Move It Elsewhere

If you feel like creating a WalledGarden, you have the option to move it elsewhere.

To do it on this particular wiki (whatever is that you want to do outside the core interests of WikiCommunity), is an implicit abuse as you are taking advantage of the popularity of this wiki. You have the option to start from scratch and make it honestly. There are tons of small wikis, blogs, clusters of blogs, bulletin boards, etc, out there. Most of them are insignificant and wither away. In order to make an online community successful, it takes lots of efforts dedication, wasted, time and all that jazz. And that's how it should be.

Therefore to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, please MoveItElsewhere, or we will delete it.

I've seen two strong schools of thought about what constitutes appropriate content for C2. The first says it's just about programming and, at worst, things programmers generally like - StarTrek and so on. The second says, heck, if people want to talk about it here, they're not doing anyone any harm, and the amount of noise generated by people trying to move and segregate the peripheral topics is far worse for wiki than what we'd have if you'd just TolerateOffTopic.

This isn't the first time I've seen someone from the first group threaten to delete OffTopic pages en masse. It is the first time I've seen someone call themselves "we" and presume to speak for the entire community here in threatening this. If you can explain why you feel a need to do this, I'd be very much obliged. -- PeterMerel

The "or we delete it" part was added by somebody else. My initial request stopped to "please MoveItElsewhere", which one can take it as a personal request. Therefore if you can explain why you felt the need to make gratuitous accusations, I'd be very much obliged. -- CostinCozianu
Another option is to move your OffTopic content to another wiki, perhaps a SisterSite such as TheAdjunct. BenKovitzs http://www.greenlightwiki.com/ has a couple of links also there.
I don't have strong feelings about this discussion being here or anywhere else for that matter. I think I'd prefer the decision to openly discussed though. The main reason for not starting AboutLettertoPeter? elsewhere (I was rather hesistant to start it here but got botherered about the content on my own page) was to establish whether it was going to turn into a WalledGarden or not. If it gets walled then it should go.

I appreciate that religion ain't a good thing to discuss amongst strangers in a community. On the other hand the evolution of beliefs and community rules is part of Patterns. IF (and a big if) it is possible to avoid people presenting their religious beliefs (this kind of community has to be good at avoiding that and I don't want to discuss mine here) I think discussion of patterns of behaviour and belief is not a bad thing, and even OnTopic. But I'm really not fussed --AndrewCates

You may appreciate that I found your views on religion partiularly misinformed and misguided. If you had something really valuable to say on any controversial subjects (religion, politics, philosophy, metaphysics), you wouldn't be looking to post it here, to begin with. So in order to avoid all these crap, WikiCommunity has long agreed that such subjects are OffTopic, particularly because they'll trigger tons of unwarranted chaff. You have the right to be as misinformed and misguided as you like on any such subjects, if you don't bring it to this particular wiki, and bringing it here is improper for the reasons explained above, no matter how much you want to handwave your arguments about "patterns of behavior". You can MoveItElsewhere, make a name for yourself and your ideas on your own, and we'll cheer you. -- CostinCozianu
Costin, I am not surprised that you found me misinformed and misguided on meta-belief, I would agree. I would also add that my views are not (and not intended to be) remotely original: I am on the look out for interesting discussion and undriven to convince others of my views. Perhaps you could briefly and privately tell the most glaring flaws, I'd enjoy that. However, I am puzzled that I also seem to have irritated you, judging by your tone, and I apologise for that. Life really is too short to get up other people's noses and I don't actually have the time or energy to do more than spectate any discussion. If it ends the day deleted I will at least have an answer for the people who suggested I something up, and I'll sleep well.

An alternative given the reaction of others might be to disconnect ReligionsEvolve? from what I've posted and let a discussion on the nature of belief systems take place. -- AndrewCates

Andrew, I appologize if I sounded irritated. I tried to be as frank as possible as to discourage you from your enterprise. Please don't read into it more than that, and if this position troubles you, I'll appologize for inconvenience but my position is not likely to change. There's good enough reasons and historical experience why such enterprise is best taken elsewhere. Cheers, Costin.

Speaking just for myself, I guess I was thinking you had some thoughts about memes, whether using that terminology or not, and when you actually created the page, I was puzzled. It wasn't clear to me quite what you were talking about at all, it was like you were talking around the subject, whatever it was, but never got to the point.

If in fact your point was to just talk purely about religion, I didn't understand that; if I had, then I would not have said "create a page, see how people react". Sorry for leading you astray due to my misunderstanding. -- DougMerritt

Its okay Doug I should take the blame for this one. My intention was not to discuss purely religion, I just thought that might be an example people could understand easily. I only have four months here and there's obviously some history. I spent three years in West Africa and have a number of thoughts on the way the rural cultural rules failed coming into town, and on how community rules turned around pseudo-science and superstition right through into the various forms of philosophy of science. I am particularly bothered by the global security aspects when we no longer have the chance in evolutionary terms of failed belief systems (since a single failed prototype could take out the planet when it takes itself out). But if the test as above is to get to a new insight on the first page its bloody hard. What is banal to you other people disagree about and you cannot get into a serious topic without some set of naming conventions. Perhaps I should have started with truth as a value function on the set of maps between the real world and words. I guess on reflection I was stupid to try. And I am not very motivated to discuss it anyway. :o) -- AndrewCates

Andrew, you are certainly welcome to try it. But why not try it on your own ? Write it up (oh, I guess you did) you are welcome to link it from here (for most sites with the exception of shameless commercial plugs). By starting it here it may be considered that you want to take advantage of the popularity and the attention that the original wiki gets. If you did that (and I'm not saying that you did), it should be considered a small abuse. This community have been through flamewars (and almost flamewars) on religious matters (and other matters, that unfortunately sitll linger here inappropriately) and although I wasn't part at all of those events, it was very wisely considered to MoveItElsewhere (see WhyClublet).

But, as you may have noticed all such enterprises are likely to fail, and even WikiWiki may be doomed to failure in the long run or in the not so long run -- it also depends how you judge success and failure. That's why it is twice as important to try to make it on your own. You are welcome to invite people from wiki. -- CostinCozianu

This is the first wiki and has made it in the long run, having passed the eighteen year mark a year ago. While participants come and go, the number and variety of pages continue to grow, if ever so slowly, even if it does not receive universal or special recognition for accuracy, timeliness, and relevancy, (which it does not claim to possess), it continues a NobleExperiment, extending value to many and a new paradigm for collaboration. A friend of mine said this: "Imitation is the greatest form of flattery". Google "wiki" and you will see just how flattered this wiki has become, and just how true it is that others have found it UsefulUsableUsed to MoveItElsewhere (the flexible concept, not the limited and focused pages it possesses). -- DonaldNoyes.20141122


EditText of this page (last edited November 22, 2014) or FindPage with title or text search