User talk:Kostas: Difference between revisions

Line 8:

:The thing is that having guide on the wiki is not something we want to focus on so adding more types/versions of them would probably not be something we want to encourage. I thought of having the futo guide article as a section of the FUTO company page rather than a seperate enty would be better (or maybe I have missunderstood what the end goal with that is) and categorizing the local running of AI as a user guide page, so it can also bear the notice, despite the more general nature. [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 21:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think that 'Youtube content creator made a video detailing instructions on how to set up self-managed stuff' is somewhat beyond the scope of the Wiki. The most I could see it being here would be as a small mention in the FUTO article (i.e. FUTO comissioned this guide, which sought to advance conumser rights) or something of the sort. I don't think it fits as its own guide article here. At present, the only guides which exist on the Wiki are those directly tied to specific conusmer protection incidents, and I think that's probably how it should stay for the forseeable future. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 21:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::When an external guide relates to a specific incident, a short paragraph on the incident page should be enough to refer readers to the guide. A whole article is not needed.

::Right now, there are four full guides directly under the user guides category. I would argue that they do not align with the purpose of this wiki, which is to highlight consumer protection issues. The existence of these guides will make moderation more difficult as the wiki grows larger and edits are made more frequently.

::I feel the same way toward the external guides, which are just summaries of external resources. Why do we need these, when we can just link to the external resources where relevant? [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 21:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

----

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :The thing is that having guide on the wiki is not something we want to focus on so adding more types/versions of them would probably not be something we want to encourage. I thought of having the futo guide article as a section of the FUTO company page rather than a seperate enty would be better (or maybe I have missunderstood what the end goal with that is) and categorizing the local running of AI as a user guide page, so it can also bear the notice, despite the more general nature.  [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 21:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
 ::I think that 'Youtube content creator made a video detailing instructions on how to set up self-managed stuff' is somewhat beyond the scope of the Wiki. The most I could see it being here would be as a small mention in the FUTO article (i.e. FUTO comissioned this guide, which sought to advance conumser rights) or something of the sort. I don't think it fits as its own guide article here. At present, the only guides which exist on the Wiki are those directly tied to specific conusmer protection incidents, and I think that's probably how it should stay for the forseeable future. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 21:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
+::When an external guide relates to a specific incident, a short paragraph on the incident page should be enough to refer readers to the guide. A whole article is not needed.
+::Right now, there are four full guides directly under the user guides category. I would argue that they do not align with the purpose of this wiki, which is to highlight consumer protection issues. The existence of these guides will make moderation more difficult as the wiki grows larger and edits are made more frequently.
+::I feel the same way toward the external guides, which are just summaries of external resources. Why do we need these, when we can just link to the external resources where relevant? [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 21:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
 ----