From MozillaZine Knowledge Base

Hi. Decided to drop you a note here. As you see I wrote some stuff on the fans page.

Cool. Thanks.

Now regarding the fans project: When I first saw and read about it, I was simply utterly confused. I had noting to say, since just grasping the words was a task in and by it self (this was a long time ago). Now I recently looked back at this wiki, and saw that you were still hard at work with this project. After browsing through the pages, getting utterly confused with your URLs and images, I finally thought I got the jist of it and wrote that paragraph on the FANS page so anyone else looking there wouldn't have the hard time I had.

Useful. Thanks.

Now that said, the page is A LOT, and I mean an ass load, easier to understand. You are most certainly moving in the right direction using categories like spot, write, post instead of longer sentences containing words non-marketing-gurus won't understand (ie memes).

Right. Meme Host needs to change, probably to Place and Author, treated separately. And there are other opportunities to simplify. (If I or someone else could write a custom webapp/software, I think it would be a whole lot easier to use. But that'll have to come later.)

Now if I understood correctly you are planning on using the wiki as an army of writers, collaborating in writing rebuttals/corrections to misinformed articles, aka _constructive criticism_.

An army of Spotters, Writers, and Posters (and Minders). Writers will primarily write NPOV -- ie commentary that can be posted in all sorts of situations, eg as a response to friendly questions, and an initial post in a new location, as well as rebuttals.

This sounds like an exellent grassroots movement, and I applaud your energy in making it happen. I am very willing to help out when I have the time, and as I have followed mozilla for a number of years and even submitted a few trivial patches, I believe I can be of some assistance. Unfortunately I don't like writing very much, and English is not my first (or second) language, so I'll probably not be one of the main authors.

Based on what I've seen, you write better than most of those whose first language is English. It would be easy for others to polish anything that needs polishing. However, not having time/desire is a killer. But anything you contribute in these early days will of course be endlessly amplified as FANS grows over the next few years. (Even if it's just me doing it!)

Good luck! The direction you are moving in, mainly clarification and cristallization of your ideas, is most certainly the right one. I'll add my .02€ whenever I feel the need to. Koody 09:48, 13 Jul 2004 (PDT)~

Thanks.

PS: How do you feel about using the word objective in most places instead of NPOV. Using acronyms where they aren't necessary (especially when trying to explain something new to a person) might make things seem overly complicated. Koody 10:46, 13 Jul 2004 (PDT)

Sounds like a good idea. I used NPOV because I needed to pick a term, and the concept was exactly as defined by, and so well known to, Wikipedians. Before I go make the change, could you checkout the Wikipedia meaning (most notably, NPOV isn't about providing a single "objective" viewpoint, but rather a factual discussion of all relevant and prevalent viewpoints) then consider what other terms FANS could use? Some options, from my most to least favorite: Neutral, Non-partisan, Balanced, Factual, Objective, Fair, Diplomatic.

Do you ever sleep? ;-) Where do you live?

Nope. On the net. ;) US resident. In the UK at the moment.

How about not replacing the NPOV links with the same word every time. You could vary the word used, sometimes explaining it in more detail, other times not. Then you could have something like "Writing guidlines" where you would really explain that the articles need to be NPOV (an article similar to the Wikipedia article perhaps?).

Personally I think that at this stage the emphasis shouldn't be on an articles integrity but on simply getting people interested in Fans and getting the project on its feet. Integrity is important, but writing a separate article about it and using words anyone can understand is in my opinion a more effective way to reach the goal.

Finally, I think you are more qualified to select the word(s) you wish to use than I am. After all, this is your baby.

I agree with deferring talk of integrity until a writer is about to write, a poster about to post. I don't (yet) agree with deferring such talk until we've got a few writes/posts under our belt. I'm not trying to promote FANS yet. I've only mentioned it in a couple fairly quiet places. While I did want some feedback, and I very much appreciate yours, FANS is definitely not ready for prime time yet. I've no doubt I'll get the project on its feet. I set some goals a few months back in FANS/Firefox. I'm confident I'll achieve the goals I set. I feel that the integrity we *actually* achieve isn't important, but what we're *trying* to achieve is. I feel that there's too high a risk that we'll produce endless spam if I don't set the right tone right from the very start. If I can't get one other person to help me a bit within the next 2-4 weeks, I'll reconsider. Of course, if someone else wants to use FANS, they can use it however they want, no matter what I say. I'm just one voice, even if it's "my baby", even if by edit chronology and volume I am first and loudest. raiph 15:53, 13 Jul 2004 (PDT)

I'm considering researching the shell bug a bit and 'starting' an article about it.

 ;) That would be absolutely brilliant. Note my replies to FANS#Example 2. raiph 15:53, 13 Jul 2004 (PDT)