Ameriwiki:Community Portal/Archive2

Contents 1 Image uploads 2 Changing the look of Ameriwiki 3 An Appeal for Sanity 4 Where Do We Find Editors? 5 Undue emphasis on Communism 6 Spambots

Image uploads

Should we restrict those to Trusted editors to avoid vandalism?--George 10:48, 28 December 2011 (CST)

At this point I'd say a qualified no. If it becomes more of an issue we can certainly do that, but so far there's only been a couple of instances and we can handle it. --SamCoulter 10:57, 28 December 2011 (CST)

We should restrict images to Trusted editors for this reason: Ameriwiki is a family-friendly site and we don't want some braindead clown to upload pornography. If non-trusted editors want an image, they can ask an admin or someone with sufficient rights. Would you want your children to go on Ameriwiki and see something vile? I don't think so.--Ronald 12:39, 30 December 2011 (CST)

It's an option we have in reserve and will definitely deploy if necessary. However so far it hasn't been, and one of our principles here is that we let people comment as freely as possible without damaging our mission. --SamCoulter 14:53, 30 December 2011 (CST)

Changing the look of Ameriwiki

We really need a new look. Right now, we look like a duplicate of Wikipedia. I suggest some real Americana. The eagle was a good interim logo, but it has to go. We need a wiki background that truly stirs up Americana; perhaps a faded flag or a parchment background with the words of the Constitution or something? We need a background of our own: here is a place for good starters. What do you guys say?--George 11:22, 1 January 2012 (CST)

I think I can manage to change the skin and other visual elements, but I'm not all that artistic so designing them is probably beyond me. If anyone finds or develops a skin let me know and we can give it a shot. --SamCoulter 10:42, 7 February 2012 (CST)

Changing the skin would be annoying, when i go to my wikis i want it to be simple and concise, no distracting. -- il'Dictator Mikal 11:59, 9 February 2012 (CST)

That's a good point. Personally I don't like things to be too cluttered. We can change the logo and do some shading, but I don't think I'd want to go for elaborate backgrounds or anything. Makes it too hard to read. --SamCoulter 12:03, 9 February 2012 (CST)

You can have it be different and still simple. Even though its content is less than good, Conservapedia, for example, has a pretty good skin. Fallacy 09:35, 23 February 2012 (CST)

Default? yah, i love that one! --il'Dictator Mikal 09:42, 23 February 2012 (CST)

Default has its points. Familiarity, for example, and ease of use. We can definitely look at some options though. --SamCoulter 11:19, 23 February 2012 (CST)

i like vector :/DorMouse 01:24, 4 May 2012 (CDT)

An Appeal for Sanity

This is a small wiki. We need to create more content, we need to publicise ourselves in the online communities that are our natural readers and we need to establish ourselves as the go-to online resource for good, reliable information presented in a conservative, family-friendly and unbiased way.

Instead we're fighting among ourselves and getting distracted from the things that really matter. I admit that I've been guilty too; many of us have. We all know who we are.

What we need to do now is put the James Wilson episode firmly behind us and get on with building Ameriwiki. Let's do it. --SamCoulter 13:44, 10 February 2012 (CST)

Sam, do you have a link to the Template SamHB mentions here? Thanks. Nobs01 12:54, 23 February 2012 (CST)

Huh?--Colonel Sanders 13:15, 23 February 2012 (CST)

SamHB says, ";people have been "de-hatcheting" your stuff right and left. We even have a template for it." Anybody have a link to the Template? Nobs01 13:20, 23 February 2012 (CST)

It's this: {{Template:Hatchet}}. It puts the affected page into the Articles_to_be_de-hatcheted category. Incidentally, I did not create that template, and many people worked on the "de-hatcheting". SamHB 15:36, 23 February 2012 (CST)

Where Do We Find Editors?

I think we're all agreed that what we really need is more editors. Initially I think most of us hoped we'd attract the remaining sane members of CP. However that doesn't seem to have happened. I suspect that all the sane people who remain at CP do so mostly for the pleasure of prodding the, er, special ones, and that means they're probably not so suited to what we're trying to do. Seeing as aSK seems to have died I'm wondering if we can bring in anyone from there.

Alternatively we can try to spread the word among online communities that support our goals. I've posted a couple of messages on homeschooling forums. Does anyone have any other ideas? --SamCoulter 14:31, 22 February 2012 (CST)

I'm not exactly sure, but I'll like to elucidate a few vital points.

• It's quite difficult to compete a large established online encyclopedia like Wikipedia and establish a parallel general purpose encyclopedia (Citizendium is a glaring example).
• A general purpose encyclopedia focusing on a particular country cannot become an international project, this will be much limited in scope.
• A rigid membership hierarchy, as exists in this site which is copied from ASK, wards off a lot of potential editors.
• People edit wikis for personal satisfaction and entertainment. Wikipedia is the best place for that because there they get incentives (DYKs, awards etc), and such incentive increase the status of an individual in any online forum. Say for example the person who is the primary contributor in a popular wikipedia article will get a lot of respect in any online forum or social networking site. People will not get that from editing sites like this.

Conclusion I know it will sound controversial, I'm just expressing my view, it is not proposal. If we change the fundamental character of this wiki, allowing original research (somewhat like RationalWiki), I think we can bring a lot more editors. Abolition of the membership hierarchy and giving sysop status to any trusted user will attract a lot of people. But I will say this wiki, as it stands, will never be able to draw a lot of regular editors. If we get a niche member ecosystem as exists in RationalWiki, the wiki will grow. Thoughts? --SupernovaExplosion 06:18, 24 February 2012 (CST)

people get fame from wikipedia editing? --il'Dictator Mikal 07:24, 24 February 2012 (CST)

When did I say that? But they get certain incentives and personal satisfaction because of a large editor pool. This personal satisfaction is the main reason why people contribute to wiki. In most cases it is the entertaining value of the wiki that led to personal satisfaction. If a wiki does not have any entertaining value, people will not go there. Simple. --SupernovaExplosion 07:27, 24 February 2012 (CST)

I've seen a lot such projects of different ideologies which started with a big vision, but ultimately failed. Be it conservative Conservapedia, ASK, or libertarian Libertapedia, or anarchist Anarchopedia. None of them has been able to draw a niche editor community from Wikipedia. --SupernovaExplosion 07:33, 24 February 2012 (CST)

A quick glance at the Rc on any given day at RW reveals... mostly the same people over and over. That isnt to successful in what you are talking about.--il'Dictator Mikal 08:04, 24 February 2012 (CST)

So then, Mikal, where DO we find editors? This is our biggest issue right now. We have a good solid core of ex-Conservapedians, but we need to bring in more users to boost our content and spread the message that teh interwebs now has a REAL conservative wiki. --SamCoulter 00:35, 6 March 2012 (CST)

If you must know, I found out about this site from the Conservative party of Canada's forums, and off of rationalwiki. Also, your ads on CP worked too.DorMouse 19:38, 17 April 2012 (CDT)

Undue emphasis on Communism

As some of you may know, I communicated with RobS a while back, on RW, indicating my intention to remove his "Venona" pages, and suggesting that he move them to some other location. The reason was that some changes in the editorial tone of AW would make all this Communism stuff seem even more out of place than it already was. By "changes in editorial tone" I refer to the fact that, for example, we no longer have this "news" column on the right side of the front page. The editorial tone of that column struck a number of users, including myself, as making AW seem more like a right-wing blog, ala Conservapedia, than a conservative-friendly, but not conservative-obsessed, site ought to be. This change in tone seems to have arisen from the departure of George Fitzgerald.

In my communication with Rob, I said that I had "not the slightest doubt" that my decision would be upheld by others. I was clearly overstepping my bounds, and events here since then suggest that Rob's continued presence here will be accepted, and that maybe the Venona material should not be removed.

I would still prefer that the Venona material be removed, or somehow moved someplace where it won't have any significant prominence on "random page", and won't give people the impression that Ameriwiki is obsessed with 1930's and 1940's Communism. Further, I believe that the Communist obsession should be removed from existing articles (we call it "de-hatcheting"—see my recent edits to Paul Robeson as an example), and that future articles (this means you, Rob) be written in a tone that presents AW as conservative-friendly encyclopedia, but not as an extremist blog.

SamHB 13:07, 26 February 2012 (CST)

I completely agree that it needs extensive de-hatcheting. I don't personally think we should mass delete it, but obviously that's going to be subject to any discussion we have about it. As for the overall witch-hunt atmosphere it has, though, you're quite right: this has to go. For that reason I won't support removing the hatchet tags from any of the Venona articles until they're at the required encyclopaedic standard. I've also suggested to Rob that as well as communism articles he creates some good material towards our challenges. Hopefully he'll do so. --SamCoulter 13:14, 26 February 2012 (CST)

Let's move this discussion to the new page Debate:What_do_we_do_with_the_Venona_Project?. SamHB 20:51, 26 February 2012 (CST)

Spambots

As a possible solution to the plague of spambots, how about we require a confirmed email address to edit pages? I think I know how to make this work. --SamCoulter 09:02, 1 March 2012 (CST)

Good idea. --SupernovaExplosion 02:39, 2 March 2012 (CST)

Hmmm...that sounds a bit extreme. It might work, but it might deter new contributors from signing up. Plus there's the off chance that a person does not even use email...--Colonel Sanders 10:10, 2 March 2012 (CST)

There are some spambots that can deal with email confirmations, although our plague may not be of that type. Another (albeit equally extreme solution) is to require new users to be confirmed by an existing editor before they can create new pages. Say anyone from trusted editor upwards could be able to confirm a new user. (New users would still be able to edit an existing page). --Chapulin Colorado 13:40, 2 March 2012 (CST)

Actually, spambots create a spam article within one minute of signing up. Those who don't create anything in the first minute don't edit at all, I presume they fail the captcha and don't bother trying it again. Preventing any new user from creating an article in, say, their first five minutes may help a lot.--Chapulin Colorado 19:16, 2 March 2012 (CST)

That's a good point. Maybe if we can make it so new editors have to wait a day or two before they can create new articles would help. Real editors can work on existing articles during that time period, and I don't honestly believe it would discourage anyone from signing up. --SharonW 09:45, 3 March 2012 (CST)

As an interim measure I've required email confirmation before editing. I think I can tweak some things and maybe implement Sharon's solution as an alternative. --SamCoulter 13:59, 5 March 2012 (CST)

OK, email confirmation is back off and I've gone with El Chapulin's suggestion. If it doesn't work out I can just change the numbers to make new accounts wait longer. We'll see how it goes! --SamCoulter 14:17, 5 March 2012 (CST)

I'd suggest that we leave spambots unblocked for the next 24 hours just to see if the plan is working. I've been thinking about email confirmation though and I'm not sure it would put people off signing up. Any more opinions on that? --SamCoulter 14:46, 5 March 2012 (CST)