ThreadModeAndRefactorOk

This page covers a current WikiGardening focus: ThreadMode discussions and the RefactorOk tag (along with DeleteOk). A section of WikiGardening chat is included below as a reference.

The goal of this refactoring is to improve the wiki by, slowly and carefully, summarizing ThreadMode conversation. In the process, RefactorOk will be deprecated in favor acknowledging traditional WikiRefactoring guidelines.

This page is both an announcement and a place to gather input on if or how to procede with this refactoring. As a sandbox for beginning to think in terms of DocumentMode editing, please AvoidSignatures and ThreadMode discussion on this page; instead, if you want to clarify a statement, add more statements, or edit or delete redundant statements, please do so directly.

• Timeline: Start in a few days, after this page has had a chance to be read.

• Take it slowly.

• Refactor your own stuff first.

• Choose one or a few pages, starting with less controversial pages, and begin refactoring them.

• Get familiar with refactoring.

• Get other wiki users familiar with the style of refactoring, get their input on the success of the initial and ongoing pages, and be sure to get their input on whether the refactoring includes all sides of discussion.

• GreatChallengesToWikis

• RefactoringWikiPages

• ConvertThreadModeToDocumentMode

• RefactorByCondensingConversation

• RefactorWhileRespectingSignatures

• RefactorAndArchive

• GoodWikiCitizen

• TentativeSummary

<AaronSw> popping up a level, i think we should get agreement on names
          and refactorok
<AaronSw> i think we should flip around RefactorOk and make it NoRefactor 
<bitsko> can you expand on "agreement on names"?
<AaronSw> so that refactorok is presumed
<rubys> +1 to NoRefactor
<Isofarro> AaronSW: good suggestion
<AaronSw> agreement on names: what to do with signed comments: discourage,
          refactor, etc.
<sbp> +1, already been proposed, not sure why it's not been implemented yet
<danja> +1 to NoRefactor
<bitsko> "what to do with signed comments and No/Refactor/Ok", can that be
         restated as factoring between ThreadMode and DocumentMode, or is 
         that something different?
<danja> I like modes
<bitsko> modes are fine, the question is more to where they appear
<AaronSw> I consider ThreadMode as a problem to be fixed; i.e. the
          discussion should be cleaned up and summarized
<danja> Thread & Doc are intermingled quite a bit - separation might
        be a good first step
<danja> i.e. improve XXX and XXXDiscuss split
<sbp> the problem with cleaning up and summarizing is that you're
      bound to lose a lot of the information in the original thread.
      splitting off discussions and then summarizing and linking 
      would be better
<AaronSw> if you agree with my position (threadmode is bad) then there's
          not a lot of point in /Discuss separation
<sbp> then again, the discussion can still continue which means that the
      summarization will go out of date... but you want the threading to
      continue
<AaronSw> bound to? I don't think that's true
<bitsko> that may be a matter of the newness of our wiki
<bitsko> iow, a mature wiki wouldn't do that but maybe ours should
<Isofarro> sbp: Yeah. How about moving the Threads to a Discuss page,
           replace with a summary, and link the summary to that particular
           discussion... I know its a bit of work.
<bitsko> I've added, and refreshed:
<bitsko>  * What to do with signed comments
<bitsko>   * suggestion: flip around RefactorOk and make it NoRefactor
<sbp> why would it not be true? if you change the structure so radically,
      you're bound to lose some of the subtleties, nuances and connotations
      of the original discussion at the very least; but you'll probably
      end up losing a lot of the discussion too. plus, if the summarizer
      is biased in his or her approach of the discussion, some people points
      of view may be omitted, the story not told quite as truthfully, etc.
<bitsko> to capture the original refactoring suggestion.  is there a
         suggestion specific to ThreadMode/DocumentMode?
<danja> I don't think ThreadMode is bad, just needs keeping separate 
<AaronSw> well, that's not my experience, sbp.
<danja> sbp - true, and linking would avoid upsetting people by deletes
<AaronSw> these are technologists, not shakespeares
<Isofarro> danja: Yeah, that's the upside, and it may avoids the endless
           loop of rediscussion.
<sbp> so what? technologists work by debate and facts, and you can leave
      parts of the debate out and misrepresent them, and you can leave
      facts out and distort them in summarizations
<danja> until Refactor switch has been made, it's more polite to link
<Znarf> +1 separation between thread & document for the moment
<bitsko> lets hold off on the detailed discussion and keep to adding to
         the list
<AaronSw> so a) don't leave out part of the debate and b) if you see it
          left out, add it to the summary
<AaronSw> the goal is to get people modifying the summary instead of
          discussing
<bitsko> refreshed with: *  Seperate Thread and Document mode 
<AaronSw> if you want to discuss, you can do it on the mailing list
<AaronSw> but the wiki is meant to be a living document, not a chatroom
<danja> Aaron - I disagree - both can coexist
<bitsko> are there more bullets to add re. thread and document mode?
<AaronSw> I'm not saying they can't coexist, i'm just saying I don't
          want them to
<sbp> nope. I think we can move on :-)