I asked for the wikitext for the related sites conventions page from before its deletion, and since it's the weekend and I'm re-reading it to add to the story of Orb, I might as well just make something that technically counts as a response to this:
Any attempt to write a detailed description of what I think results in a severe case of brain-explodey syndrome, so I'll just say this:
This is so close to my thoughts about communication in general. Distilling the main part of them into one sentence: The average person will perform an exact communication exactly zero times in their life, and I don't think we should be pretending otherwise. The emphasis is more on "don't pretend you can communicate exactly what you intend" than "try your hardest to communicate exactly what you intend".
[...] This means that the logical arguments behind "related", "notable", "adjacent", "relevant" (and any other terms used to define a handful of websites that don't deserve to be here) are fundamentally flawed, which is worsened even more by the fact none of these terms are defined and it could spend months (or even forever!) to get a good, universally accepted definition.
Any attempt to write a detailed description of what I think results in a severe case of brain-explodey syndrome, so I'll just say this:
This is so close to my thoughts about communication in general. Distilling the main part of them into one sentence: The average person will perform an exact communication exactly zero times in their life, and I don't think we should be pretending otherwise. The emphasis is more on "don't pretend you can communicate exactly what you intend" than "try your hardest to communicate exactly what you intend".
Comments
-
exact communication is difficult, and isn't always necessary, but in cases on the ""related sites"" it definitely was necessary to have a good definition (which when there wasn't, caused the unintentional side effect of related sites being unnecessary and flawed)
the difference between general communication and the related sites is that in the case of related sites, it was on the Darflen Wiki. the main argument of the pro-related sites side was that since the other websites had an impact (well, not always, but those got removed) on Darflen, they would've been justified to add. however, when the criteria for justification can't be decided (even after an attempt like the related sites conventions), this makes it possible to add almost any website onto related sites (i think because of the butterfly effect? that's what i said right?).
(and i'm not even going to start with the fact that it's strictly the Darflen Wiki because that gets disregarded every time, but that is another issue too)
also:
"I asked for the wikitext for the related sites conventions page from before its deletion,"
does that mean that the deletion of related sites was announced somewhere
1. The impact was the priority, not the mention of the sites themselves. I wasn't saying "The websites should be added because they had an impact", I was saying "The impact should be added, and the best way I've found so far is Related sites". It's pretty difficult to communicate why you think a site is important to add when it's not even the site you want to add to the wiki, it's the impact the site had on Darflen.
1.1. And I meant that the time I asked for the wikitext was after it was deleted, but the time the wikitext came from was before it was deleted. (It should have been announced, though.)
2. I had no intention of discussing about Related sites again. I realized the impact of wasteof and Meower (the only two sites that were on the page before it was deleted iirc) would fit perfectly onto the darflen history page. It would maybe be slightly harder to give the surrounding context, but it puts more emphasis on the impact than the site itself, which is what I wanted. After that, I stopped caring about Related sites.
2.1. And this is what the criteria for justification is based on. Now it's much more clear-cut that SoktDeer, the TBG Forums, Blaze, etc. aren't a good fit. Or at least I think it is (I don't think anyone would say you could use the butterfly effect to add anything into that page). If not, expect some more Conventions.
3. This is kind of the exact point of "don't pretend you can communicate exactly what you intend". I can't give a good definition, because I know there is none. All that can be done is revising the conventions indefinitely to get closer and closer but never exactly the idea. I've heard that this is also how science, laws (in theory), and almost everything else we consider universally-agreed upon work. I can't say what I mean, I can only clarify indefinitely (i.e. what this reply is doing).
Anyway I've delayed both my schoolwork and "Darflen Wiki:Joke pages/Orb/Potentially recovered article" enough