Talk:Wikisocion home

topics

Well, I think we have all possible topics covered in the sections. I don't foresee adding any more in the near term. The list is basically identical to the Russian site (there they also have a "Services" section). (Admin 05:44, 31 May 2007 (CDT))

robots

I've just been fixing odds and ends for thirty minutes. We need a robot to do this. Niffweed17 20:32, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

inane question

How do I add new topics to categories, as in a new Stratiyevskaya description? Expat 03:03, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Enter the title of your new page in "search" and press "go." Then choose the "create page" option. At the end of the new page, type in "[[Category:Whatever]] where "Whatever" is the category name. You can find the appropriate category name at the bottom of other pages from the category. (Admin 07:26, 9 June 2007 (CDT))

semantics project

I've been wanting to add a project where we collect real-life statements that come from different psychic functions. Should we make this a separate section with eight pages, or leave it as is (a section at the bottom of each page on introverted logic, extraverted ethics, etc.)? (Admin 10:47, 9 June 2007 (CDT))

"real life statements?" exactly how is a statement a direct manifestation of an information aspect? Niffweed17 13:31, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Maybe a better title for those sections can be found. They are phrases or statements that reflect the viewpoint of one of the psychic functions. This is along the lines of the Semantics of the Information Aspects, but focusing more on whole statements rather than on single words (I think this will be more productive than listing separate words, which are very often ambiguous). (Admin 14:37, 9 June 2007 (CDT))

I still don't fully see the point of this sort of excercise. The semantics of information elements article suggests certain peculiarities of speech such as (i am making these up) "Ti uses extensively rigorous grammatical syntax" and "Te types often talk about efficiency." These might be valid ideas, but why not simply include them on the pages for the individual functions themselves? How this translates into individual phrases or words is beyond me. Niffweed17 20:52, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

The point of it is to concreticize understanding of the functions and develop a methodological basis for evaluating how much different people use each function, which can develop into a typing method. I am building up my own 'dictionary' where I enter comments that clearly come from a certain information aspect, and I'd like to make this a public project somehow. "Te types often talk about efficiency" isn't enough, in my opinion. There need to be examples proposed of people talking about efficiency in a Te way. This wiki is a more convenient place to do it than a forum. (Admin 01:40, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

So all you're doing is presenting examples of manifestations of the way types/information elements communicate? such a project doesn't have any business on an encyclopedia, IMO. Niffweed17 15:35, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't understand why you're saying examples don't belong in an encyclopedia. Are you saying we should have only abstract definitions of concepts with no examples? That's ridiculous. We have a number of projects going on here which are of the same nature -- for example, the category on famous people's types where participants are collecting and presenting arguments for and against different type versions. These arguments can be discussed, edited, countered, etc. How is that different from having a section on semantic expressions of different information aspects where people collect different expressions and real-life statements and relate them to different aspects? (Admin 15:43, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

Now that you mention it, these other projects don't really belong on an encyclopedia either. I suppose, however, that if you're going to use this wiki to suit the needs of the socionics community rather than create a perfect encyclopedia on the subject, then go for it. Niffweed17 17:48, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it needs to be useful in addition to providing encyclopedic accuracy. There needs to be room for community discussion and pursuing some of the loose ends of socionics, which you wouldn't normally find in an encyclopedia, since encyclopedias basically present a field as a finished set of knowledge. (Admin 17:54, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

In a sense, that's what the forum/blog/etc. are for. In my mind, this is useful as a repository of information as to what is already known. But whatever. Niffweed17 17:58, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

The only purely encyclopedic section of Wikisocion is the section on classical socionics, where we're describing things that are already known. Even there, the pages on the 8 psychic functions are collaborative rather than describing what is already known. There are a lot of intermediary tasks that are easier to perform here than on a forum or blog, like building vocabulary lists and type descriptions, accumulating argumentation, etc. We can combine both a and a approach to amassing knowledge. (Admin 18:14, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

Okay, I think I'd like to move all the semantic phrases to a special page called "semantics" or something like that so that they can freely be expanded and easily compared to one another. I'll do this when I have the time, or someone else can do it first. (Admin 19:36, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

socioscope

Rick, perhaps you could add socioscope.com to the Russian sites, I think it's quite a good little site, the descriptions are very good imo.Expat 07:46, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Added it to the Russian links. (Admin 08:09, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

ongoing projects

What are the conditions to put something on category Ongoing projects ? Machintruc 07:19, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd just add it and see what happens. If you're iffy maybe discuss it on the talk page first. It doesn't seem like anyones being too much of a stickler for policy or whatnot here (which IMO is a good thing) so I'd just be bold. Bionicgoat 11:53, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

long dashes

Cool that we now know how to put them in ( — ). Is there a shorter way, by any chance? --Admin 03:53, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

To add long dashes? I don't think so; I got that from Wikipedia's Main page. <nowiki> only applies to the MediaWiki code; ampersand syntax is HTML. Thehotelambush 05:22, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Software changes

Now that the main page has been moved, I realize that "MWiki" is probably stored as the name of this wiki, and can be changed. There are other changes I'd like to make as well. Rick, what kind of access do you have to the site software? Thehotelambush 22:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I am trying to figure out how to change that "MWiki" as we speak. No success so far. I have complete access to the software and welcome suggestions. I wish I could get rid of the extra /~wikisoci in the URLS and switch to short URLs rather than "?title=". --Admin 02:01, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

This might help. Thehotelambush 14:46, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

This is the relevant official page from MediaWiki. The wiki name is stored as $wgSitename in LocalSettings.php. Though we should make sure that changing the wiki name doesn't wipe out the current namespace MWiki, or, even better, backup the pages therein first (there are only 4, plus 2 talk pages). Thehotelambush 14:57, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

ok, I've backed up all the pages as text files. Thehotelambush 15:12, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Important: The preferred way to change settings is to edit pages ("messages") in the MediaWiki namespace. List of all of them here, and the equivalent Wikipedia page here, for reference. For instance, if you want to change the sidebar, edit the MediaWiki:Sidebar page. Only admins can do this. Thehotelambush 15:28, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Restoring content

Are there still pages that have to be restored? -- CheGuevara

"Fundamentals"

Not a terribly big issue, but if someone were to carefully read the texts under "Fundamentals," what would they know about socionics? Very little. That's why I favor a renaming of this section, and in general I am against having them at the top of the page, as if they were the most important things for a visitor to Wikisocion to read. Having them at the top presents a kind of bias — that these texts where socionics is not mentioned are more important that specifically socionics-related articles and texts. I don't necessarily disagree (or agree), but for a site dedicated specifically to socionics, that seems a strange position to take. Therefore I favor demoting their position on the home page and renaming the heading to more accurately reflect their place in contemporary socionics. --Admin 08:59, 11 February 2012 (GMT)

I agree. Perhaps "Origins" would be a better heading? Linked 02:58, 17 February 2012 (GMT)