and what never will be KISS.
StarPilot 17:41, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
That was Jim's not so subtle direction that you should reconsider your system, because its causing him headaches.
This is as simple as I can make that for you.
If you really believed in what you say, you'd have kept your mouth shut and lurked long enough to learn how things are done here. It's what you keep claiming everyone should do with you, but you aren't concerned with giving the people of this site that same respect. That's why you continue to get into trouble.
This is the last time I take this approach with one of your pages. It causes WAY too many edits. You had over 100 edits with just responding to 4 pages in the last 24 hours. You'd flood out the maintenance tools if you really got involved with the site. That's not a good thing.
Alle van Meeteren 02:11, 29 July 2006 (EDT)
Jim wrote "KISS means plain enough to be self evident once it is understood while being excluding ambiguity."
I read a certain tension in this sentence. The KISS-principle leads to self-evident texts, because to texts without ambiguity, but first the subject which the text handles had to be understood.
StarPilot reads a "not so subtle direction that you (= Alle) should reconsider your system, because its causing him (= Jim) headaches."
I am not a native english speaker, perhaps that causes the trouble. I will try another formulation:
Keep it super simple means: keep your text (or procedure) so simple that it speaks for itself. The technic to reach this effect is excluding ambiguity in the text (or procedure). But before it can have this effect the text (or procedure) has to be understood.
I cannot find a formulation that makes StarPilot's reading evident to me. The sentence looses his tension when the connection to understanding is broken: "KISS means plain enough to be self evident while being excluding ambiguity." Then it is just a neutral definition of KISS, without references to me. The text is placed on an article page, not on my talk-page.
There is a limit to the amount of edits?