I was looking at WikiConversation
and the valid and good cases being put for
- why we need threads when we're arguing, and the threads need to have that temporal orderliness (we might go and change what we said before when we see what we wanted to say - but then it'd be courteous to tell folk who've answered that message about the change) and maybe even some idea of who said what
- why we need synopses so we think we know where the consensus has gotten to in all that arguing, and so folk coming into the topic can see the point.
It's just like a newsgroup and a FAQ, or at least the same lessons apply.
Now, we have pages on every kind of topic and we need the Real Name of a topic
to get folk to the place where the true Wiki (which is between these poles and
totally dynamic - do what thou wilt) discusses that topic. But a
naming convention can take us to where that topic's arguments get hashed out
and where its synopsis lives. I chose the name Argue instead of Threaded,
because that's what we need to remember we're really doing - arguing about it.
So the name Agree suggested itself for the FAQ.
So, I want to suggest an Idiom for Naming. When a page needs a conversation
on one side about how we all disagree, add Argue to its name, tell the page
about this new name and go start a good argument on it (subject, of course, to
the words of wisdom on GoodStyle
). When that argument is getting towards
a consensus, bung up another page with Argue replaced by Agree, and say there
the stuff on which y'all do
Anything on an Agree page you don't agree with - rip it out. Then go explain to
its Argue page why you don't agree. But on an Argue page, leave other folk's
stuff in (well, you don't have to, of course - and there's a time and a place for everything, especially housekeeping) and keep to a consistent order of additions. Actually, it could
have two arguments going on, one growing upwards, the other downwards.
-- EdwardWelbourne - Eddy/1998/August/25.
A proposed approach to the Argue/Agree situation is to gather the supporting points for into the first part of the page, then the arguments against in the last part of the page, then separate the page into separate pages each with a title in agreement with the points contained.(not necessarily the initial title) Then note at the bottom of each page - "for another view see" then list the opposition page.
It seems this has taken off in the form of a 'Discussion' suffix (FindPage TitleSearch
gave 146 matches, in january 2003). Different naming convention, same principle. The non-threaded pages do not have a special prefix or suffix, so it would seem.
(which would now-a-days be titled something more-or-less like ArgueAgreeIdiomDiscussion?
-- see WikiNameModifiers