 | |
- close
- close
|
Paper Money Page
Hi Marty,
Saw that you added some really cool stuff to the page you made on the origins of modern paper money. I found it interesting but a little hard to read because of the formatting. Have you read the Wikinvest Guide to Writing? It goes over some best practices for formatting articles such as this. Let me know if you have any questions.
Armcharles 13:58, May 22, 2009 (PDT)
Banking Laws
Hi there,
Also saw that you created a banking laws page with lots of links off. While interesting the content on the page stemmed from a biased opinion, as such I've deleted the page and moved the content to the discussion page of the Banking industry. Let me know if you have any questions.
Armcharles 14:06, May 22, 2009 (PDT)
Responses
Hi Marty,
Sorry about the delay, long weekend and all. Here are my responses to your questions:
- Regarding the origins of paper-money page, I didn't quite understand the significance of the numbers. If you want to break it out into paragraphs and use sections and subsections with equals sign notation, in general it is easier to navigate and consume. You can do this by naming your sections and putting ='s before and after the article. So it might looks like this:
==Section==
Here you have some text
===Sub-Section===
Here is a sub-topic for the above section.
==New Section==
Here is a totally different section of the article.
Does that make sense? The Guide to Writing does a better job explaining than I can.
- Whenever I get a new message on my page I get an e-mail, it should be the same for you. I tend to like corresponding via pages as it lets me see how the discussion has flowed.
- A concept page on Wikinvest, is a page that discusses something other than a stock that is in some way investable. So, for example, Gold is a concept page, as is Corn Prices. But so are less tangible things, like Renewable Energy. Think to yourself "is this something I could invest in, somehow?" and if the answer is generally "yes" then it's likely a concept page.
- There is nothing at all wrong with bias, it's just that all of our pages landing page (the neutral tab) are supposed to be neutral and un-biased. This is because as the content is community created, a non-biased voice is the only way to effectively leverage EVERYONE'S input. To make up for the lack of bias, we've tried to build it in elsewhere on the site. The bulls/bears section is supposed to be biased, and the discussion page is also biased. We don't consider the discussion page any sort of "purgatory" instead, we'd like that page to inform the discussion that will ultimately improve the content on the neutral page.
- I like your suggestion for making "contrary opinions" as flagged edits, but we can't do that automatically. One thing you can do, however, is build a new section into a neutral article and title the section something like:"The Case for XYZ" or "The Case Against XYZ" and then explain why a proponent or detractor of a given practice or set of practices believes what they do. In this case, it is fine for you to hold that opinion it just needs to be presented on the neutral article as transparently as possible. Does that make sense?
- Thanks for your continued contributions, I think this is exactly the sort of thing that makes the site great.
Armcharles 17:27, May 26, 2009 (PDT)
| ||||||
|
|
