fivesythe wrote:

makethebrainhappy wrote:

fivesythe wrote:

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Thank you, Scratch! You've helped support another argument of mine.

I can see NanoRook staring at me .

For days now I have been arguing that the wiki should allow articles about scratchers and collaborations. You can see it here: http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal#Articles_About_Popular_Shops.3F

You've proven my point exactly. You are extremely willing to accept popularity and fame as part of your community. You've also said that you do not believe that the ST really thinks fame is bad.

Therefore, the wiki should be allowed to judge you based of fame statistics, and write articles on people and collaborations that make the cut. Clearly you have proven that this fame judgement is essential to the community and that it is perfectly fine for us to so, have you not.

The case is concluded.

Thanks!

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does a wiki have anything to do with this? No “case is concluded” unless you have acknowledged all the counter-arguments made against you, which you haven't (look for post #44). Some wiki is allowing articles about Scratch shops, so we should remove the “love” feature?

Not many do anymore.

“No ”case is concluded“ unless you have acknowledged all the counter-arguments made against you, which you haven't (look for post #44).” For my purposes the case is concluded. I don't want to love feature removed. That should be pretty clear by now. The whole point of the question was to see how to scratch community accepts fame. “ Some wiki is allowing articles about Scratch shops, so we should remove the ”love“ feature?” They aren't allowing articles about scratch shops, I'm arguing there that they should allow articles about Shops, Collaborations, and Scratchers. One of my examples was this question, and how the ST doesn't mind fame judgement. I brought it to the test of the scratch community, and now I have my results.

Sorry- I thought this was in the Suggestions forum?

Rachyl wrote:

“it's just a prank, bro”

Seriously? …

fivesythe wrote:

It didn't seem like a trick lol

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

fivesythe wrote:

It didn't seem like a trick lol

Makethebrainhappy used all the no-supporters as pawns too prove that popularity is a part of our society, and therefore the wiki should allow articles about popular community members and organizations.

I don't agree. Just because popularity is part of our society doesn't mean that an official Scratch information source should write about specific people.

Firedrake969 wrote:

Just let it be - he's revoking his suggestion gracefully

@OP
Remember that removing loves is very different from doing things such as making wiki pages about Scratchers lol

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

Just let it be - he's revoking his suggestion gracefully

@OP
Remember that removing loves is very different from doing things such as making wiki pages about Scratchers lol

Can someone tell me what OP means?

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

Just let it be - he's revoking his suggestion gracefully

@OP
Remember that removing loves is very different from doing things such as making wiki pages about Scratchers lol

Can someone tell me what OP means?

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

fivesythe wrote:

It didn't seem like a trick lol

Makethebrainhappy used all the no-supporters as pawns too prove that popularity is a part of our society, and therefore the wiki should allow articles about popular community members and organizations.

I don't agree. Just because popularity is part of our society doesn't mean that an official Scratch information source should write about specific people.

Firedrake969 wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

fivesythe wrote:

It didn't seem like a trick lol

Makethebrainhappy used all the no-supporters as pawns too prove that popularity is a part of our society, and therefore the wiki should allow articles about popular community members and organizations.

I don't agree. Just because popularity is part of our society doesn't mean that an official Scratch information source should write about specific people.

I've already stated how it's committing the slippery slope fallacy and , since it is his core argument, invalidates his point (until he comes up with better evidence/reasoning, which he probably won't/can't)

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

fivesythe wrote:

It didn't seem like a trick lol

Makethebrainhappy used all the no-supporters as pawns too prove that popularity is a part of our society, and therefore the wiki should allow articles about popular community members and organizations.

I don't agree. Just because popularity is part of our society doesn't mean that an official Scratch information source should write about specific people.

I'd like to edit that one word. History is the better word for it. Scratchers and scratchers achievements are part of our history. But we've already had an entire discussion about that on the wiki .

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

fivesythe wrote:

It didn't seem like a trick lol

Makethebrainhappy used all the no-supporters as pawns too prove that popularity is a part of our society, and therefore the wiki should allow articles about popular community members and organizations.

I don't agree. Just because popularity is part of our society doesn't mean that an official Scratch information source should write about specific people.

I'd like to edit that one word. History is the better word for it. Scratchers and scratchers achievements are part of our history. But we've already had an entire discussion about that on the wiki .

I disagree. The Scratch Wiki should be a source of documentation for the Scratch environment, and reference for the website and neutral cultural aspects. It should not favor any Scratchers, because that would amount to officially deeming certain users as “popular,” which would cause needless greed, competition and jealousy.

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

fivesythe wrote:

It didn't seem like a trick lol

Makethebrainhappy used all the no-supporters as pawns too prove that popularity is a part of our society, and therefore the wiki should allow articles about popular community members and organizations.

I don't agree. Just because popularity is part of our society doesn't mean that an official Scratch information source should write about specific people.

I'd like to edit that one word. History is the better word for it. Scratchers and scratchers achievements are part of our history. But we've already had an entire discussion about that on the wiki .

I disagree. The Scratch Wiki should be a source of documentation for the Scratch environment, and reference for the website and neutral cultural aspects. It should not favor any Scratchers, because that would amount to officially deeming certain users as “popular,” which would cause needless greed, competition and jealousy.

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

fivesythe wrote:

It didn't seem like a trick lol

Makethebrainhappy used all the no-supporters as pawns too prove that popularity is a part of our society, and therefore the wiki should allow articles about popular community members and organizations.

I don't agree. Just because popularity is part of our society doesn't mean that an official Scratch information source should write about specific people.