New Resource for Collaborative FPPs on Same Sex Marriage Legalization July 19, 2014 11:18 PM   Subscribe

There has been some concern that some of the recent FFPs about state-level same sex marriage legalization have been relatively thin. For the states where legal SSM is still pending, prewriting draft text and collecting links to background information would help us create more substantial FPPs that could still be posted in a timely manner as soon a ruling is issued or a law is passed. To this end, all interested MeFites are invited to use these MetaFilter wiki pages to collaborate on future FPPs for each state.
posted by Jacqueline to Feature Requests at 11:18 PM (29 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

I'm as cartoonishly white and male and cis as is possible without having owned a Trans-Am or ever having worn a net-shirt and I like these good news posts and I'm enjoying the progress tremendously.

That said, I'll shut up now.
posted by vapidave at 1:19 AM on July 20, 2014

Just as a heads-up, I might remove the stub pages for the states. I think it will be a while for all of them to be used, and I imagine that the template and shared info is going to evolve a lot. And instead of updating each one in advance, I'd prefer that each one is started when there's someone interested in that specific state.
posted by Pronoiac at 2:21 AM on July 20, 2014

Great idea, Jacqueline!
I just went to the wiki and like the layout and info.

"Just as a heads-up, I might remove the stub pages for the states."

Are you talking about this section "State-by-State SSM FPPs-in-Progress", Pronoiac?
I found it very helpful to see all states like this and also the little info about what type of sources to include on the stub (I guess) for each state.
posted by travelwithcats at 4:07 AM on July 20, 2014

I think having stub pages up is fine. And I'm interested in adding info to Virginia if somebody else doesn't get to it first.
posted by nangar at 5:18 AM on July 20, 2014

Hey guys, I just deleted a couple of comments so we don't start off directly with weird accusations and angry stuff. This was proposed by Jacqueline some time ago, and we held it up a bit so it didn't become conflated with the earlier post about gay marriage. In fact, I actually ended up accidentally sending it through a bit early (after we discussed with Jacqueline), just by pure dumb accidental mis-clicking, but we were discussing doing it probably tomorrow, so I went ahead and let it go.

Anyway, there have been other wiki collaborations, and this is another one. As always, if people want to participate that's great, if not, also great, but please, let's not use this thread as a continuance of other grievances.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:21 AM on July 20, 2014 [5 favorites]

Richer FPPs are never a bad thing, but I'm not opposed to seeing yet another happy announcement (and hopefully many more) of progress on this issue. So yay for this proposal, and also yay for even a basic FPP with more good news.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:36 AM on July 20, 2014 [3 favorites]

As long as the last one is just "Aaaaand DONE (link to news story)."
posted by Etrigan at 5:59 AM on July 20, 2014 [10 favorites]

Excellent idea, Jacqueline. We'll have richer FPPs and a centralized archive of background information for each state.
posted by Pudhoho at 6:58 AM on July 20, 2014

When I mentioned stub pages, I meant, e.g., Alaska, and compare the template I made, which links back to the main page, has a credits section, etc. While one could edit all the stub pages to add those and future improvement (like links to maps thus far), well, it's error-prone, with questionable payoff, compared to waiting until someone's actually interested in working on the page for a specific state.
posted by Pronoiac at 10:37 AM on July 20, 2014

I'm not opposed to seeing yet another happy announcement

Seriously. There may be a very small contingent of people who have an issue with this generally speaking and I feel it's a decent response to try to be mindful of them, but I think it's pretty clear that Team Mod thinks that "YAY MORE HAPPY MARRIED PEOPLE IN MORE PLACES IN THE US TODAY" is a completely decent reason for a post even if it's a little thin. This is part of why it's great that the place isn't run by robots. People who have issues with this can either take it up here in MeTa or maybe deal a little bit more graciously with the fact that the site isn't supposed to be all things to all people and the guidelines-not-rules approach to how this sit is run is a feature not a bug even if sometimes it means that posts you don't like stick around.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 11:22 AM on July 20, 2014 [29 favorites]

For the most part, I also don't care if these posts remain thin when they happen, but personally, I look forward to more meat on these posts because it would be nice to more easily have a comment other than:

1) "Yay for [current state in question]!"
2) Some lame joke based on my near-cartoonish-levels of understanding states through stereotypes of [current state in question]
3) Somebody asking a question that came up in another state's thread (which I don't blame anyone for because I don't expect everybody to read those threads as closely as I do) and me wanting to answer it exactly the way I answered it previously when the question came up in another state's similar thread but not being able to find a way to do so that doesn't seem like I'm being a dick.

(I think I have done all 3 and can't promise that no matter how much work goes into a post I won't do all 3 again.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:37 AM on July 20, 2014

Um, there were one or two FPPs deleted by the mods recently. So I am not sure if it really doesn't matter how thin or stunt-y a FPP about a new state is, tbh.
posted by travelwithcats at 11:43 AM on July 20, 2014 [1 favorite]

I don't understand why the existing stubs would be particularly error prone. Having the stub already set up made it easy for me to go ahead and start working on the page I'm now working on without having figure out how to use the template. I'm sure it will make it easier for other people in the future who want start adding stuff to their state's page. (And more people have jumped in and started doing it already.) I don't see any good reason to go back and revert all of Jacqueline's work in setting up state pages.

It seems like the worst thing that could happen here is that pages for different states end up being formatted differently,which doesn't seem like much of a problem, and would probably happen anyway regardless of who's template was used.
posted by nangar at 12:01 PM on July 20, 2014

YES. This is an excellent idea. Well done.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 12:39 PM on July 20, 2014

Let's take a look at the worst-case scenario, folks: the U.S. legalizes gay marriage in one state per day for fifty consecutive days.

If that happened, it would be so fucking amazing that I would welcome fifty straight days of celebratory posts on the Blue and damn the haters.

Sadly, we're only getting one of these every few weeks or months. At least that's infrequent enough that we won't have to deal with the haters... right?
posted by Riki tiki at 4:24 PM on July 20, 2014 [5 favorites]

maybe we can get SSM fully legalized across the US if we convince the high courts that bringing equal marriage to a new state every week for a year is a cute/lucrative blog-to-book scheme
posted by threeants at 8:39 PM on July 20, 2014 [2 favorites]

Great idea, Jacqueline! I like the happy posts.

I am also excited because I am mentally conflating Jacqueline's SSM wiki with her previous Game of Thrones wikis and imagining how SSM would affect the fight for the Iron Throne. If marriage for everyone isn't legal in Westeros already, it should be!
posted by misha at 10:06 PM on July 20, 2014 [1 favorite]

I think the idea is a little silly. I have been the author of a bunch of SSM posts, and I don't ever just post one link. I try to post some context in every post that I make.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:01 AM on July 21, 2014

Yeah, this feels a bit like calling 'dibs' on a certain subject with shmear of You're Posting It Wrong.

"I've been working on a post for SSM in West Carolina for weeks! Delete the single link newsfilter!"
"My post was deleted because someone was working on another one offsite and I was expected to know of it from a MetaTalk post from 4 months back?"
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:55 AM on July 21, 2014

Don't worry, we aren't going to be deleting decent posts because folks were working on the topic in the Wiki. If it happens that way, Wiki collaborators can just post their cool links in the thread, since the point is to share good info that will be enlightening/interesting to discuss.
posted by taz (staff) at 9:05 AM on July 21, 2014 [1 favorite]

robocop is bleeding: "shmear of You're Posting It Wrong. "

Think of it more as a deli platter. No-one's going to make you eat the Cold Cuts of Extra Background Links or the Whitefish Animated Interactive Map Salad, but they're there if you want them.

Personally, I'm looking forward to WY.

a) It's the Equality State
b) The pending court case is Courage v. Wyoming.
posted by zamboni at 10:01 AM on July 21, 2014 [4 favorites]

I like this and any other attempt to collaborate on posts. I don't feel the "dibs" and "you're doing it wrong" vibe, I get more of what zamboni sees: options.

For what it's worth, here's the previous attempt to keep track of all the Marriage Equality threads. I started it last November in the Illinois thread.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:24 AM on July 21, 2014 [2 favorites]

Robocopisbleeding, I hear you.

For context, though, a specific member was just complaining about the 'thin' FPP on SSM recently. Although there was maybe a bit of justification in that the FPP was about just one county in Florida and not the whole state, that user pretty clearly had other issues with SSM and I believe has closed their account since the Metatalk.

Still, this is kind of a preventative measure, I guess, against that argument being used in the first place when SSM comes up.

Oh, and also in that Meta, some members from elsewhere around the world feel that these posts are by their nature American-centric and have expressed that they would either skip them because of that or would appreciate more context, so there's another reason for the wiki.
posted by misha at 11:06 AM on July 21, 2014

My apologies if I was wrong about that. My mistake.
posted by misha at 3:24 PM on July 21, 2014

some members from elsewhere around the world feel that these posts are by their nature American-centric

For a long time the only same sex marriage good news was from the rest of the world; this is barely catching up.

In total seriousness, I am equally happy seeing a good news FPP on this topic from anywhere in the world. It's not the US aspect that is the exciting part.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:11 PM on July 21, 2014 [2 favorites]

Agreed. I always do a little happy dance.
posted by misha at 9:51 PM on July 21, 2014 [1 favorite]

Oops, this went live while my internet was unexpectedly off for a few days.

Anyhow, my intentions here were to make a resource for people to use or not use as they please. Of course it's not mandatory to collaborate on a SSM post but if you find it helpful to do so then these wiki pages should make it easier.

I personally have nothing against thin SSM posts or thin posts in general -- most of my own FPPs are SLYTs, after all! But since there have been a few complaints over the past year (not just in the most recent MetaTalk) about the frequency and/or relative thinness of SSM posts as well as a few people responding with the idea that people collaborate to prewrite future posts and since I found myself with a few free hours last weekend I sat down and clunked out the infrastructure for such a collaboration.

On the topic of prematurely created state page stubs, I made them because it took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out how to create a new page and I wanted to save future collaborators that frustration.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:13 PM on July 24, 2014

Hey, is there anyone else besides me who thinks maybe we could not do this kind of thing here?

I respectfully disagree. I would never know if someone's closed their account because I don't really check, so I see no problem stating it - and I find it interesting and relevant to the discussion at hand.

I don't see why it should be a verboten thing.

Now, if you went, "HA-HA! So-and-so closed their account!", then that's not on; but dropping a note about it in a MetaTalk thread is relevant when there's been a big discussion with the person.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 10:31 AM on July 25, 2014

Also I could be wrong but I don't think they did close their account....
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 10:49 AM on July 25, 2014

« Older MeFi Diplomacy 2014 round 2   |   Nintendo Wii U & 3DS/2DS ID enfriendening Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments