Difference between revisions of "ConRunner talk:Community Portal"

From ConRunner
Jump to: navigation, search
(Non-objection to the grouping)
(New category tag or something for "controversy")
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
Hard for me to tell how I would have reacted to different terminology.  So far as I can tell, my reaction is to the labels themselves and not to the grouping; but I haven't actually examined the grouping very carefully yet.  It may have a significant contribution to make to understanding how conventions work.  --[[User:Dd-b|dd-b]] 10:05, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)
 
Hard for me to tell how I would have reacted to different terminology.  So far as I can tell, my reaction is to the labels themselves and not to the grouping; but I haven't actually examined the grouping very carefully yet.  It may have a significant contribution to make to understanding how conventions work.  --[[User:Dd-b|dd-b]] 10:05, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)
 +
 +
== New category tag or something for "controversy" ==
 +
 +
I've been thinking it might be useful to add a tag for articles that are about some significant controversy.  The purpose is two-fold. 
 +
 +
First, acknowledging a subject as controversial can help alert people to the need to be careful with what they write.
 +
 +
Second, it can help us find the articles that need a closer eye kept on them (in case anybody carelessly or maliciously gets too promotional for their point of view).
 +
 +
Maybe a special template which puts a notice in the article might be a better approach (if those are findable).  I don't know the software system well enough to know what we can really do here.
 +
 +
Before getting too technical on how, do people feel that something like this would be a good thing?
 +
 +
--[[User:Dd-b|dd-b]] 10:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Revision as of 10:18, 14 October 2005

New Terminology

Of course we should include (and explain) all widely used terminology. However, I'm seeing a lot of terminology that so far as I can tell isn't used in con-running, but is being imported from mundane event-planning and business circles. Some of this terminology really grates on me ("member services"), and others of it conflicts with well-established and widely-used con-running terminology ("operations"). I think it's fairly important that we not introduce new terminology unless there's a compelling reason; things are confused enough as they are! --dd-b 00:27, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)

In retrospect, introducing functional analysis has obviously engendered a bad reaction. People expect to see things they way they have always been. Breaking out specific needed functions independent of the department that usually executes them confused people, especially when the names sometimes overlap and somtimes don't. Made perfect sense to me, but I'm the one that did it. But then I don't believe it would have been received significantly better had it been grouped the same way, but labled A, B, C, D, E, F --Bill Taylor 08:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)


Hard for me to tell how I would have reacted to different terminology. So far as I can tell, my reaction is to the labels themselves and not to the grouping; but I haven't actually examined the grouping very carefully yet. It may have a significant contribution to make to understanding how conventions work. --dd-b 10:05, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)

New category tag or something for "controversy"

I've been thinking it might be useful to add a tag for articles that are about some significant controversy. The purpose is two-fold.

First, acknowledging a subject as controversial can help alert people to the need to be careful with what they write.

Second, it can help us find the articles that need a closer eye kept on them (in case anybody carelessly or maliciously gets too promotional for their point of view).

Maybe a special template which puts a notice in the article might be a better approach (if those are findable). I don't know the software system well enough to know what we can really do here.

Before getting too technical on how, do people feel that something like this would be a good thing?

--dd-b 10:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)