Difference between revisions of "Talk:HSNCT and its Problems"
Matt Weiner (talk | contribs) |
Matt Weiner (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| − | I don't really understand the recent trend of making articles that just summarize HSQB threads when people can read the HSQB threads. If someone wants to write a good piece on like "criticism of the HSNCT" and look at what issues people have raised over time and how NAQT has responded to those issues, with cites to various threads etc., that might make sense, | + | I don't really understand the recent trend of making articles that just summarize HSQB threads when people can read the HSQB threads. If someone wants to write a good piece on like "criticism of the HSNCT" and look at what issues people have raised over time and how NAQT has responded to those issues, with cites to various threads etc., that might make sense. Unlike Wikipedia the QBWiki does not ban "original research" or "synthesis" and I think pages that provide a unified view of the history of some issue (such as HSNCT controversies) would be welcome even if they feel somewhat "essay-like" and less like just reporting a list of facts, so long as they are a somewhat reasonable attempt to communicate something important about quizbowl. But, I don't see what's added by pages like this one, the haircut thread page, or the page on Tuhin's posts other than a new opportunity for people to get upset and argue about the original issue in the edit summaries and the talk page. [[User:Matt Weiner|Matt Weiner]] ([[User talk:Matt Weiner|talk]]) 15:04, 6 July 2021 (CDT) |
Revision as of 14:05, 6 July 2021
NAQT did not change its timing rules Jonah (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2021 (CDT)
I don't really understand the recent trend of making articles that just summarize HSQB threads when people can read the HSQB threads. If someone wants to write a good piece on like "criticism of the HSNCT" and look at what issues people have raised over time and how NAQT has responded to those issues, with cites to various threads etc., that might make sense. Unlike Wikipedia the QBWiki does not ban "original research" or "synthesis" and I think pages that provide a unified view of the history of some issue (such as HSNCT controversies) would be welcome even if they feel somewhat "essay-like" and less like just reporting a list of facts, so long as they are a somewhat reasonable attempt to communicate something important about quizbowl. But, I don't see what's added by pages like this one, the haircut thread page, or the page on Tuhin's posts other than a new opportunity for people to get upset and argue about the original issue in the edit summaries and the talk page. Matt Weiner (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2021 (CDT)