Timeline for Let there be blog
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2012 at 20:33 | comment | added | Stephen Harris | @brasofilo LianaMir my initial motivation was a counter to Rarst's specification of 'original' content. I think that it would be helpful to include content that, while not particularly original, does 'do it right' - as part of that it can highlight and correct many bad practises. I still think those willing to learn, will benefit from that. Specifically, I prefer content that teaches rather than just provides 'copy and paste' fodder. | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 17:06 | comment | added | Liana Mir | I fail to see how saying this is a best practice because it plays nice with such and such is "enumerating badness." | |
| Oct 8, 2012 at 9:30 | comment | added | brasofilo | @LianaMir Your latter thought is covered by this Rarst's principle: "Enumerating badness is not productive approach"..::::: And the former would be a nice blog article: Dissecting 3 different paths that lead to the same result and how I learned a couple of things in the process | |
| Oct 2, 2012 at 22:15 | comment | added | Liana Mir | On the whole popular topics done badly? Yes! I'm new to coding WP and freak out when there are three in-depth tutorials that all use different functions for the same supposedly standard functionality (I'm looking at you, custom post types). I also don't have enough understanding of coding yet to figure out what's going on or which I should actually use. And a thought: instead of saying why one way is wrong, just explain best practices and why. | |
| Sep 28, 2012 at 16:03 | comment | added | Rarst Mod | @Stephen Harris I disagree. :) Trying to hammer into people that they are doing something the wrong way is additional overhead and they often actually resist it. As for me best course of action is to focus on right ways alone and exclusively. The smart ones will follow happily, the dumb ones... their choice. | |
| Sep 28, 2012 at 15:58 | comment | added | Stephen Harris | @Rarst - that is what I meant - providing the right way to do it. Though I also think there is value in explaining why the 'common' method is wrong. | |
| Sep 27, 2012 at 20:51 | comment | added | Rarst Mod | "meta" = "about us". Bad practices - I am strongly against. Enumerating badness is not productive approach, it's much better to focus on producing content focusing about how to do things right. | |
| Sep 27, 2012 at 18:57 | comment | added | Stephen Harris | @userabuser - I was thinking exactly the same thing - a minimum number of peer reviews required for each article. You make some really good points about needing this. | |
| Sep 27, 2012 at 18:47 | comment | added | Adam | Regarding peer review, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a requisite number of peers review an article off a panel, so that for any article to be published it might need to attract several votes from our peer group first. This would be a form of quality assurance where by not only the author is scrutinized (constructively) but also peers themselves would act as a form of checks and balances against wrongly approving articles that are erroneous - seeing as that's major point of contention in the WP community at large, standards and best practices. | |
| Sep 27, 2012 at 18:41 | history | answered | Stephen Harris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |