|
comment4; http://www.buy-viagra-today.net/ buying viagra online twmi; http://www.your-cialis.com/ generic cialis 8-P; http://www.xanax-rx.net/ xanax prescriptions :(((; |
|
The original WikiWiki and a SisterSite of TheAdjunct (or perhaps, more accurately, its parent). Developed by WardCunningham since 1994 and installed in '95; deals with PeopleProjectsAndPatterns. Right. Just so you don't talk about the "People" part of PeopleProjectsAndPatterns. Actually, if you think about it, the "Projects" and "Patterns" topics are probably just as limited and controlled as the "People" aspect. They must only be discussed in context of a computer program, a company involved in computer programming, or aspects involved in computer programming. Quilting involves People and Patterns; but if its link to computer programming is not clearly pointed out, it will be deleted or moved off to TheAdjunct. In truth, quilting may have various connections to PeopleProjectsAndPatterns that an insightful office chief may find useful in his programming team; but the WikiZens who control content and limit discussions on C2 aren't always that insightful (ouch! Sorry if I stepped on any toes, there!). Love you all :) -- BrucePennington The subtitle of WardsWiki is not "PeopleProjectsAndPatterns in General". It is "PeopleProjectsAndPatterns in SoftwareDevelopment". As such, quilting and other non-SoftwareDevelopment-related aspects of People on WardsWiki are irrelevant and OffTopic, whether some office chief finds such knowledge of value or not. WardsWiki is not targeted at office chiefs, but it is targeted at programmers interested in programming. For quilting and other non-software topics, there are appropriate forums -- like this one, for example. Certain off-topics that tend to be very highly correlated with computer programming or programmers themselves (e.g., StarTrek) are afforded a certain tolerance due to their near-universal interest within the programming community and because most were created before TheAdjunct existed, but they will almost undoubtedly be moved here over time. Yes, sounds simiple and clear-cut the way you tell it. Life, though, turns out to be more complex, doesn't it? Shades of grey, and all that. It would be simpler if Ward had not included the "People" part of that title. If WikiWiki had been created to just talk about "Programming," we wouldn't be having this discussion. -- BrucePennington Sorry to say, I think you may be manufacturing the complexity in this case. Most participants have no difficulty recognising that "People" in "PeopleProjectsAndPatterns in SoftwareDevelopment" means people in the context of software development. Hence, it is appropriate to (for example) cull biographical material that does not relate to software development, programming, or computing. It would seem the majority of WardsWiki participants are clear on this; only a small minority have sought to retain material that is considered OffTopic by the majority. Ok, dude, Black and White. I'm immangining things. Got me! I guess ethical decisions about programming back doors into someone's software is OffTopic. I suppose software and computer company CEOs teaching the Chinese government how to block the free exchange of information to the people of China is OffTopic. The list could go on and on, and in fact, does go on and on at C2, because anytime you involve People, you get involved complexities that can only be discussed at deeper and deeper levels. -- BrucePennington Only if you force it to deeper and deeper levels. Retaining some explicit programming connection generally provides a clear boundary, such that discussion of software to block Web sites to China would probably be considered OnTopic, but a general page on Chinese government politics would be OffTopic and more suited to WikiPedia or TheAdjunct. However, as WardsWiki is essentially a democratic system, it holds that if the participants generally consider a topic worth retaining, it gets retained. Hence, there are pages like StarTrek and PinkFloyd, which are obviously very OffTopic. If the participants generally consider a topic unworthy of retention, then it gets deleted. If the participants consider a topic worthy of retention but OffTopic, then it gets moved here. Simple, innit? Yes, I think you've captured the essence of it, right there. Definitions like the one that started this page, don't really portray the reality of how things work, sometimes. -- BrucePennington |
The subtitle of WardsWiki is not "PeopleProjectsAndPatterns in General". It is "PeopleProjectsAndPatterns in SoftwareDevelopment". As such, quilting and other non-SoftwareDevelopment-related aspects of People on WardsWiki are irrelevant and OffTopic, whether some office chief finds such knowledge of value or not. WardsWiki is not targeted at office chiefs, but it is targeted at programmers interested in programming. For quilting and other non-software topics, there are appropriate forums -- like this one, for example. Certain off-topics that tend to be very highly correlated with computer programming or programmers themselves (e.g., StarTrek) are afforded a certain tolerance due to their near-universal interest within the programming community and because most were created before TheAdjunct existed, but they will almost undoubtedly be moved here over time.
Yes, sounds simiple and clear-cut the way you tell it. Life, though, turns out to be more complex, doesn't it? Shades of grey, and all that. It would be simpler if Ward had not included the "People" part of that title. If WikiWiki had been created to just talk about "Programming," we wouldn't be having this discussion. -- BrucePennington
Sorry to say, I think you may be manufacturing the complexity in this case. Most participants have no difficulty recognising that "People" in "PeopleProjectsAndPatterns in SoftwareDevelopment" means people in the context of software development. Hence, it is appropriate to (for example) cull biographical material that does not relate to software development, programming, or computing. It would seem the majority of WardsWiki participants are clear on this; only a small minority have sought to retain material that is considered OffTopic by the majority.
Ok, dude, Black and White. I'm immangining things. Got me! I guess ethical decisions about programming back doors into someone's software is OffTopic. I suppose software and computer company CEOs teaching the Chinese government how to block the free exchange of information to the people of China is OffTopic. The list could go on and on, and in fact, does go on and on at C2, because anytime you involve People, you get involved complexities that can only be discussed at deeper and deeper levels. -- BrucePennington
Only if you force it to deeper and deeper levels. Retaining some explicit programming connection generally provides a clear boundary, such that discussion of software to block Web sites to China would probably be considered OnTopic, but a general page on Chinese government politics would be OffTopic and more suited to WikiPedia or TheAdjunct. However, as WardsWiki is essentially a democratic system, it holds that if the participants generally consider a topic worth retaining, it gets retained. Hence, there are pages like StarTrek and PinkFloyd, which are obviously very OffTopic. If the participants generally consider a topic unworthy of retention, then it gets deleted. If the participants consider a topic worthy of retention but OffTopic, then it gets moved here. Simple, innit?
Yes, I think you've captured the essence of it, right there. Definitions like the one that started this page, don't really portray the reality of how things work, sometimes. -- BrucePennington
![[Home]](/adjunct/adjunct.png)