Re: [support] current wiki tools in drupal - talk vs comments
Regarding "Talk" -- from a UI perspective I think it is one of the worst things about mediawiki. I think that Drupal's stock comments implementation on the same page as the node is much better than having a talk page on a separate page.
We may have to disagree here. I think of the "talk" page as a place for meta-discussion--discussion about an article, say, if we were to use the MediaWiki example. I would want "comments", were they implemented for a page (MediaWiki doesn't do this, presumably on the assumption that non-meta comments belong as edits in the article) to refer to the =subject= of the article. So, if I write a page on klezmer, and you make some edits with which I disagree, the "talk" page is a good place to hash out administrativia, but if you and I have different views on klezmer, the "comments" section would be a good place for the two of us to discuss (along with anyone else who joined in). Does this make any sense?
Quoting Ari Davidow <aridavidow@gmail.com>:
Regarding "Talk" -- from a UI perspective I think it is one of the worst things about mediawiki. I think that Drupal's stock comments implementation on the same page as the node is much better than having a talk page on a separate page.
We may have to disagree here. I think of the "talk" page as a place for meta-discussion--discussion about an article, say, if we were to use the MediaWiki example. I would want "comments", were they implemented for a page (MediaWiki doesn't do this, presumably on the assumption that non-meta comments belong as edits in the article) to refer to the =subject= of the article.
So, if I write a page on klezmer, and you make some edits with which I disagree, the "talk" page is a good place to hash out administrativia, but if you and I have different views on klezmer, the "comments" section would be a good place for the two of us to discuss (along with anyone else who joined in).
Does this make any sense?
Yes, but TEHO which is why WMHTD is true. People like different presentations and one is just as good as the other. It is all in how you perceive it or have been accustomed to doing. [1] TEHO - To each his own [2] WMHTD - We may have to disagree Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/ -- http://give-me-an-offer.com/
Ari, You bring up a good point - the distinction between a comment (e.g. a response to content) versus meta-discussion, comments about the crafting of the content. My problem with separate "Talk" pages is that so few people ever notice them. I have a stump speech I give to school faculties about how Wikipedia works and very, very, few people have ever been on a Wikipedia talk page, even though it is the most radical, exciting, thing about Wikipedia, that the process of crafting information is transparent to readers of that information --- if only they ever clicked on the "talk" tab! So I think it is possible that "talk" might be seen by more people if it were on the same page. I also agree that using the standard comment interface within a Drupal site in which non-wiki content types have comments turned on, could be very confusing -- ("response" comments desired for one content-type "content-creation meta comments" for another). Keeping "talk" on the same page as the content might be less confusing with custom theming of the comments for wiki content-type, together with clear explanatory statements about what the purpose of the talk is. Given the success of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia design many use-cases would recommend us to clone the Wikimedia style so that "Wiki" expectations would be met by the users. There are other populations for whom that UI cloning wouldn't be particularly helpful, and may be a barrier. Shai On 3/9/08, Ari Davidow <aridavidow@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding "Talk" -- from a UI perspective I think it is one of the worst
things about mediawiki. I think that Drupal's stock comments implementation on the same page as the node is much better than having a talk page on a separate page.
We may have to disagree here. I think of the "talk" page as a place for meta-discussion--discussion about an article, say, if we were to use the MediaWiki example. I would want "comments", were they implemented for a page (MediaWiki doesn't do this, presumably on the assumption that non-meta comments belong as edits in the article) to refer to the =subject= of the article.
So, if I write a page on klezmer, and you make some edits with which I disagree, the "talk" page is a good place to hash out administrativia, but if you and I have different views on klezmer, the "comments" section would be a good place for the two of us to discuss (along with anyone else who joined in).
Does this make any sense?
-- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
participants (3)
-
Ari Davidow -
Earnie Boyd -
Shai Gluskin