Talk:Getting involved

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 15:38, 4 February 2011 by Lavandero (talk | contribs) ("Giving credit is not "pimping". Respect others and their contributions.": clarify)
Jump to: navigation, search

Good work pointone! manolo 21:32, 12 November 2009 (EST)

"Giving credit is not "pimping". Respect others and their contributions."

A quote from ArchWiki_Tutorial#Editing disagrees: "Articles should not be signed because they are shared works; one editor should not be singled out above others."

Seeing that there's no central authoritarian article dealing with these issues, and that the vast majority of contributions go unsigned, how does the new "pimping-clause" (dibs on the term) fit into or even consider the environment surrounding it?

Such an addition would've had to consider all of the contradicting elements, which I guess happened in the span between these two forum posts. Wait, that didn't happen.

Steps to be taken before the pimping-clause takes effect:

  1. Eradicate the note I quoted from ArchWiki_Tutorial#Editing, or make a distinction (with difference) between in-line code and other content, such as sentences preceding the code. In the process, go against the practices of many wikis, including Wikipedia, and alienate editors that shy away from signing their contributions.
  2. Establish some sort of criteria to decide when a paragraph or a chunk of code stops being the original. In the process, ignore how complicated this task really is. End up settling with something completely arbitrary like 50% code change == new code, and disregard that a 5% change could have a more significant influence on how and what the program does.
  3. Once it has been determined that the altered code is no longer the original, the content becomes authorless, like the vast majority of articles currently featured in the Arch Wiki.
  4. Notice that most articles with significant history and quality have thousands of edits by hundreds of editors, yet continue with the pretense that including a name is "attribution" and not "pimping".
  5. Since every edit is to have a signature to its right, alter the history interface so that it does not show the authors name besides the commit. Otherwise, you'd be imitating what the MediaWiki already does out of the box.

Finally, before all of this takes place, spread the conversation between the wiki talk pages and the forum, so that any attempt at communication involves opening 3 tabs of back and forth between casual contributors that react by impulse instead of studying the conditions of the wiki before reaching consensus. Lavandero 03:50, 3 February 2011 (EST)

These points belong on the Help:Editing page, in my opinion, which is intended to cover ArchWiki style and convention. Further, I think only the pimping clause needs clarification; "don't post incorrect information" and "don't be a jerk" are common-sense rules, no? Those users that need reminding of these rules are the same users that would never read or heed them.
In my opinion, any significant script/code contribution should be split into a separate page in Category:Scripts (English), signed and maintained by its author(s). This separates the edit histories of the script and its related article(s).
-- pointone 10:46, 3 February 2011 (EST)
If you mean moving "don't post incorrect info.", "don't be a jerk", and the pimping clause, then I agree. Although I think that looking into what these points have in common with the forum's code of conduct could be worth it, specially considering that two out of three are implicit.
You also address pages that are more or less exclusively dedicated to code. I don't really have an opinion on these, and I was trying to focus on small pieces of code that are spread about articles. The latter are fairly common and mostly written in shell. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a portion of Help:Editing covering script-only pages. Lavandero 10:35, 4 February 2011 (EST)