Talk:Rape rape vs. "rape" rape - Revision history

Etenne at 13:37, 5 May 2016

2016-05-05T13:37:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:37, 5 May 2016
Line 31:		Line 31:

	::: Could this article be rewritten in a more academic style? Sure it could. But the ''more'' "academic" that it becomes, the ''less'' "accessible" it becomes. Is that what BoyWiki ''really'' wants? Articles that ordinary people ''cannot'' understand? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 22:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		::: Could this article be rewritten in a more academic style? Sure it could. But the ''more'' "academic" that it becomes, the ''less'' "accessible" it becomes. Is that what BoyWiki ''really'' wants? Articles that ordinary people ''cannot'' understand? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 22:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
			::::Untimely boundaries need to be set and some standards do have to be maintained. This isn't the darknet or the anything goes wiki. It isn't a message board where people can post their opinions (often about things they know nothing about) BoyWiki has a specific purpose and mission. Irregardless of the subject matter of this entry, an article written in this style would have been deleted withing 15 mins of being posted on most other wikis. Did I do that? No. I found it a home under Category:Life. However if you feel that is inadequate, feel free to post it to another wiki where it may be more appreciated and in-line with their mission. It is free world after all. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 13:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User4: Conversational style vs. Academic style of writing--both equally factual, but one "easy-to-read" and the other very hard to read.

2016-05-04T23:18:04Z

Conversational style vs. Academic style of writing--both equally factual, but one "easy-to-read" and the other very hard to read.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 4 May 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::: Is this article "factual"? Yes. It contains a large number of facts, all of which can be confirmed through researching the topics.		::: Is this article "factual"? Yes. It contains a large number of facts, all of which can be confirmed through researching the topics.

	::: Is this article written in a stilted, "academic" style, with lots of big words, and long and twisty sentences? No. It is written in a ''conversational'' style, a style that ~~make~~ it very easy for the average person with a high-school diploma to read and understand it.		::: Is this article written in a stilted, "academic" style, with lots of big words, and long and twisty sentences? No. It is written in a ''conversational'' style, a style that makes it very easy for the average person with a high-school diploma to read and understand it.

	::: Too often academics try to "impress" their readers with the large vocabularies they have and their skills at creating long, grammatically correct (though often run-on) sentences. OK--if that's what they want to do, that's just fine. But then ''only other well-educated academics will be able to read and understand what they write!''		::: Too often academics try to "impress" their readers with the large vocabularies they have and their skills at creating long, grammatically correct (though often run-on) sentences. OK--if that's what they want to do, that's just fine. But then ''only other well-educated academics will be able to read and understand what they write!''

User4 at 22:48, 4 May 2016

2016-05-04T22:48:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 4 May 2016
Line 19:		Line 19:
	::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
	:::Hopefully what I just spent several hours putting together will be of some help [[Help:Encyclopedia]] and answer some of your questions. I will go back and try to address your issues point by point later. I am sort of burnt out right now.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 18:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		:::Hopefully what I just spent several hours putting together will be of some help [[Help:Encyclopedia]] and answer some of your questions. I will go back and try to address your issues point by point later. I am sort of burnt out right now.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 18:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

			::: Is this article "factual"? Yes. It contains a large number of facts, all of which can be confirmed through researching the topics.

			::: Is this article written in a stilted, "academic" style, with lots of big words, and long and twisty sentences? No. It is written in a ''conversational'' style, a style that make it very easy for the average person with a high-school diploma to read and understand it.

			::: Too often academics try to "impress" their readers with the large vocabularies they have and their skills at creating long, grammatically correct (though often run-on) sentences. OK--if that's what they want to do, that's just fine. But then ''only other well-educated academics will be able to read and understand what they write!''

			::: Is BoyWiki about communicating important facts in a way that the the ordinary person can ''understand'' them, or about impressing the academic elite?

			::: If someone thinks that articles on BoyWiki are going to "impress the academic elite" they are sorely mistaken. Much ''better'' articles ''already exist'' in academic journals which address the issues surrounding BoyLovers. Unfortunately, most are written to impress others belonging to the "academic elite" and so the ordinary person can't understand what they say.

			::: Could this article be rewritten in a more academic style? Sure it could. But the ''more'' "academic" that it becomes, the ''less'' "accessible" it becomes. Is that what BoyWiki ''really'' wants? Articles that ordinary people ''cannot'' understand? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 22:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Etenne at 18:53, 4 May 2016

2016-05-04T18:53:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 4 May 2016
Line 18:		Line 18:

	::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
			:::Hopefully what I just spent several hours putting together will be of some help [[Help:Encyclopedia]] and answer some of your questions. I will go back and try to address your issues point by point later. I am sort of burnt out right now.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 18:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User4 at 18:40, 4 May 2016

2016-05-04T18:40:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 4 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is an personal experience/editorial entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. [[Help:Encyclopedia\|Encyclopedia articles]] are '''factual articles''' written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		This is an personal experience/editorial entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. [[Help:Encyclopedia\|Encyclopedia articles]] are '''factual articles''' written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
			:
			::Uh, I'm kind of confused now...

			::For example, if somebody is interested in finding out the strange things about the ''laws'' regarding BoyLove, they are likely to go to the Law category, aren't they?
			:::Is the article about the strange things about how the law applies to BoyLovers? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Law]]</nowiki>

			::For example, if somebody is interested in finding out about the strange ways that ''psychologists'' view BoyLove, they are likely to go to the Psychology category, aren't they?
			:::Is the article about the ''strange ways'' that psychologists view BoyLove? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Psychology]]</nowiki>

			::For example, if somebody is interested in ''curious things'' about how BoyLove ''sexuality'' is viewed by society, they are likely to go to the Sexuality category, aren't they?
			:::Is the article about BoyLove sexuality? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Sexuality]]</nowiki>

			::For example, if somebody is interested in reading about the personal experiences of BoyLovers, they are likely to go to the Personal experiences category, aren't they?
			:::Is the article about the ''personal experiences'' of one particular BoyLover? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Personal experiences]]</nowiki>

			::But stop a moment, and ask yourself this: If someone is interested in ''strange things'' about the ''laws'' regarding BoyLove, or about how ''psychologists'' view ''BoyLovers,'' or about how ''BoyLover sexuality'' is viewed by ''society,'' they are '''''not''''' likely to go to the Personal experiences category to find those things, are they? Tell the truth--is that category that '''''you''''' would go to, to find those things?

			::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Etenne at 16:05, 4 May 2016

2016-05-04T16:05:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 4 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is an personal experience/editorial entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are '''factual articles''' written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		This is an personal experience/editorial entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. [[Help:Encyclopedia\|Encyclopedia articles]] are '''factual articles''' written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Etenne at 14:28, 4 May 2016

2016-05-04T14:28:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:28, 4 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is an personal experience entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are '''factual articles''' written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		This is an personal experience/editorial entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are '''factual articles''' written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Etenne: Created page with "This is an personal experience entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are '''factual articles''' written with the..."

2016-05-04T14:27:31Z

Created page with "This is an personal experience entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are '''factual articles''' written with the..."

New page

This is an personal experience entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are '''factual articles''' written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|50 px|link=Etenne]] 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)