User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-7302713-20130409112511/@comment-7302713-20130411232003

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-7302713-20130409112511/@comment-7302713-20130411232003 CzechOut wrote: Except for the fact that mouseovers result in a highly legible highlight. And you seem to be trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you're saying you don't like it that you can see so many links, but on the other, you complain about the fact that links you have already clicked on recede into the normal text colour. I would have thought you would have liked that feature, based on your observations so far. Please, please, listen to what I say. I made that comment immediately after saying that my issue with the links was NOT a visual one. And immediately after that comment I elaborated on that. It's NOT A VISUAL PROBLEM. I don't know how to be any clearer. I never said it was one, and when you misunderstood my previous comments I made sure to be abundantly clear. Are you sure you haven't come to us from Wikipedia? It's usually only heavy Wikipedia users who notice or care about the "visited" colour differentiation. Wikia default is to not distinguish between those things you've clicked on and those you haven't. The light-on-dark skin is a concession to the way that Wikia wikis usually work, since it's presumed that most people who were introduced to the MediaWiki software through Wikia will probably prefer seeing links always shiny and bright. Yeah, I'm sure. The wikia default may be for links to work this way but that's not the default of the internet. If I read an article that has a lot of links I can differentiate between those I clicked on and those I haven't. I don't really understand why that's different on Wikia. Especially because reading on a wiki is different from everywhere else. If I read an article on a website I generally read it once and that's it. That's not true of wikis. I guess what I'm really asking about is editorial discretion. If a link fits the basic requirements of not having been linked earlier in the article, and can be an article, MUST it be linked? Yes. Thanks, that's all I needed. I've been asking that question a variety of ways on this thread, over and over and over again and it was never really answered. Which is why I asked it several times in my last post. You are misunderstanding. And I've been trying to correct you, but it doesn't seem to be taking, if you'll forgive the observation. Delinking is highly discouraged, except as set forth earlier in this post. Right, thanks. My question was asking for a clarification of this oft-used quote. SmallerOnTheOutside's earlier post was really wonderfully helpful. It took the specifics of my question and broke it down. The reason I kept on is because there's a big difference between, "this is discouraged" and don't do it. SmallerOnTheOutside's post and some earlier ones led me to believe that this is discouraged. SOTO went through my specific example and showed me the value of some of the potential links but confirmed that there was such a thing as too vague. Your posts seem to suggest that there isn't, prompting me to continue to seek clarification.

A couple other things. While the way I read my be a "non-standard setup", it's mine. And it's my setup because it works for me. I don't like clicking through on the same page. I lose track of what I'm reading and doing very easily that way. Whereas handling lots of windows and tabs is fairly easy for me. So while I appreciate your suggesting that I try something else and see if it helps, everything else was pretty unnecessary.

Repeating the same things over and over again is just not productive at all. Especially when you're simply quoting sections of a policy that's been read by everyone on this page and brought up in discussion already. I understand that wikis survive on links. And that links are good. And that we should err on the side of links. I understood the first time I read that. It really doesn't take multiple readings for something to sink in. And I not only understand the rules in terms of rules, I, for the most part, get the driving force behind the rules.

I was asking for a clarification of a fairly small point, and my concerns were, let's be honest here, not things that were likely to pop-up that much.

I'd have completely understood if I got responses questioning why I was asking for clarification on something that was in reality pretty much a non-issue. And I appreciated the more in depths responses I got from a few people that focused a bit on the whys behind policy. Knowing the whys really helps someone put something into action properly, or at least, not-blindly.

But the latter part of this discussion with you has left me with an incredibly sour taste in my mouth. I don't like being treated like an idiot, particularly on forums where I'm coming to learn and try and understand the hows and whys. And I don't like my opinions and views being belittled. I get that it's just my opinion--I don't need that rammed down my throat. No one has to agree with me, and I certainly try never to assume that people do.

Also, this weird Wikia v. Wikipedia thing is just annoying as hell. As though if you're new to Wikia and come in with certain assumptions and views you must be from Wikipedia. Uggh!

I asked a question earlier in this thread about a sentence that had a fair number of links. Trying to understand the policy, I asked what was keeping every other word in that sentence from being linked. I got two responses from you, one pointing out that two of the words couldn't be linked because it was against policy, and one about only linking the first time. I was trying to understand where your policy stopped. If the only reason not to link to something were the few (fairly technical) exemptions you had against linking, what was to stop every possible word (given the various rules) in an article from being linked? I didn't need to come from Wikipedia or anywhere to see that some discretion was needed or that would be the logical outcome. And by the way, this question was never really answered. I'm assuming that the answer is "who the hell would want to do that?" but I've never really gotten one. And while it may seem like a silly question, it becomes necessary when the mentality I'm being presented with is that policy is the driving force behind editing. I really doubt that that's how anyone actually views things. It's sorta the antithesis of the idea behind wikis.

And btw, there's a difference between making a couple conservative edits and "blatantly defy[ing] policy" or "going off on a campaign". I get the conservative editing is not encouraged, and that it can be discouraged. I was asking if it was ever ok. I was asking if there were exceptions for which it could be ok, even if they were few and far between. SOTO's comments were incredibly helpful in speeding up my understanding of this wiki functions, and helped me understand just how much time on this wiki would help. Your comments made me feel like an idiot and were really not that helpful. They were far more discouraging than encouraging, and seemed like they were designed to engender a feeling that I didn't do enough.

Just so that there is no confusion--this is all my opinion. These are the feelings of one fairly new editor. Feel free to disregard them if I'm the only one who feels this way, or because it's an opinion or for whatever other reason you like.

I apologise if this came across as rude and abrupt, I really don't mean it that way. I'm very frustrated and very annoyed. I put off writing a response more than once because I thought I'd be less annoyed later, but every time I read what you wrote in order to reply, my hackles just get raised again. Mainly because most of what I'm reading isn't really a response to me, and I don't know how to be any clearer about some of these things, and having to constantly say "I didn't say that" is insanely frustrating. The "you" v. "us" stuff is also just fairly ick. There's a big difference between explaining why the wiki works the way it does and the driving ideas behind it and setting up someone as an outsider.

A lot of people on this wiki have been inviting and friendly and encouraging. But this exchange has not been despite my best efforts.