User talk:CrookKilla: Difference between revisions

Line 2:

Why are you interested in moderating the Wiki?

So that it works effectively. The first content I looked at was Brilliant, and it strikes me that there's a lot of noise on the page. The TOS eval system (by EFF) - https://OpenTermsArchive.org/en/, ~~FKA~~ TOSback, ~~handles~~ the bulk of this stuff already, IIRC, and ~~does~~ a better job. Pages could just refer readers there for TOS stuff. Well.. after reading [[Mission Statement]], I see perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps. We should at least be doing a better job than previous systems at concisely communicating the shitty parts of TOS and AUP, if we're going to tackle it at all.

So that it works effectively. The first content I looked at was Brilliant, and it strikes me that there's a lot of noise on the page. The TOS eval system (by EFF) - https://OpenTermsArchive.org/en/, ToSdr.org and even its ancestor TOSback.org, handle the bulk of this stuff already, IIRC, and do a better job. Pages could just refer readers there for TOS stuff. Well.. after reading [[Mission Statement]], I see perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps. We should at least be doing a better job than previous systems at concisely communicating the shitty parts of TOS and AUP, if we're going to tackle it at all.

What do you see as the biggest non-technical problem with the Wiki or its articles at present?

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Why are you interested in moderating the Wiki?
-So that it works effectively.  The first content I looked at was Brilliant, and it strikes me that there's a lot of noise on the page.  The TOS eval system (by EFF) - https://OpenTermsArchive.org/en/, FKA TOSback, handles the bulk of this stuff already, IIRC, and does a better job.  Pages could just refer readers there for TOS stuff.  Well.. after reading [[Mission Statement]], I see perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps.  We should at least be doing a better job than previous systems at concisely communicating the shitty parts of TOS and AUP, if we're going to tackle it at all.
+So that it works effectively.  The first content I looked at was Brilliant, and it strikes me that there's a lot of noise on the page.  The TOS eval system (by EFF) - https://OpenTermsArchive.org/en/, ToSdr.org and even its ancestor TOSback.org, handle the bulk of this stuff already, IIRC, and do a better job.  Pages could just refer readers there for TOS stuff.  Well.. after reading [[Mission Statement]], I see perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps.  We should at least be doing a better job than previous systems at concisely communicating the shitty parts of TOS and AUP, if we're going to tackle it at all.
 What do you see as the biggest non-technical problem with the Wiki or its articles at present?