Double-posted, like, on purpose. February 16, 2006 1:41 PM Subscribe
dersins: "Yet, "One year is the statute of limitations for an identical link.""
That's a link to the wiki. It's far from authoritative. In fact, I'm going to make it say "One pancake is the statute of limitations", since that's probably more accurate.
posted by Plutor at 1:52 PM on February 16, 2006
That's a link to the wiki. It's far from authoritative. In fact, I'm going to make it say "One pancake is the statute of limitations", since that's probably more accurate.
posted by Plutor at 1:52 PM on February 16, 2006
You're being disingenuous, Plutor. The wiki is linked at the top of not only the front page of MeTa, but also at the top of every thread (look up), giving it at least the appearance of authority. In the absence of an "officially official" definition, it is reasonable to assume that it represents a de facto official position.
Additionally, that line has remained essentially unchanged (in the sense that, whatever it may have been changed to, it contiues to revert to something resembling its current form) since I first read the wiki at least a year ago.
posted by dersins at 1:59 PM on February 16, 2006
Additionally, that line has remained essentially unchanged (in the sense that, whatever it may have been changed to, it contiues to revert to something resembling its current form) since I first read the wiki at least a year ago.
posted by dersins at 1:59 PM on February 16, 2006
Plutor didn't say it wasn't official--although it's not--he said it wasn't authoritive. He's right.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:10 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:10 PM on February 16, 2006
Only matthowie is authoritative-- all MeFi goodness flows from Him (unless it is mediated by jessamyn, who sits at His right hand.)
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:15 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:15 PM on February 16, 2006
Only matthowie is authoritative
Yes, thank you, I am aware of that. Thus the request for clarification.
posted by dersins at 2:19 PM on February 16, 2006
Yes, thank you, I am aware of that. Thus the request for clarification.
posted by dersins at 2:19 PM on February 16, 2006
I felt like it would probably be alright largely because one the post seems to have gotten no attention, two the wiki, and three how many new members have been added since august? 15,000?
just saying... anyway those of you who enjoyed 3hive, glad i could hook you up.
posted by sourbrew at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2006
just saying... anyway those of you who enjoyed 3hive, glad i could hook you up.
posted by sourbrew at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2006
But seriously, is anyone going to contend this? I know it's a question for mathowie really but does the community actually care if people like a post but it's still a double? Or are all we all unanimous in our thoughts on something for once?
posted by public at 2:23 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by public at 2:23 PM on February 16, 2006
also, probably shouldn't have made this comment, was asking for trouble.
Not that i can remember any posts off hand where this has happened, but i know that certainly many posts have been allowed to stay up that were doubles simply because a ton of people missed them the first time around. In the future I will wait till they have been up for a week or, create a meta thread, and then we can fling poo at each other there.
posted by sourbrew at 2:29 PM on February 16, 2006
Not that i can remember any posts off hand where this has happened, but i know that certainly many posts have been allowed to stay up that were doubles simply because a ton of people missed them the first time around. In the future I will wait till they have been up for a week or, create a meta thread, and then we can fling poo at each other there.
posted by sourbrew at 2:29 PM on February 16, 2006
public: member since: January 21, 2006
Ahh, that explains it...
posted by justgary at 2:32 PM on February 16, 2006
Ahh, that explains it...
posted by justgary at 2:32 PM on February 16, 2006
What harm is there in keeping the post up? The site has changing content, and it's not as if it's some jack-off-internet-fun-site that has run through the mill of crap blogs three or four times already. And it's been a year. And it's a good link. I understand the prohibition on double posts as the community not wanting to read duplicate newsfilter posts daily. I guess I don't otherwise understand it.
posted by underer at 2:34 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by underer at 2:34 PM on February 16, 2006
What harm is there in keeping the post up?
Because consistency is important to some people. Every time we let an obvious double-post stay up, people use it as an example of why their double-post should be allowed to stay, or why the site sucks or is poorly moderated. As a result, we try to be sort of hard ass on double posts that aren't "The X Annual Whateverthefuck Awards" which seem to get similar posts every year.
I know people in the thread liked it and/or missed it the first time but a lot of people also flagged it as a double. If people start reposting things they liked 54 weeks after they were first posted, I think that is going to get old real quickly.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:09 PM on February 16, 2006
Because consistency is important to some people. Every time we let an obvious double-post stay up, people use it as an example of why their double-post should be allowed to stay, or why the site sucks or is poorly moderated. As a result, we try to be sort of hard ass on double posts that aren't "The X Annual Whateverthefuck Awards" which seem to get similar posts every year.
I know people in the thread liked it and/or missed it the first time but a lot of people also flagged it as a double. If people start reposting things they liked 54 weeks after they were first posted, I think that is going to get old real quickly.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:09 PM on February 16, 2006
I understand why you felt you needed to delete it, and how keeping it up would inevitably be used as some sort of proof that you and Matt do not/should not enforce the rules. I just don't understand why so many were so eager to flag it and call for its deletion. Was it the eight people who commented in the post last year? Sometimes I think a desire to community police outweighs a desire to enjoy the site.
posted by underer at 3:28 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by underer at 3:28 PM on February 16, 2006
Jessamyn, but in the context of the wiki? what the deuce? Is there some set point when a double is ok? 1 year 6 months? As dersins said this isn't a call out i would just like to know in the future.
posted by sourbrew at 3:28 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by sourbrew at 3:28 PM on February 16, 2006
also, i have a feeling that i had i not self flagellated it as a double 99% of people would have never noticed, would that perhaps be the best etiquette in the future?
posted by sourbrew at 3:32 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by sourbrew at 3:32 PM on February 16, 2006
I understand why you felt you needed to delete it, and how keeping it up would inevitably be used as some sort of proof that you and Matt do not/should not enforce the rules. I just don't understand why so many were so eager to flag it and call for its deletion. Was it the eight people who commented in the post last year?
Perhaps it was the 1348 people who saw the post last year. "Only eight people commented in the thread" is not equivalent to "only eight people saw the previous post," nor to "only eight people visited the site when it was posted previously." FWIW, I was not one of those who flagged the post.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:42 PM on February 16, 2006
Perhaps it was the 1348 people who saw the post last year. "Only eight people commented in the thread" is not equivalent to "only eight people saw the previous post," nor to "only eight people visited the site when it was posted previously." FWIW, I was not one of those who flagged the post.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:42 PM on February 16, 2006
The wiki is unofficial. As much as I try to make sure the information on it is correct, it's a wiki and the stuff on there can change at any time and be changed by anyone. I know mathowie is actively working on a faq mechanism of some sort, but I also know he's gone today so his input on this may have to wait. From my perspective something needs to be several years old before I'll ignore double post flags.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:42 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:42 PM on February 16, 2006
Perhaps it was the 1348 people who saw the post last year. "Only eight people commented in the thread" is not equivalent to "only eight people saw the previous post," nor to "only eight people visited the site when it was posted previously."
That's fair. I still don't understand how they were harmed by having this particular site double posted.
posted by underer at 3:51 PM on February 16, 2006
That's fair. I still don't understand how they were harmed by having this particular site double posted.
posted by underer at 3:51 PM on February 16, 2006
If you understand why the site would be harmed by lots of people reposting their favorite links every 54 weeks, and if you're familiar with the concept of precedent, it shouldn't be a terrible contortion of reason to put the pieces together.
posted by cribcage at 3:57 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by cribcage at 3:57 PM on February 16, 2006
I flagged the post even though I liked the site and hadn't seen it before. A double's a double, unless it's my double, in which case it is a beautiful masterpiece that should be preserved despite its duplicativeness.
posted by brain_drain at 4:04 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 4:04 PM on February 16, 2006
The wiki is unofficial. As much as I try to make sure the information on it is correct, it's a wiki and the stuff on there can change at any time and be changed by anyone.
Of course that's true, but, for the record, I don't remember this particular part of the wiki stating anything other than the one-year "statute of limitations" I cited above. (Except, of course, for recent wacky-hijinks-style changes made in response to this thread and intended simply to prove a point. Oh, and the usual viagra wikispam.)
posted by dersins at 4:15 PM on February 16, 2006
Of course that's true, but, for the record, I don't remember this particular part of the wiki stating anything other than the one-year "statute of limitations" I cited above. (Except, of course, for recent wacky-hijinks-style changes made in response to this thread and intended simply to prove a point. Oh, and the usual viagra wikispam.)
posted by dersins at 4:15 PM on February 16, 2006
this an example of why the FAQ mathowie's working on would be very, very useful...
posted by dersins at 4:17 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by dersins at 4:17 PM on February 16, 2006
Because consistency is important to some people.
How many people? Does a certain amount of redundancy really detract from the site that much? Most decent books are totally crammed full of redundant information so it can't always be bad surely?
Every time we let an obvious double-post stay up, people use it as an example of why their double-post should be allowed to stay, or why the site sucks or is poorly moderated.
And when you delete a double that people liked then you get whined at as well. So what if every time you deleted a double which people where generally either not pissed off at it, or actually liked there was a MeTa thread complaining about it's removal?
There doesn't seem to be any sort public hatred of this post beyond just general principles of it being a double, not that it actually sucked and wasn't useful. Which seems like a pretty lame reason to delete a post to me.
posted by public at 4:31 PM on February 16, 2006
How many people? Does a certain amount of redundancy really detract from the site that much? Most decent books are totally crammed full of redundant information so it can't always be bad surely?
Every time we let an obvious double-post stay up, people use it as an example of why their double-post should be allowed to stay, or why the site sucks or is poorly moderated.
And when you delete a double that people liked then you get whined at as well. So what if every time you deleted a double which people where generally either not pissed off at it, or actually liked there was a MeTa thread complaining about it's removal?
There doesn't seem to be any sort public hatred of this post beyond just general principles of it being a double, not that it actually sucked and wasn't useful. Which seems like a pretty lame reason to delete a post to me.
posted by public at 4:31 PM on February 16, 2006
Dersin, your wouldn't have been popped for a double had it been a multi-link post. If it really deserved another posting you could have padded it and beaten the technical call-not that I'm saying break rules, but hey you can do what you want if you address other's needs and sensibilities. Don't be so shocked that it was deleted either.
posted by snsranch at 4:54 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by snsranch at 4:54 PM on February 16, 2006
Dersin, your wouldn't have been popped for a double
It wasn't "my." I didn't start this thread because I was outraged at being wronged or anything like that. As I mentioned above, I simply hoped to get some clarification on an issue that I felt (and still feel) is not entirely clear.
posted by dersins at 4:59 PM on February 16, 2006
It wasn't "my." I didn't start this thread because I was outraged at being wronged or anything like that. As I mentioned above, I simply hoped to get some clarification on an issue that I felt (and still feel) is not entirely clear.
posted by dersins at 4:59 PM on February 16, 2006
Does a certain amount of redundancy really detract from the site that much?
Absolutely.
So what if every time you deleted a double which people where generally either not pissed off at it, or actually liked there was a MeTa thread complaining about it's removal?
Not a problem, that's what MeTa is for.
There doesn't seem to be any sort public hatred of this post beyond just general principles of it being a double, not that it actually sucked and wasn't useful. Which seems like a pretty lame reason to delete a post to me.
Every community has its own set of rules. Not allowing double posts is one of MetaFilter's.
posted by russilwvong at 5:02 PM on February 16, 2006
Absolutely.
So what if every time you deleted a double which people where generally either not pissed off at it, or actually liked there was a MeTa thread complaining about it's removal?
Not a problem, that's what MeTa is for.
There doesn't seem to be any sort public hatred of this post beyond just general principles of it being a double, not that it actually sucked and wasn't useful. Which seems like a pretty lame reason to delete a post to me.
Every community has its own set of rules. Not allowing double posts is one of MetaFilter's.
posted by russilwvong at 5:02 PM on February 16, 2006
Well I feel lucky enough to see sourbrew's great post. I'm currently listening to Timonium, The Very Hush Hush, and The Hotel Lights. All these bands I had never heard before going to 3hive.com. It's been the best site I've found through MetaFilter thus far, but then again I'm a huge music fan. It's a shame that it got deleted, but rules are rules, I guess.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 5:07 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by Mijo Bijo at 5:07 PM on February 16, 2006
It's a shame that it got deleted
No, it's a good thing that it got deleted. It's also a good thing you saw it and had enjoyment from it. See, there's no end to the goodness!
posted by languagehat at 5:11 PM on February 16, 2006
No, it's a good thing that it got deleted. It's also a good thing you saw it and had enjoyment from it. See, there's no end to the goodness!
posted by languagehat at 5:11 PM on February 16, 2006
The rule obsessiveness around here is really amusing. Lurk and ye shall find--if not a precise answer, then at least a sense of the appropriate metafiltarian approach to your question. People seem to want to hear:
"Well, userX, Article II, Sec. 4(c)(3)(ii) of the Uniform Metafilter Code provides, in part, that 'Upon determination of duplicativeness, after appropriate notice and comment, as provided in Article IV, Sec. 5 of this Code, shall not be deleted, in the event that more than 365 days have past since the last Posting, if such Post, upon appropriate determination, shall not have been deemed, after appropriate motion and hearing before a Metafilter Administrator, to contain substantially new content. Determinations made pursuant to this Section are appealable at the discretion of a Metafilter Administrator. Nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to limit the authority of the Metafilter Administrator granted in Article I of this Code.' Oh, yes, and STFU N00b."
posted by kosem at 5:16 PM on February 16, 2006
"Well, userX, Article II, Sec. 4(c)(3)(ii) of the Uniform Metafilter Code provides, in part, that 'Upon determination of duplicativeness, after appropriate notice and comment, as provided in Article IV, Sec. 5 of this Code, shall not be deleted, in the event that more than 365 days have past since the last Posting, if such Post, upon appropriate determination, shall not have been deemed, after appropriate motion and hearing before a Metafilter Administrator, to contain substantially new content. Determinations made pursuant to this Section are appealable at the discretion of a Metafilter Administrator. Nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to limit the authority of the Metafilter Administrator granted in Article I of this Code.' Oh, yes, and STFU N00b."
posted by kosem at 5:16 PM on February 16, 2006
"Sometimes I think a desire to community police outweighs a desire to enjoy the site."
You say that like those are two different things.
posted by mischief at 5:47 PM on February 16, 2006
You say that like those are two different things.
posted by mischief at 5:47 PM on February 16, 2006
well, the wiki has been changed, so that settles that.
seriously, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if it's okay to post doubles after a year, I'm going to post AYBABTU, badger badger, the star wars kid, and every other tired meme I can think of that's over a year old just to remind everyone that IT SHOULDN'T BE OK.
I've always hated that line in the wiki.
posted by shmegegge at 7:26 PM on February 16, 2006
seriously, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if it's okay to post doubles after a year, I'm going to post AYBABTU, badger badger, the star wars kid, and every other tired meme I can think of that's over a year old just to remind everyone that IT SHOULDN'T BE OK.
I've always hated that line in the wiki.
posted by shmegegge at 7:26 PM on February 16, 2006
it is reasonable to assume that it represents a de facto official position
I see your argument, but no. By its nature, a wiki is editable by anyone. How can just anyone define an "official position?" It's a simple logical condtradiction - so much so that it's almost (ahem) disingenuous.
posted by scarabic at 8:35 PM on February 16, 2006
I see your argument, but no. By its nature, a wiki is editable by anyone. How can just anyone define an "official position?" It's a simple logical condtradiction - so much so that it's almost (ahem) disingenuous.
posted by scarabic at 8:35 PM on February 16, 2006
I know people in the thread liked it and/or missed it the first time but a lot of people also flagged it as a double. If people start reposting things they liked 54 weeks after they were first posted, I think that is going to get old real quickly
I dunno, personaly, I think if something's been around a year, and it's still cool it might not be so bad to repost it.
I mean.
How much is there on the web that stays fresh that long?
posted by delmoi at 9:00 PM on February 16, 2006
I dunno, personaly, I think if something's been around a year, and it's still cool it might not be so bad to repost it.
I mean.
How much is there on the web that stays fresh that long?
posted by delmoi at 9:00 PM on February 16, 2006
Speaking of wikis, did you know that dokuwiki is written in PHP and dosn't require a database, and that awkiawki is 300 lines of Awk script?
posted by delmoi at 9:05 PM on February 16, 2006
posted by delmoi at 9:05 PM on February 16, 2006
No, it's a good thing that it got deleted. It's also a good thing you saw it and had enjoyment from it. See, there's no end to the goodness!
No, it is a shame that other people who are really into music that 3hive.com covers will not stumble upon the site via MetaFilter. I'm not one of those "indie kids" who gets off on obscurity. I really wish music like this will receive broader attention.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 9:20 PM on February 16, 2006
No, it is a shame that other people who are really into music that 3hive.com covers will not stumble upon the site via MetaFilter. I'm not one of those "indie kids" who gets off on obscurity. I really wish music like this will receive broader attention.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 9:20 PM on February 16, 2006
it is a shame that other people who are really into music that 3hive.com covers will not stumble upon the site via MetaFilter.
Yes, but by that standard, since the front page only shows two days worth of links, 3hive.com should be reposted every 3 days. If you accept that reading archives is also allowable, then that period instantly jumps from 3 days to 6.5 years. (Note: generally neutral on the topic, as long as we're talking about periods of years and not weeks or days, but unfortunately the logic is somewhat gunky)
posted by Bugbread at 11:26 PM on February 16, 2006
Yes, but by that standard, since the front page only shows two days worth of links, 3hive.com should be reposted every 3 days. If you accept that reading archives is also allowable, then that period instantly jumps from 3 days to 6.5 years. (Note: generally neutral on the topic, as long as we're talking about periods of years and not weeks or days, but unfortunately the logic is somewhat gunky)
posted by Bugbread at 11:26 PM on February 16, 2006
Cheese will fuck you up.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 AM on February 17, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 AM on February 17, 2006
we just need to recycle more BoingBoing stuff and everything will be OK
posted by matteo at 6:04 AM on February 17, 2006
posted by matteo at 6:04 AM on February 17, 2006
You know what? If you're going to post a double, don't do what you did and actually mention it's a double in the post and link to the original. I bet half the 'double' flags were due to people reading that sentence.
Just post a link to the new bit and plead ignorance if anyone finds out.
posted by smackfu at 6:46 AM on February 17, 2006
Just post a link to the new bit and plead ignorance if anyone finds out.
posted by smackfu at 6:46 AM on February 17, 2006
shmegegge,
oh please, because this site is clearly some sort of cliched crap like starwars kid or badger badger.
brain_drain,
did flagging it make you feel good? had you seen the original? would you have known it was a a double if i hadn't pointed it out? my guess is yes to the first and no to the second and third, which probably means you shouldn't have flagged it.
posted by sourbrew at 6:49 AM on February 17, 2006
oh please, because this site is clearly some sort of cliched crap like starwars kid or badger badger.
brain_drain,
did flagging it make you feel good? had you seen the original? would you have known it was a a double if i hadn't pointed it out? my guess is yes to the first and no to the second and third, which probably means you shouldn't have flagged it.
posted by sourbrew at 6:49 AM on February 17, 2006
sourbrew, it's almost always a terrible idea to defend one's own post in these situations. It makes you look whiny and thin-skinned. If it's worth defending, someone else will do it for you. (Note: Nobody thinks what they themselves post is "cliched crap.")
posted by languagehat at 8:22 AM on February 17, 2006
posted by languagehat at 8:22 AM on February 17, 2006
languagehat,
I'm just saying the comparison between the two is disingenuous at best.
posted by sourbrew at 8:28 AM on February 17, 2006
I'm just saying the comparison between the two is disingenuous at best.
posted by sourbrew at 8:28 AM on February 17, 2006
And I'm saying that's not your call. ("How can you compare my baby to that ugly one over there? My baby is the bestest, most beautiful baby that ever was!!")
posted by languagehat at 8:30 AM on February 17, 2006
posted by languagehat at 8:30 AM on February 17, 2006
fie on that good sir,
While your point is an easily made one I think that it is definitely within my powers of comprehension to determine the difference between an internet meme that exists simply because of its absurdity and novelty, and a well maintained blog with months and months of listening material.
I would say that if you are attempting to defend such a comparison that you probably haven't even been to the site. At any rate you have already set me up per your previous ad hominem by association to lose this argument so it's probably best that i duck out now.
posted by sourbrew at 8:42 AM on February 17, 2006
While your point is an easily made one I think that it is definitely within my powers of comprehension to determine the difference between an internet meme that exists simply because of its absurdity and novelty, and a well maintained blog with months and months of listening material.
I would say that if you are attempting to defend such a comparison that you probably haven't even been to the site. At any rate you have already set me up per your previous ad hominem by association to lose this argument so it's probably best that i duck out now.
posted by sourbrew at 8:42 AM on February 17, 2006
sourbrew: I flagged the post because it broke the rules. There was an ambiguity in the rules at the time due to a misleading wiki entry, but that ambiguity has since been resolved. Now you know the lay of the land. Your candor doesn't change this -- e.g. a self-link wouldn't be preserved merely because the poster said "look at my website." You did no harm in this instance -- in fact, you even did a little good since I (and maybe others) hadn't seen the site before. But surely you can understand the concern that setting a precedent allowing reposts of links that are "good" (not sure who decides that, as languagehat notes) would result in a flood of duplicative content on MeFi.
on preview: yes, it's probably best that you duck out now.
posted by brain_drain at 8:43 AM on February 17, 2006
on preview: yes, it's probably best that you duck out now.
posted by brain_drain at 8:43 AM on February 17, 2006
brain_drain, I understand the reason for deletion, and support it. I am merely noting that it probably wouldn't have been deleted if i hadn't self policed. Does that not seem a tad absurd to you? that by upholding a standard of ethics inherent in the site i set myself up for attack?
posted by sourbrew at 8:46 AM on February 17, 2006
posted by sourbrew at 8:46 AM on February 17, 2006
"by upholding a standard of ethics inherent in the site i set myself up for attack?"
Been there...
posted by mischief at 8:58 AM on February 17, 2006
Been there...
posted by mischief at 8:58 AM on February 17, 2006
sourbrew,
1. If you were really "self-policing" or "upholding a standard of ethics inherent in the site" you wouldn't have posted the link.
2. It would have been spotted as a double post anyway. This site is ruthless about digging up prior posts.
3. Flagging a post or identifying it as a double is not an "attack."
4. Everyone has posts or comments deleted from time to time. It's not a big deal. Shrug your shoulders and move on.
posted by brain_drain at 9:01 AM on February 17, 2006
1. If you were really "self-policing" or "upholding a standard of ethics inherent in the site" you wouldn't have posted the link.
2. It would have been spotted as a double post anyway. This site is ruthless about digging up prior posts.
3. Flagging a post or identifying it as a double is not an "attack."
4. Everyone has posts or comments deleted from time to time. It's not a big deal. Shrug your shoulders and move on.
posted by brain_drain at 9:01 AM on February 17, 2006
deep breaths
Look, I'm sorry I'm coming across as pissed off, not intend.
Languagehat apologies,
shmegee, I still disapprove of your comparison but i understand that you were saying that its no good to have constant repeats of anything on metafilter it ruins the tastiness of the site.
braindrain, I like the way jessamyn put it in a conversation i had with her over I'm, the people who flagged it were sort of cheating because i told them it was a double. That said I too am flag happy when i come across a double, and i understand your view point as well.
I still would like some clarification on the "ambiguities" in the wiki, and i have a feeling that whenever mat pops back in that will probably happen.
posted by sourbrew at 9:01 AM on February 17, 2006
Look, I'm sorry I'm coming across as pissed off, not intend.
Languagehat apologies,
shmegee, I still disapprove of your comparison but i understand that you were saying that its no good to have constant repeats of anything on metafilter it ruins the tastiness of the site.
braindrain, I like the way jessamyn put it in a conversation i had with her over I'm, the people who flagged it were sort of cheating because i told them it was a double. That said I too am flag happy when i come across a double, and i understand your view point as well.
I still would like some clarification on the "ambiguities" in the wiki, and i have a feeling that whenever mat pops back in that will probably happen.
posted by sourbrew at 9:01 AM on February 17, 2006
Ok, just my thoughts:
1: The basic principle that some of your material will get deleted due to differences of opinion regarding editorial policy is just the way things work with any kind of media that exercises editorial control. I mean, yeah, you can bitch, whine, and bellyache about it, and quibble about nuances of meaning. But frequently that's just wasting your time and the time of others.
2: Metafilter has over 6 years of material, including hundreds of links to cool sites that would deserve a blurb every year. The front page can be filled with links to worthy sites that should be given a yearly nod.
3: If you think a site is really that great, then you can use it as a source for FPPs about other topics. For example, we don't need a link to google maps every year, but we do see frequent links to interesting things shown on google maps. We don't need a link to the top page of Daily Kos every year, but on occasion, Daily Kos has coverage of activism efforts that are FPP-worthy. We don't need a link to the homepage of the Washington Post. You could do a post for example on Stephen McBean and other independent Canadian rock projects and do a (via 3hive) or link to the 3hive reviews.
4: I think doubles are nifty, if there is something newsworthy that just happened on that site. For example, repeated links to the mission pages of the Mars rovers are fine by me in the context of a new discovery. "This site rocks" is not worthy of a double in my opinion, "this site rocks, and they are now experimenting with ..." could be worthy.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:02 AM on February 17, 2006
1: The basic principle that some of your material will get deleted due to differences of opinion regarding editorial policy is just the way things work with any kind of media that exercises editorial control. I mean, yeah, you can bitch, whine, and bellyache about it, and quibble about nuances of meaning. But frequently that's just wasting your time and the time of others.
2: Metafilter has over 6 years of material, including hundreds of links to cool sites that would deserve a blurb every year. The front page can be filled with links to worthy sites that should be given a yearly nod.
3: If you think a site is really that great, then you can use it as a source for FPPs about other topics. For example, we don't need a link to google maps every year, but we do see frequent links to interesting things shown on google maps. We don't need a link to the top page of Daily Kos every year, but on occasion, Daily Kos has coverage of activism efforts that are FPP-worthy. We don't need a link to the homepage of the Washington Post. You could do a post for example on Stephen McBean and other independent Canadian rock projects and do a (via 3hive) or link to the 3hive reviews.
4: I think doubles are nifty, if there is something newsworthy that just happened on that site. For example, repeated links to the mission pages of the Mars rovers are fine by me in the context of a new discovery. "This site rocks" is not worthy of a double in my opinion, "this site rocks, and they are now experimenting with ..." could be worthy.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:02 AM on February 17, 2006
sourbrew, no one is attacking you, this is just sort of how MetaTalk works.
Part of the problem in enforcing site guidelines is that nearly everyone thinks their own content is worth preserving. You had one interpretation of the guidelines that was, at the time, supported by the wiki. I've updated the wiki. Part of your defense of the double-post was how good you thought the site you were linking to was. Some people agreed with you (about your interpretation of the guidelines, about your evaluation of the site) and some people didn't, which should be clear from reading this thread.
There are thousands of people who read and post here regularly and trying to find ways to maintain the site to everyone's satisfaction is impossible, which is not to say we don't try sometimes. Similarly, there is no link that is so awesome that everyone on MetaFilter will give you a free pass to otherwise break the guidelines with it. I know it can be hard to get your head around, but you didn't necessarily do anything wrong, but the post was still removed.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:14 AM on February 17, 2006
Part of the problem in enforcing site guidelines is that nearly everyone thinks their own content is worth preserving. You had one interpretation of the guidelines that was, at the time, supported by the wiki. I've updated the wiki. Part of your defense of the double-post was how good you thought the site you were linking to was. Some people agreed with you (about your interpretation of the guidelines, about your evaluation of the site) and some people didn't, which should be clear from reading this thread.
There are thousands of people who read and post here regularly and trying to find ways to maintain the site to everyone's satisfaction is impossible, which is not to say we don't try sometimes. Similarly, there is no link that is so awesome that everyone on MetaFilter will give you a free pass to otherwise break the guidelines with it. I know it can be hard to get your head around, but you didn't necessarily do anything wrong, but the post was still removed.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:14 AM on February 17, 2006
jessamyn,
I didn't think anyone was attacking me, although i certainly levied some shots at other people, again apologies, and i would never ask for a free pass from anyone on metafilter, i would miss out on too much mud slinging.
posted by sourbrew at 9:24 AM on February 17, 2006
I didn't think anyone was attacking me, although i certainly levied some shots at other people, again apologies, and i would never ask for a free pass from anyone on metafilter, i would miss out on too much mud slinging.
posted by sourbrew at 9:24 AM on February 17, 2006
It would have been spotted as a double post anyway. This site is ruthless about digging up prior posts.
For an example, see this thread. The original post had no text at all, only a title. Nevertheless, Gator correctly identified it as a double.
posted by russilwvong at 3:14 PM on February 17, 2006
For an example, see this thread. The original post had no text at all, only a title. Nevertheless, Gator correctly identified it as a double.
posted by russilwvong at 3:14 PM on February 17, 2006
russilwvong, of course 2 months is a little less of a time span...
posted by sourbrew at 3:52 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by sourbrew at 3:52 PM on February 17, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
not a callout or anything, just a request for clarification.
posted by dersins at 1:42 PM on February 16, 2006