Site feedback: fragmentation needs consolidation


#21

please stop deliberately misinforming and misleading people. this behaviour, it’s like a child getting territorial with toys in a sandpit. just because someone does one thing that’s not to your liking, you chose to destroy the whole sandcastle that everyone’s been building - #becausefeelings @RobJF you should know better.

varying levels of permissions exist within wikis to facilitate precisely what’s being proposed.

according to your logic, because it’s run by the wikimedia foundation, wikipedia shouldn’t exist.

source media wiki:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Permissions
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:User_rights_and_groups


#22

sure. so how about editing the original statement? given that it’s quite clear that what you said is factually incorrect.

me listing wiki.cardano.org in NO way implies “@RobJF’s wiki” in its former, current, future or any form for that matter.

especially with all the evidence of my historical opinion of it.

no one but @RobJF assumed then implied (for some weird questionable reasons only known to him) that it would be “his wiki”. NOT me - HE did.

so make that factual edit (that would essential be you disagreeing with his egotistical presumptions) and see if this “Thank you” sentiment stays true:


now as for whether the use of the word “wiki” should or should not apply to a possible NEW wiki.cardano.org - that’s a whole separate issue.

whilst i see what you’re getting at from a security / verification / authentication standpoint. the disadvantages you point to could quite effectively be mitigated by permissions (edits and or approvals) applied to sensitive areas/pages. it’s actually quite simple and straight forward. while the advantages, the wealth of rich, diverse contributions from the community of hundreds to thousands would be lost, if not greatly adversely affected because of semantics?

it just doesn’t add up, choosing not to use the word » wiki « which communicates community contribution because of security measures which could otherwise easily be mitigated?


#23

@RobJF and @misteraxyz please keep it friendly in here. Thank you.


#24

really? @Andy_Hendrikx? you mean to tell me you’ve read the entire interaction and concluded that there’s objectively clearly no instigator?


#25

Anyone who actually takes the trouble to read the relevant threads which he kindly linked above will see quite clearly that @misteraxyz has been very keen to “do something” (I’m not sure what) with the existing wiki. If he’s now saying he’s no longer interested in it, that is good news to me, meaning I can safely ignore all of his posts from now on.

Similarly, regarding the ad hominem remark, evidence is plentiful in this thread and the ones mentioned above, eg the suggestion of senility.

Personally, I don’t see the need for an authoritative wiki. Authoritative sources on the most important info, yes, but why need it be in wiki format?