Talk:Main Page
From The Extended Group
(→Thing-stuffs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | I (Jeremy) have the password. I am wary about posting it online, since it has the potential to be used maliciously. Send me an email or call and I'll give it to you. My only request is that the password remains unmodified. | |
| - | |||
== Thing-stuffs == | == Thing-stuffs == | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
I've also noticed that the latest articles lack the inclusion of "See Also", "Categories", "External Links" (when applicable), et al--that which makes an article, ostensibly "complete". Last week I ended up sifting through all 200+ articles to find that some 75-80% were bare in this regard. It would save a lot of time and grief if we could all add these things to our own articles from here on out. | I've also noticed that the latest articles lack the inclusion of "See Also", "Categories", "External Links" (when applicable), et al--that which makes an article, ostensibly "complete". Last week I ended up sifting through all 200+ articles to find that some 75-80% were bare in this regard. It would save a lot of time and grief if we could all add these things to our own articles from here on out. | ||
| - | In the process of doing this, I noticed that there are a number of articles that don't live up to the unspoken standards of good XG writing. I found that they tended to suffer from problems with brevity, slander, and/or conventions. I dont think a brief article is always a bad thing, but it should be pertinent to two or more group members, be memorable, and there should be some thought put into the writing. For the articles that are only a few sentences long, the esoteric content tends to make it so there's no potential for others to expand upon them. Other articles, which I suspect are not the handiwork of our more dedicated authors, cross the line over what should and shouldn't be said about people we've encountered. I don't mind a polemical tone, but ad hominem attacks don't call for good reading. Also, if you're going to write about an unpleasant memory, make it humorous or at least entertaining. Lastly, to get nitpicky for a second, there were some issues with grammar and some other conventional issues I noticed. For example, spelling errors should be especially avoided when writing the titles for articles so one needn't go back, re-link and then re-paste the old article. An article should always start with the title somewhere in the first sentence in bold. First and second person writing, I think, should also be considered taboo. | + | In the process of doing this, I noticed that there are a number of articles that don't live up to the unspoken standards of good XG writing. I found that they tended to suffer from problems with brevity, slander, and/or conventions. I dont think a brief article is always a bad thing, but it should be pertinent to two or more group members, be memorable, and there should be some thought put into the writing. For the articles that are only a few sentences long, the esoteric content tends to make it so there's no potential for others to expand upon them. Such articles may be more appropriate as subsections of the [[Random Insignificant Memories]] page. |
| + | |||
| + | Other articles, which I suspect are not the handiwork of our more dedicated authors, cross the line over what should and shouldn't be said about people we've encountered. I don't mind a polemical tone, but ad hominem attacks don't call for good reading. Also, if you're going to write about an unpleasant memory, make it humorous or at least entertaining. Lastly, to get nitpicky for a second, there were some issues with grammar and some other conventional issues I noticed. For example, spelling errors should be especially avoided when writing the titles for articles so one needn't go back, re-link and then re-paste the old article. An article should always start with the title somewhere in the first sentence in bold. First and second person writing, I think, should also be considered taboo. | ||
Any other thoughts? | Any other thoughts? | ||
Revision as of 06:29, 18 February 2007
I (Jeremy) have the password. I am wary about posting it online, since it has the potential to be used maliciously. Send me an email or call and I'll give it to you. My only request is that the password remains unmodified.
Thing-stuffs
I've also noticed that the latest articles lack the inclusion of "See Also", "Categories", "External Links" (when applicable), et al--that which makes an article, ostensibly "complete". Last week I ended up sifting through all 200+ articles to find that some 75-80% were bare in this regard. It would save a lot of time and grief if we could all add these things to our own articles from here on out.
In the process of doing this, I noticed that there are a number of articles that don't live up to the unspoken standards of good XG writing. I found that they tended to suffer from problems with brevity, slander, and/or conventions. I dont think a brief article is always a bad thing, but it should be pertinent to two or more group members, be memorable, and there should be some thought put into the writing. For the articles that are only a few sentences long, the esoteric content tends to make it so there's no potential for others to expand upon them. Such articles may be more appropriate as subsections of the Random Insignificant Memories page.
Other articles, which I suspect are not the handiwork of our more dedicated authors, cross the line over what should and shouldn't be said about people we've encountered. I don't mind a polemical tone, but ad hominem attacks don't call for good reading. Also, if you're going to write about an unpleasant memory, make it humorous or at least entertaining. Lastly, to get nitpicky for a second, there were some issues with grammar and some other conventional issues I noticed. For example, spelling errors should be especially avoided when writing the titles for articles so one needn't go back, re-link and then re-paste the old article. An article should always start with the title somewhere in the first sentence in bold. First and second person writing, I think, should also be considered taboo.
Any other thoughts?
