Fabuloso Friday/MetaFabuloso

From zefrank

Jump to: navigation, search

This is mainly intended for technical discussion about how to work this wiki.



I suggest we just add

 :* '''VOTE''' by ~~~: And here we comment like this is the best one!!

This will look like this

  • VOTE by Gelbi: Yeah, very good idea!

For the knowledge section, I suggest we use only pro-votes... so you can't vote down something. But for yes and know (sic) questions like this one: Should the Knowledge section have only pro-votes?

  • YES by Gelbi: but I don't really care that much...

Changing other peoples votes and plain vandalism

So how do we guard against people who are outright vandalizing??? Can we set up some other poll mechanism, or do we just move each poll to a separate page, where it's easier to detect stuff??

  • Eh. It's just bound to happen in a wiki; if we do this again we should probably use something that's non-editable after an entry for polling (I could whip something up if anyone's interested for next time), but it's just bound to happen in the wiki. We just have to make sure to check the history comments for a section to make sure we haven't missed any vandalism. - NightThree 18:07, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
  • I would really like to see you come up with something that logs whenever someone edits a poll, and maybe even only allows the poller to edit the part that they edited before. I doubt that would be even possible, but we need to figure out an easy way to expose vandalism so that we don't have to have people scouring the histories for it instead. ThinkBig
  • By the way, good job catching a lot of that in the first show, NightThree. Bobbie mac 12:38, 14 June 2006 (PDT)
  • Why thank you! - NightThree 16:52, 14 June 2006 (PDT)

Changing votes

I suggest not allowing votes to change! This is not done in any election procedure I know of. Of course, in such procedures you also don't see how others vote and new candidates don't appear after you have voted. I think moving votes around causes too much confusion and can be used to manipulate the result... However since I doubt people will actually abuse this power, I don't see any real problems actually... well, I'll leave it NOT allowed for now, but feel free to change it, unless someone else again feels it can be dangerous. --Gelbi 05:45, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

  • The wiki model leans more toward 'poll' than 'vote'. The ability to change your vote is an important part of the concensus building process. People need the freedom to be able to change their mind in response to arguments that come after they vote. Do not change anyone else's vote (that's easy to spot in the history) but feel free to change your vote if you change your mind. Please use strikethrough on your prior vote, don't delete. muyfabulosotalk 13:51, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
  • I only changed one vote, but it was when Malaise made a plea for Sudanese Genocide as somethign with political bite. So I think the key with votes is to make them editable up to a certain threshold (time or number of votes) at which point they are counted. Hokie
  • I agree, changing votes is a good thing to have. Why make people stick to bad descisions? 19:22, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
  • Sometimes your vote needs to change because what you're voting on changed!  :) Worrydream 19:30, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
I like thee strikethrough idea "If you want your vote "removed", use a strike-through (<strike></strike>)" 19:32, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
Starting next time, let's use that. I like the idea. - NightThree 19:34, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

Voting Times

All votes need to be left open for at least 24 hours. Ze's audience is a global one, I found some major voting issues were entirely conducted between the time I went to bed and the time I woke up. Even in the US there will be people who can only visit late at night or early in the morning. Snap votes open for a few hours suck the democracy out of this project.

And who decides when an issue is ready to be voted on?

Require registration to vote?

Should we only count votes by registered users?

  • YES by Gelbi: Of course, they have contributed more!
This has been edited out of context, that reason was just a fill in, as I had explined above that the reason registration would be helpful is to distinguish real from fake people. Ideally, we should get every real persons vote...
  • YES by CeruleanNinja: ...because, even if someone is going to try to cheat by adding multiple votes, creating a new account (without history) will be a drag.
  • I say no - we should allow votes from anyone that wants to vote. if a hard charger decides to fuck up the show- then so be it - everyone should be equal - with registered users not being more equal than others. sepll cehck
  • YES by Rocco: Of course. If you care enough to vote, care enough to register.
  • Yes, only votes by registered users. Easier control of sock-puppets that way. Hokie
  • NO! anyone must be able to vote. The person determining the vote can use discretion (and the history page) if anything seems amiss. Anyone can create an account every ten seconds and vote with a different name too -- the only thing a registration requirement actually does is (discourage voting. It's really not a hard problem to spot fraud in practice. The wiki model is more "concensus" than simple vote counting just for this reason. That said everyone should register. It makes the wiki more fun. muyfabulosotalk 13:56, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
  • NO I was going to say YES at first, but after reading muyfabulosotalk's point I have to agree with the fact that what makes wikis strong is that everyone has consensus. However, there needs to be something put into place to help protect against vandalism. --ThinkBig
  • NO - I agree with muyfabuloso. And who says registered users do more? 18:32, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
How bout this: "If a user does more, theyve probably registered" NOT "If a user is registered, theyve probably done more.". 18:48, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
A distinction without a difference. Here's a http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/historyflow visualization from some friends who do wiki research at IBM (done earlier today): see this picture. Read Aaron or Gelbi's entries and weep, if you have any egalitarian fantasies left. Don't be peddling your 'We're all equal' stuff 'round here; wikis privelege the dedicated. Get used to it. (And register yourself, so I can give you a dorky bio and we can start taking you seriously...)
Not going to reply past this but "A distinction without a difference" makes me think you don't know the difference between a correlation and cause and effect. 19:08, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
I have a wikipedia account, and I know why people get accounts. I just don't think I want an account here. And I didn't mean "who says registered users do more on average?". I'm sure there are plenty of non-reg users that do more than some registereds.
Not to mention, you cant compare Aaron or Gelbi's entries to most other users - nonregs or regs. So don't play "I'm a statistician" and blow bogus crap out your keyboard. And I don't think your pic really tells anthing about reg vs nonregs. It shows downwards of 40 users. 18:47, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
Getting a bit defensive, aren't you? You have got not a leg to stand on, since the balance of edits between registered to unregistered users has tipped decisively in favor of registration. You're whining about it here, because you don't want to look at the history page. Hokie
For what it's worth, it's my plan to count unregistered votes. There have been a couple of IPs that made fairly regular good contributions (some, of course, are complete hard chargers). I don' think they'll swing the vote hugely, either. --AaronStJ 18:50, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
Sounds like a good idea. I'll try to be more of a registered-user-like nonreg. 19:08, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
  • NO, I would really like to vote, and I don't want to bother registering. I may be a lazy bastard, but I'm still a sports racer. -- 19:35, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

  • NO by John , I would really like to vote, and I don't want to bother registering. I may be a lazy bastard, but I'm still an angry beaver. Also, I'm not the guy above me. Im just too lazy too actually think up my own comments. Also, we really need to make the votes editable only by thier creators; i.e. God, duckies, etc.
  • NO I think people should register, but I'd rather get the broader range of opinions even at the risk of vandalism and shenanigans. Bobbie mac 20:09, 14 June 2006 (PDT)

Voting against

I think that voting against an issue is an important way to vote - especially if you have no opinion on other chioces, but have a negative opinion of one specific choice. 19:27, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

Power Contributors

I nominate AaronStJ as head writer...

  • I don't think we need to nominate, he already is :) Great work, Aaron! --Gelbi 19:24, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
  • I think I'm more of a head script doctor. --AaronStJ 19:37, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
  • Although I appreciate the work Aaron has done, the concept of a head writer seems antithetical to the point of Fabuloso Friday. We are to make the show together, as a unified Sports Racer front. Should we need executive authority to settle disputes, we have Ze.
  • DENNIS: I told you, We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs. But a two-thirds majority ... ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to shut up!--ThinkBig
  • Ze, from what I've seen in his other social creativity ventures, likes to minimise his intervention in processes.
  • I agree, and claim absolutely no authority. Just a lot of free time. --AaronStJ 19:50, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
  • There will invariably be a power law distribution of contributions, so it doesn't matter if it seems antithetical, since that's how social systems work. It just looks like ASJ is #1 this week. Later weeks, if there are later FF weeks, may be different. User:HokieMokie

Do we need them? And what for? For the first FF there was a need for people to step in and essentially create management processes off their own bat, but in the future? This is an issue that could cause a lot of anger if the decision is not made carefully and honestly.


Fabuloso Friday
Fabuloso Friday

Is there a way for us to impliment actual voting on this?

this is where you make the show for me, dammit.. be as specific as possible - for example "s-s-s-something from the comments" ain't enough...gimme the script.

  • But the point of s-s-s.f.t.c. is that it's from the previous day, so you'll just have to accept a placeholder until Thursday night. Nerve-wracking, I know, but if you want to just be the talent, you gotta let the writers do their work...

the point? who made that rule? sports racers don't follow arbitrary rules.

  • Easy there, hard charger -- it's a de facto rule. You can violate it if you want, but it will be less funny if you do...

(Do u want us can maybe to make video clips the also?) <-- This guy should write the whole script! 'Haha now thats funny...'

  • sure - you can upload short videos to the gallery...

Where is the brainstorming page?

I think it's too long in its current form -- anyone able to time it? Trim sections, or cut a section?

It's about 5:30 right now. I think Ze wants it under 3:00. I'd rather have too much material and then trim it down at the last minute, though. We should develop all the good segments as much as possible. Maybe we can re-use some next Friday. AaronStJ 15:30, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
Who says it can't be 5:30? It's our day and he has to do what we want! *evil grin*

I vote we eliminate the whole bible-virgin thing. Not really in Ze's style, and not really all that funny. Well, the Virginity-D&D thing was a riot, but the whole bloody-cloth was pretty dumb.

Me votes in support of the moving of S-s-s-something from the Bible, not fatally, though. It definitely has potential for next week... perhaps with added intellectual gravitas?... --CeruleanNinja
I added the cloth stuff and we can remove it, but mind you, it's not dumb at all, it seems to be the truth! Really, I'm not joking! It is a bit controversial, but it seems like even some jewish scholars agree on this. It's not funny, but it's shocking, if it is accurate. --Gelbi 19:35, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
I was under the impression the parents kept the sheets from the wedding bed. Either way, it's pretty out there, and I think it's in character. --AaronStJ 19:39, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
I think you are right and I was misguided, it was an anti-christian source claiming jewish scholars agree. Well, we'll see! --Gelbi 20:03, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
We'll leave it for now, and cut it late Thursday if it still sucks and we need to cut material. Same goes for any unfunny section. Except aggresively unfunny sections. --AaronStJ 19:31, 6 June 2006 (PDT)

About our working schedule

This is a good place to discuss a few policy questions, like how to decide on the stories and when...

I think we should let everybody roam quite freely until tomorrow. Then maybe do some voting. Or do we need all talent to focus already? I think it's better, if people work on what they like for now. --Gelbi 06:23, 7 June 2006 (PDT)

Random comments, our little shoutbox

I'd better go to sleep (it's like 5 in the morning), it has been incredible fun editing this with you guys. Seems like Ze attracts a really intelligent audience. --Gelbi 20:20, 6 June 2006 (PDT)

The lonelies are no longer such. Geekiness is good, embrace it. :) --CeruleanNinja
Embraced! And even if we differing opinions about the scripts, I still like your work... maybe in a previous life, we created an earth sandwitch together? --Gelbi 06:27, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
If everyone thought the same thoughts, there would be no Awesomeness, just plain old mediocrity. In fact, we did make a sarnie (that's how the Brits call it), and it was fantabulastic! With gherkins! --CeruleanNinja
thanks for all the work everybody's done! I voted and corrected some typos and learned way more about this wiki-thing than I ever expected to--though mostly it felt like stumbling through a maze with moveable walls. I wish work had been less busy this week so that I could have spent more time learning. shiftless
w00tw w00t w00t!!!1! -- shout outs to all and sundry. Ignoring the requirements of paying work hasn't been this much fun for a long time. Hokie

Organization - this wiki needs it

I've noticed that this wiki is like 120× harder to handle than wikipedia. This is probably because most people here don't use wikipedia, which makes it hard to get a consensus and discuss things. This site needs some major organization - and I want to propose a way to do it - just for the script writing:

  1. No comments on the script pages (comments go in discussion)
  2. Comments should be signed with four tildes ~~~~
  3. Voting can be for or against, and its strongly advised you write a reason for your vote next to it.
  1. Organize a main script into general topic sections that link to pages about those topics. On this page, only a general description of each topic should appear.
  2. Inside topic pages, have sections for subtopics
  3. Script lines (and topics on the general topic page) should be numbered
  4. Require no script-lines be deleted (unless they're vandalism), only indented+strike-throughed. The line number of indented+striken lines should remain for reference
  5. To unstrike a line, add a (discuss) button next to it linking to the discussion page for that page. A line may be unstriken with consensus.
  6. Lines that refer to another part of the script should give the page link and line number of the reference (ideas on how to format that?)

Comments? Fresheneesz 13:00, 9 June 2006 (PDT)


By now, most of you hipsters have heard about tagging. Flickr, Del.ico.us, etc. With wiki it is easy to tag. You can use categories, or you can use the What links here link on the lower left sidebar (by just using simple page links such as Example One). Just an idea, I am thrilled at the fun being had with this Jeffersonian Democracy, minus Jefferson. Mark

for example, I have shown how it could work in production of peices, Category:Fabuloso Friday 2
Personal tools