Group 3 Dispute Results: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
** Hm, I don't so much mean by coordinating that we need to formulate a single position as much as vet a few ideas/understand the controversy among ourselves so that we're helpful in resolving the dispute. [[User:Jumpingdeeps|Jumpingdeeps]] 21:20, 6 January 2008 (EST) | ** Hm, I don't so much mean by coordinating that we need to formulate a single position as much as vet a few ideas/understand the controversy among ourselves so that we're helpful in resolving the dispute. [[User:Jumpingdeeps|Jumpingdeeps]] 21:20, 6 January 2008 (EST) | ||
***I'll be on gchat for the next few hours - feel free to join a group discussion there (as Jumpingdeeps suggests). [[User:SÃ|sÃ]] 21:25, 6 January 2008 (EST) | ***I'll be on gchat for the next few hours - feel free to join a group discussion there (as Jumpingdeeps suggests). [[User:SÃ|sÃ]] 21:25, 6 January 2008 (EST) | ||
* Savith, Deepa, and myself are having come up with an alternative dispute to pursue, regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Proposed_trimming_of_quoted_text_on_News_Corp._purchase trimming a portion of quoted text in the Wall Street Journal article]. This seems to us to be somewhat more straightforward (in terms of figuring out the points at issue) and maybe better for our group to tackle. Thoughts? | |||
Revision as of 23:31, 6 January 2008
- I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamic_language would be an interesting dispute to get involved in--active and juicy. I'll post a comment on the talk page. If you guys think another topic would be better just post it here or by email and I'll participate later tonight (11pm-ish?). I totally forgot about this until now and promised by boyfriend I'd go salsa dancing-- sorry! Jendawson 17:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- i think the dispute is fine, my only concern is that all 5 of us have to comment individually according to the assignment, which makes for an unsightly/ungainly dispute resolution process. I think we should probably coordinate our responses so that we have some hope of resolution. Jumpingdeeps 18:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Looks like a good dispute to me, too, but I'll keep an eye out for others. Re: coordinating responses, I agree that it would probably be more effective if we all chime in with the same view (provided we all agree on that view). I also don't think we need to wait on other responses before posting our own, since it seems they are seeking input from any interested editors. Amehra 19:15, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Jen -- thanks for finding a good dispute. I spent about an hour earlier today looking for something interesting, and got hopelessly lost in all the acronyms & policy. Unfortunately, I have plans with my wife tonight and won't be around much, but will take a closer read and post some comments tomorrow morning. Incidentally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if we comment individually; however, if the group feels that we should formulate a single position, I'm game as well. Rlumpau 21:07, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Hm, I don't so much mean by coordinating that we need to formulate a single position as much as vet a few ideas/understand the controversy among ourselves so that we're helpful in resolving the dispute. Jumpingdeeps 21:20, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- I'll be on gchat for the next few hours - feel free to join a group discussion there (as Jumpingdeeps suggests). sà 21:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Hm, I don't so much mean by coordinating that we need to formulate a single position as much as vet a few ideas/understand the controversy among ourselves so that we're helpful in resolving the dispute. Jumpingdeeps 21:20, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Savith, Deepa, and myself are having come up with an alternative dispute to pursue, regarding trimming a portion of quoted text in the Wall Street Journal article. This seems to us to be somewhat more straightforward (in terms of figuring out the points at issue) and maybe better for our group to tackle. Thoughts?