Talk:History of the Morningside Heights campus

From WikiCU
Jump to: navigation, search

Split this into several articles

  • I think we should. Admin 23:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


Much of this is Tao's original scholarship, isn't it. I know this is a Wiki but I think he should get some credit. Feinstein 21:25, 11 March 2007 (PDT)

Yup, this was his project for McCaughey's Social History of Columbia University class. Absentminded 21:26, 11 March 2007 (PDT)
Tao's been looking for somewhere to dump all that information for a long time.
Whatever you all want.. I'm indifferent either way. Wang's right: I'm just glad for someplace to put it, and I'm sure others will add to it. My project, for example, has a definite focus on the buildings that were not built, as much as the buildings that were.Ttan 11:06, 16 March 2007 (PDT)
I've created Template:Credit and used it on this article. What do you think? Admin 12:53, 16 March 2007 (PDT)
Eh, not bad, but could you put it down at the bottom? Thanks.Ttan 14:42, 16 March 2007 (PDT)
Not much need for a template then. I deleted Template:Credit. Admin 15:57, 16 March 2007 (PDT)
I disagree with this type of credit. I think that Tao definitely deserves recognition for all this research, but this is a wiki. The hope is that people will add and edit this and it will evolve over time, meaning Tao does not have individual claim over this. Is his original paper posted online somewhere? Can it be credited through citations to that? Nonsensical 18:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I think all of Tao's research was on his website at one point, but it's empty now.  − Reaganaut  18:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Also, I don't think mentioning Tao as a significant contributor will at all discourage new contributions. Fewer people will notice his name at the bottom of the article than if citations were peppered throughout the article.  − Reaganaut  18:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not so much concerned about it discouraging people to contribute, I just think it will soon become inaccurate to give such personalized credit to Tao Tan as people contribute and the article evolves. This doesn't apply just to this article, but to this practice in general. I feel it's contrary to the spirit of a wiki (and yes, I know "it's not Wikipedia") because as I understand wiki's, the whole point is that it's the collective knowledge of a community and not the work of one person in particular. Nonsensical 19:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, so we'll remove the attribution to Tao (or just move it to the talk page) as soon as the article(s) start to look rather different to what Tao wrote. How does that sound?  − Reaganaut  19:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This wiki is a little different. There's no pride of ownership, but there's also no harm in acknowledging good work. And who is to decide what the spirit of a wiki is? A wiki is nothing more than a tool for content management. Feinstein 19:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Meh, I still feel like this is unwise practice. So you're saying that if people write articles largely from their own research (though with zero citations, might I point out), they can stamp their claim on it until someone else arbitrarily decides that the community has diluted it enough to warrant removing the credit? I feel like if a reader is genuinely interested in who contributed what, that's exactly what the history feature is for. Nonsensical 19:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Original page, with citations (that were too hard to transfer over). Also, I didn't "stamp my claim" on this; someone else attributed it to me, which I do appreciate nonetheless :-D. Ttan 09:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools