Is page or content not appropiate for this Web-of-Life? Discuss any Suggested Deletions here.
<< | Website Discussion | >>
Practice.Shelf Life?
Do we want a Recommended Reading booklist? Recommendations to read this and that are all over the wiki, in their context. Creating a reading list for Spiritual Practice seems an impossible task to me. It can never be comprehensive, choices will be highly subjective, and without any explanation why someone recommends a certain book I find it useless. If we want a booklist, or booklists about various topics, I recommend to create a bookreview section, and write your own reviews, not just paste a link. This is in the same line as my old complaint about proliferation of pages just containing links. We just create this Web with pages full of recommendations of other web pages, instead of writing our own truth. I would like everyone to take more care to avoid such practice, and I would like Practice.Shelf Life? deleted. ~Hans July 19, 2005, at 06:34 AM
Community group/category
Looking at Community there are several pages which mainly contain links to external websites/pages: Stewardship, Peace Making, Character Communities. With the last one i find the links rather questionable, i am wondering if it is not just a political propaganda exercise. Do we need to support that? Stewardship and Peace Making are just empty pages with some external links. If we like to keep them i suggest we need to write at least a "stub" page. Otherwise i would rather take it out and perhaps put the links on the general index page.
Urban Greening gives some info, but from there are links to Community Gardens, Making Music In Community and Small Steps Here And Now. all these pages are just indexes with links to external pages and i would rather see them removed and the links put into another page. Question: what are we trying to show here? Maybewe need a page for Urban Community Initiatives? to contain all of it? Maybe Urban Greening was meant to do that? i am not happy with all those pages just with links to external pages. Can we rework all of this? Love :) ~Hans
Hi :) I'm working on a focussing piece for the community section that might help to bring things together a bit more... hope to post it soon. ~Gemma
Hi Gemma, this is great! I posted my own thoughts above, but i wish not to preempty your work. :) ~Hans Thanks~ I appreciate your input above and will do my best to flesh it out. I do see Urban Greening as a vital community initiative which I thought I addressed, a wee bit at least, on the opening page under urban greening. I was hopeful that others might add some thoughts, ideas, pictures etc. too. I'd like to see more wiki wiki interaction in our community. For instance, instead of removing a questionable link, such as Character Communities, why not write a piece expressing your skepticism? It could lead to some very interesting thought about leadership, propaganda, character, etc. If we all write a piece here and a piece there and leave it like it is written in stone ~ where is the collaboration? I don't really feel like we're cooking with gas yet. Love to you, Gemma
Hi, me again~ Hans, can you elaborate on "stub pages" a bit more? I have an idea from Wikipedia but would like more clarification. TIA, Gemma :)
I took the meaning of stubpage from wikipedia, meaning a short rather incomplete page/article. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub
I appreciate your efforts with the Urban Greening initiative. I aggree that we are not cooking with gas. Nothing is written in stone, if it is not signed. I think we are just a bit timid and do wish to see the wiki all perfect, which is defeating the object really. And I feel I am stepping on toes all the time by editing indexes and moving pages. - One drawback is not seeing much feedback when one creates a wiki page, quite different from posting in the forum. ~: Hans
I started a topic on the Wiki Support Forum to discuss this... what do you think? should we start a topic there on urban greening, or on character communities? Or both? Just trying to include more folks in the discussion. :-) And Hans, I don't know if I was the one you assumed was "upset" by your deleting and moving pages... not so... I was confused, since you had agreed with Derek and I initially, then changed your mind and deleted pages without an explanation when we were happily heading in that direction. So maybe it would be less confusing and encourage more participation if we continue to use this discussion page or the forum topic to get some kind of attunement and consensus on the flow of pages and appropriateness of content as things get more complicated? We are all independent souls, and this is a good thing, but we also want to be able to work together effectively and not undo each others' work. I'm reminded of the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth." or the American Indian equivalent: "Too many chiefs, not enough indians." :-) ~Sharon
Sharon, I answered on the forum some of your questions. The focus on this page is about suggested page deletions. Would be good if we can keep it that way. Love :) Hans