Stu,
Yes, Stu, I know what's a wiki, and the C34 wiki is, and how it works, and have provided content and edited content. And you are aware of this -- and you know I have "contributed" -- so why post childish comments like that I have no idea how to edit a wiki page? But i cannot edit the FAQs page.
1st point -
The FAQs is NOT editable. You provided the link below -- I didn't
http://www.c34.org/faq-pages/faq.html-- click on it and explain how it's editable. It's a static webpage page, not editable by someone without admin right to the static webpage. You said as much so yourself -- the old FAQ content is "static."
2nd point -
You keep referring to the past -- what hard work was done, what has brought it to where is it. I never ever disagreed with that and never ever disparaged the hard work that was done by you or anyone else. Point to an example if you have one, You know better, and that was uncalled for -- let's look forward and not backwards.
3rd point -
I asked a question whether doing something (w/ the FAQs) would result in a better end product for users -- to help improve something. What's offensive actually, is that, instead of a reply (paraphrasing you) 'the Committee (CTME) is looking at that and other improvements and there may be a way to "morph" the FAQs info into the wiki." (by the why isn;t this exactly agreeing with what I had asked?), I am accused of complaining, nitpicking and generally being the bane of mankind, trying to raise holy hell and make your existence miserable. Was that really necessary? Really, Stu? Even after I made it perfectly clear that i WAS NOT commenting on the hard work that brought the site to the great state where it is.
You know yourself that i am trying to get the "other" assn to model a wiki after C34 -- if it were so bad as you implied to the rest of the forum that I was making it out to be -- why would I try to replicate this site and wiki? Really?
4th point -
My point about a simple "No" was that, there was no need to elevate a question to a personal level/attack when I made it very clear that I was asking a question relative to improving, not disparaging anyone/anything that had been done IN THE PAST. Now isn't that what "improvement" is all about? When it's taken as an attack on one's work or effort, one needs to step back and reread the message before throwing out barbs. I never said, "this is crap, there's no value in the FAQs" -- Yet defense of what I clearly wrote that
I WAS NOT SAYING was the tone (aroma) of the replies. Is it nitpicking, complaining when asking a single question re: possibly improving something? Really? Really, Stu?
Apologies if you can't accept a question about improving something, without inferring that it's a personal attack on prior good and valuable effort. I never have anything but praise -- both on the forum and privately -- for the work you do and others do -- and never meant that -- and I clearly stated such. To imply otherwise publically -- maybe to bolster some position or objection against the suggestion re: the FAQ -- is simply factually incorrect and you know that. Take time to carefully reread my question. The examples supplied were simply examples to support why the FAQ content might be merged once and for all into the wiki, and then removed from as stand-alone page -- and all examples were factual. No personal attacks and they warranted no personal attack in return.
I DID NOT stated that YOU or anyone represented or implied that the FAQs was vetted or anything of the like. I said that (users) typically INFER that FAQs are vetted and the final definitive word -- that's a 180 degree difference and a 180 degree distinction. ... You know yourself that, no matter how many times you preach something -- somebody won't listen or misinterprets -- my (let's call it a suggestion disguised as a question) would (IMHO) help eliminate or reduce that possibility. If I disagreed, I would simply disagree --instead of turning it into an attack for making a suggestion. Especially when in the next breath I agreed with the suggestion, AND that there was indeed a method to accomplish what was suggested (I believe "morph," was your word?)
Y'ah know, the more I regurgitate what was replied, the more the ridiculousness of this whole thing comes to light.
In one breath, I'm attached for a suggestion about the FAQs as complaining and unnecessary -- and in the next breath agreed with, that the FAQs are outdated.
And in one breath poo-pooed for a suggestion that's WAY too much work (without considering would someone like me take this on -- which I said I would help with), and then in the next breath, reminded that there's a way to "morph" the FAQs into the wiki. Now, step back -- and isn't that EXACTLY what I suggested?
So looking at the dichotomy in the replies -- illustrates why this the attack is ridiculous: Which is the real reply?
Unnecessary nitpicking -- or -- can it use improvement?
Too much work -- or -- there's a way to "morph" it in?
Surely you can see what I'm saying about this being ridiculous -- when we're both saying the same thing from the get-go?
Can we just agree that "Yes, it could use improving, and yes, there may be an easy way to do it (morph it into the wiki)" ??? I'll even give you credit for already thinking about it before I asked the question.
Or do you want to continue to argue about a distinction without a difference?
cheers
ken
Author
Topic: Old FAQs (Read 3195 times)