Wikisocion talk:Links

From Wikisocion

Contents 1 armleg socionics 2 just a question of aestetics 3 Rick's sites 4 the16types 5 comments on sites listed 6 Socionix 7 Definitive Socionics Info (wiki) 8 Socionics Workshop 9 Determining the legitimacy of included sites 9.1 TheSocion.com 9.1.1 Negative 9.1.2 Positive 9.1.3 Neutral 10 Suggestion 11 Thesocion.com 12 Spencer Stern's site 13 Links to tests 14 Russian Tests 15 Tcaud's recent edit to his own forums pluses/minuses 16 Plus and Minus ratings and how to improve them 16.1 follow up

[edit] armleg socionics

I don't think that armleg socionics forum will work, because it has 80+ forums. Machintruc 12:37, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

is there a proper way to indicate that a forum is dead/dying (socionics.com and socionix)Bionicgoat 13:03, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes. Use the "minus" sign and write that it seems to be dying. (Admin 13:07, 21 June 2007 (CDT))

I went with "Forum has very little activity recently"... that sounds nicer :) Bionicgoat 13:15, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Is socionics.com dead/dying? I never registered there. Expat 21:20, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

it was the last time I was there... very little/no activity over a two week absence. Socionix is for all purposes dead, we only really trade one liners there now (and even that's pretty much died out) Bionicgoat 01:32, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Speaking of the identity of the Admin of armleg socionics forum -- that is Hugo. Expat 15:33, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Where did he get his information for the forums? Is it generally accessible in English or his own writings/translations? (Admin 15:55, 23 June 2007 (CDT))

I'd imagine that it's his own writting along with bad machine translations of Russian sites(he was always asking me to translate stuff for him) I haven't looked at it though (and didn't even know it was Hugo's until Expat said something)Bionicgoat 17:04, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I just checked it out and it looks as if he's using bad babelfish translationsBionicgoat 17:49, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, probably of Lytov's paper where he lists all those small groups. Expat 17:50, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

On his indentity -- he registered with yet another username to PM some people to get them to go to the forum (not me though, obviously), and I've been told. Expat 18:01, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

[edit] just a question of aestetics

which do you guys think looks better?

very active forum on personality type theories but low emphasis on socionics

or

very active forum on personality type theories but

low emphasis on socionics

personally I think the second one with them on two different lines flows better... does anyone have an objection to changing it?Bionicgoat 17:18, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

lol OK I guess that's my answer :) Bionicgoat 17:26, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

added indents to the comments for a better lookBionicgoat 17:29, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Rick's sites

I assume he was being modest when he wrote the links list. I went ahead and gave socionics.us and his blog a well deserved for content ;) Bionicgoat 18:21, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

[edit] the16types

If enough people have similar complaints about the16types forum, we can summarize them with a sign and a comment or two. For example, we could write, "personal insults are not uncommon" or "some users complain of interpersonal intrigue and insults" or something like that. (Admin 05:57, 4 July 2007 (CDT))

ha, that might even attract some people to the forum! Expat 06:30, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

the rough part is how do we determine this. To me it just looks like one pissed ex-members opinion. Honestly I don't see where the 16t forum is worse than any other internet forum in this respect, which to me would have to be the case for it to get a special negative mention. Bionicgoat 20:14, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

That's fine. I'm not necessarily advocating a negative comment, but if 'enough' people have similar complaints (here we would want to look at the opinion of people who don't participate there), we could summarize them here. (Admin 00:54, 6 July 2007 (CDT))

cool... I guess this is this the part where we say "speak up people!" Bionicgoat 01:44, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

"Because of the free nature of the forum, the intertype relations are easy to follow."

Haha, very funny. Thehotelambush 00:13, 22 July 2007 (BST)

[edit] comments on sites listed

Please, no derogatory comments! -- just widely accepted critique of sites' content. (that's for niffweed) --Admin 01:25, 10 August 2007 (BST)

he put in a comment about how his site was good. the comment was totally unwarranted. i just figured that the bias would be better flipped the other way. Niffweed17 02:47, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Ah, I did not catch that. People should avoid writing comments about their own sites. If a site is good, it will eventually be recognized as such by others, even if that takes a while. --Admin 05:59, 10 August 2007 (BST)

not that it really bothers me that much but Lewis Stern seems to keep on wanting to add positive comments about his sites and blog. Lewis... please follow the above suggestion and let your site speak for itself before this edit war escilates into something that requires the admin to have to take further notice. Let's take it easy on Rick... he's a good guy ;) Goat 12:01, 15 August 2007 (BST)

[edit] Socionix

I have checked Socionix for the first time in months, and it seems that it "has had more active recently". I haven't really gone through threads, but I have the impression that it has become a place for some people who don't feel well, or welcome, in the16types (and in a couple of cases aren't welcome indeed) and, as far as I can tell and in my own personal judgement, mainly of the Beta quadra with a couple of Alphas. This is interesting in itself, but anyway, although I think that what they talk about there isn't really socionics, we can remove the reference to "little activity lately". Expat 11:42, 12 September 2007 (BST)

[edit] Definitive Socionics Info (wiki)

server is so slow I can't even view it to see if it's legit or has anything useful. Does it work for anybody else? Bionicgoat 01:48, 6 October 2007 (BST)

i took a brief look at it. i can't evaluate its veracity but it looks relevant at least. and no server issues here. Niffweed17 02:07, 6 October 2007 (BST)

It's not loading for me at all. --Admin 07:40, 6 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Socionics Workshop

As the Socionics Workshop is reasonably alive and has daily activity, might we include this on the list? It's my forum so I'm hesitant to just add it myself out of modesty (also because I'm probably not the best person to make comments on it).

Any comments?

--Tanehem 03:45, 18 October 2007 (BST)

I added a minus indicating that the forum is currently offline. According to the little I talked to Thunder about it this is a software/server issue and not because she's closed it down or anything, therefor I'm leaving it on the list for now. Bionicgoat 08:30, 13 November 2007 (GMT)

Thanks for that. --Tanehem 12:28, 13 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Determining the legitimacy of included sites

Here we've included sites such as the16types and rick's site, which practice (at least in part) legitimate socionics. i think that it is only fair that we give some kind of warning to people reading this site that places like thesocion.com or spencer stern's site or other crap that merits mention is NOT classical socionics.

Stern's site does not seem too bad, really. Some of it might be mundane, but mostly it seems in line with socionics theory. Maybe I haven't looked closely enough. --Admin 00:10, 24 October 2007 (BST)

i included a comment with a negative sign next to thesocion.com saying something along the lines of "many people take issue with the legitimacy of the information on this site." although true, i can't prove it without referencing the16types thread (which would be very poor proof in and of itself) and ultimately the accusation that the site is bad is without foundation.

that is why i propose that this community take a consensus vote on the legitimacy of all of the sites here, in order to give the commentary that we have suggesting that rick's site is good and, hopefully, that the information on hitta's site is absurd, some backing. this could take the format of something like

[edit] TheSocion.com

[edit] Negative

1. OMG THIS SITE IS TEH COMPLETE AND UTTER DISGRACE OF TEH HUMANITY!!!!!!11!!! Niffweed17 23:52, 23 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Positive

1. OMG THIS SITE IS TEH AWESOME DONT LISTEN TO NIFFWEED HES A JEW111111!!!!11 User:Hitta 23:52, 23 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Neutral

1. OMG I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY???????????2222??? User:LucasWinfield 23:52, 23 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Suggestion

I suggest that we add barrier-to-entry criteria for inclusion in the links on this page: a sufficient volume of information or stage of completion. There are lots of sites that start out with a massive framework (e.g. site w/ articles + blog + forum + wiki, etc.) and never make it beyond the fifth article (e.g. "Practical Abundance" or a couple of my experimental sites which shall go unmentioned) or the fifth forum member (armleg socionics forum). My suggestions would be:

• site is 3/4 complete ("to be continued" pages occupy 1/4 or less of site)
• at least 5000 words of original text
• for forums: at least 200 posts and 10 members; admin's posts amount to no more than 1/3 of all posts

What has happened to this suggestion, has it taken effect? If not, I would like to request a new forum to be added to the forums section: www.deltaworld.info/forums/. --Consentingadult 08:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

[edit] Thesocion.com

I spent about 3 minutes trying to find a way to get to the main site from the forum before giving up and simply putting the damn thing into my address bar. It might be the only issue, but I call that hard to get around. Also, comic sans is a horrible font. Anybody that uses it should be exterminated. I really think we ought to include that as a disclaimer so people don't unintentionally look at the site and become nauseous and sue us and ultimately send us to prison to die. Niffweed17 00:49, 24 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Spencer Stern's site

He says that it works with firefox. I use firefox and I don't have any problems with it. Can other people that use firefox verify this? Niffweed17 02:26, 27 October 2007 (BST)

It works for me with one of the latest version of IE. --Admin 10:37, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Just a comment on the wiki site. Closing it to nonmembers without having amassed an existing loyal community base first will not work. I do not feel like explaining why here. --Admin 23:34, 12 November 2007 (GMT)

This is Spencer Stern, who has made all of $20 from his wonderful book. do you think he cares? Niffweed17 00:04, 13 November 2007 (GMT)

In its present form the site looks like a thinly disguised money-making scheme (i.e. "the first 50 memberships are free!! Get yours while supplies last!!"). Even if people sign up, they will see that the promised "community" is nonexistent. --Admin 00:31, 13 November 2007 (GMT)

I've gotten that same impression from every website the guy has made on Socionics. He uses blatent "get-rich online!" book advertising techniques... Not that I really have room to say besides a sneaky impression, but I wouldn't be surprised if he writes his own testimonials and blog replies as well. They're all overflowing with a sort of suspicious enthusiasm that very much reminds me of what "he" writes. Bionicgoat 01:02, 13 November 2007 (GMT)

Amen. --Admin 02:32, 13 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Links to tests

This is definitely a good idea, but what of all the non-socionics tests included in the list? They should at least be put in a separate category if they are to be included in the page at all. --Admin 21:47, 23 September 2008 (BST)

[edit] Russian Tests

There should be a test section on this site which contains translated socionics tests; it would be helpful to have as many resources as possible by which one can help identify their type.

Here would be some possibilities:

- http://sociotest.narod.ru - http://www.tests-tests.ru - http://www.bookap.by.ru/socionica/filatova/oglav.shtm (see "Appendix 2" at the bottom of the page).

jason_m 03:15, 1 October 2008 (EST)

[edit] Tcaud's recent edit to his own forums pluses/minuses

"includes some themes which are held as controversial by mainstream socionics, such as multiple types" stricken in light of recent research directions by Gulenko"

Besides it being rather bad form to edit these things for your own personal forum, IMO just because Gulenko is researching something that does not make it non-controversial for mainstream socionics. I'll wait for others to weigh in before reverting it though. Bionicgoat 15:21, 16 February 2009 (GMT)

Agreed. This sentence: Ideas are consistent with socionics as it is presented on Wikisocion.is something he'll have to explain. Quite a few of his ideas actually contradict classical socionics. This sentence: Persons wanting an enhanced understanding of human nature will find much to learn. is just free advertising and should be removed without question. Checkmate 16:40, 16 February 2009 (GMT)

Agree on both counts. i didn't notice the advertising bit, but that's spot on IMO. Bionicgoat 17:12, 16 February 2009 (GMT)

Although that advertising but does make me think of something. Perhaps we could allow forum and website owners to include a statement of intent for their sites (in quotes or something to highlight that they are their own words, and not those of the wiki) Bionicgoat 17:13, 16 February 2009 (GMT)

Err nevermind... there already is something like that after the link. Bionicgoat 17:15, 16 February 2009 (GMT)

I don't think any advertisement is necessary since this is an encyclopedia about factual stuff, and most advertisements are usually too subjective or just wrong. Checkmate 18:12, 16 February 2009 (GMT)

Fine, let's have a discussion of it. Let's invite everyone.

Point: Nothing in supersocion theory contradicts socionics. NOTHING, non-mainstream behaviorist-conflated interpretations such as yours notwithstanding. Nor do I have to prove it: the idea that I do is, in fact, a recognized logical fallacy. Neither of you are the judge of the socionics "mainstream". In general, anything which is promoted by a practicing, recognized socionist WITH A PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE or socionics degree, and which is not otherwise objected to on non-dogmatic grounds, IS mainstream socionics. Who is to determine otherwise? There is not a figure today in socionics with the charisma to make a differing declaration and have it respected.

The information-energetic level idea was first published about a year ago. Check the journals. No one contradicts it because it's painfully obvious that some people will never be able to draw a straight line freehanded, because it's a matter of keeping your hand straight and some people don't have the coordination for that. Dual-types explain why.

Forum drama. Quit beating a dead horse. tcaudilllg 20:28, 16 February 2009 (GMT)

I never said they contradicted mainstream socionics. I said they contradicted classical socionics. You yourself have stated that there's a generational gap between your work and that of Augusta. Is or isn't your work revolutionary enough?

Your description says that your ideas don't contradict socionics as it is presented on this wiki. Well, this wiki currently caters heavily to classical socionics methods, and only secondarily to novel approaches in the mainstream. In the case of many of your ideas, support is even non-existent.

But if you want to get technical, then every single link deserves to have the phrase: "does not contradict mainstream socionics" next to it, which would make the whole description process quite trivial. In addition, if you wrote something more descriptive and less shameless, you might actually attract a larger audience.Checkmate 22:46, 16 February 2009 (GMT)

this has nothing to do with forum drama and everything to do with maintaining the integrity of the wiki. quite honestly this is exactly why it's such a bad idea for site owners to be editing the ratings for their own sites. we just end up with them attempting to slip in advertising mumbo-jumbo then crying crocodile tears when their edits are questioned. Bionicgoat 02:15, 17 February 2009 (GMT)

Either way, at this point it's 2 for revert and 1 against. democracy dictates that it gets reverted. I'll give it another day though in the interest of being kind. Bionicgoat 07:04, 17 February 2009 (GMT)

So you're threatening revert? Without trying to reach a settlement? tcaudilllg 07:50, 17 February 2009 (GMT)

actually instead of revert I was thinking it would be most accurate to delete both of your comments and replace them with one of those "Some dispute the accuracy of the general understanding of socionics by some members" but seeing how that would be a pretty dick move and generally inflamitory towards you, I'm giving you the chance to suggest a compromise. Bionicgoat 17:31, 17 February 2009 (GMT)

I'm also waiting to hear from more people who are neutral (without the history that you and I have) to make sure that whatever is done isn't out of line with the general consensus. Bionicgoat 17:34, 17 February 2009 (GMT)

LOL, that could be said for any of the forums on there. Go ahead, but you've got to give me a plus somehow or another. (and no dick plusses either) --- tcaudilllg 18:01, 17 February 2009 (GMT)

Ok, I made some edits. I tried to be as impartial as possible. I don't know whether I succeeded, but see if you agree with them. Checkmate 19:00, 17 February 2009 (GMT)

[edit] Plus and Minus ratings and how to improve them

This regards the previous dispute about Tcaudilllg's forum. Obviously, having comments such as "some people dispute the accuracy of people's knowledge of socionics on this forum" under all socionics forums reduces the value of these comments to nil. And we're having too many disputes about the comments to attach to each resource. I propose changing how we're commenting on sites to remove the potential for editing conflicts in the first place.

So here's a solution: have a sort of poll under each socionics resource (identical poll for each resource), with people placing votes next to statements, and no voting on one's own socionics site/forum (otherwise, up to one vote per statement per person) such as:

This site/forum is a useful resource for learning socionics- yes: |||||||| no:|| (votes shown as examples)

This site/forum facilitates an accurate understanding of socionics - yes/no

This site/forum has a friendly and welcoming atmosphere - yes/no

This site/forum has an active community or is updated frequently - yes/no

This site/forum contains novel ideas and approaches to socionics - yes/no

We can think about the exact phrasing of statements to make them as worthwhile as possible to readers. More than 5-7 statements would be too much. --Admin 19:08, 20 February 2009 (GMT)

That's a good idea. I approve. --tcaudilllg 21:24, 20 February 2009 (GMT)

It's an improvement. Definitely the system we have now needs to be modified. However, I have some doubts about this as well. There seem to be a lot of (quite juvenile) rivalries between various forums and without careful moderating, this system too can be manipulated. Perhaps instead of any kind of value system, we write short descriptions of the forums: the focus of the forum, the forum atmosphere, the type of administration, etc.

You know, so we can then fight over those descriptions. KevAsh 23:25, 20 February 2009 (GMT)

We need a system by which to take the infighting out of the editing. Rick's idea is a good one. --tcaudilllg 23:37, 20 February 2009 (GMT)

Here's the thing, Rick: how are you going to keep those polls current? One solution would be to have them once every six months or so. --tcaudilllg 23:37, 20 February 2009 (GMT)

With the "history" function, we will always be able to tell whether someone has voted twice (though the sheer number of edits will make that somewhat difficult). The point is to move away from a single assessment of a site/forum, which requires unanimity (impossible to achieve) and towards a statistical assessment, where people can state their opinion without having to fight over it. People can change their vote any time they want, but they cannot place more than one vote per question. Yes, it could be manipulated by having a ton of new people register all of a sudden, in order to vote for a certain site. However, that should be pretty easy to discover:) KevAsh, descriptions aren't a bad idea, but they would tend to be too long, and we have them already on the article pages relating to the sites/forums. In fact, the links on this page should also have a link to their article (if any) at Wikisocion. --Admin 00:11, 21 February 2009 (GMT)

I do know of the history function and have used it often to see just what the various users changed. Especially, back when I used to translate the descriptions, which I have not got around to starting again. Here's the thing: this solution does not alleviate the infighting, but simply moves it into a democratic forum. In short, a popularity contest. Other than clandestinely changing several vote tallies (with too many votes or deleting previous ones), there is also the problem of just who are the people that have an informed opinion on these sites? Or, more accurately, what does their thought/opinion/vote reflect? To paraphrase my professor of Political Corruption, we hope it reflects what they are voting on, but really it could reflect a number of different things. This method is very malicious because of the illusion of democratic legitimacy. For example, take a vote on tcaudilllg own forum (which I did not know existed until I read the section directly above this one), to clarify my argument, "no" votes on "This site/forum is a useful resource for learning socionics": what would such votes reflect? The actual usefulness of the forum? A reflection of what people think of tcaudilllg's theories? A reflection of what people think about tcaudilllg? A rumor spread by posters at other forums of tcaudilllg and his crazy theories and erroneous understanding of the meaning of life, which you believe to be true and hence somehow a reflection on his forum? Statistically, there exists a standard of validity, which can be summarized as "Do the questions we are asking do what we claim they do?" KevAsh 15:56, 21 February 2009 (GMT)

I sympathize with you. Well there are only a handful of forums, aren't there? And there proabably won't be many more, at least in the forseeable future. But what do you suggest? I'm not sure that democracy isn't the way to go, and if you read the psychic domain theory (in User Hypotheses) then you'll understand why I think that. It's an ideological struggle, but not one which is overbearing. There is one problem though, which I think you're hinting on or hitting close to, and that is what if people join Wikisocion just to vote? What if they aren't interested in actually contributing? Then you could end up with a hundred people or worse who joined just to vote, inflating the user rolls artificially. I suggest we appoint a committee of experts to make these calls, and let them vote. We should agree on the committee membership and then let those individuals cast the votes.

I want to say right now that I can think of only four people who are qualified to sit on that committee, based on proven ability to objectively consider informaition, and those people are Rick, Expat, Joy, and Tereg. I don't think anybody else could get a nod, with the possible exception of UDP. This must be a consensus driven affair. tcaudilllg 16:11, 21 February 2009 (GMT)

KevAsh, that's really a fundamental debate about the usefulness of Wikis - basically the same dispute between the two Wikipedia founders, which led to one breaking off and founding a competing site (Citizendium) based on contributions by qualified experts (or, in the case of this wiki, Niffweed leaving and forming his own socionics wiki). I personally side with the Wikipedia approach, which does everything possible to allow everyone to contribute, unless they violate ethical standards. In this particular case, I would prefer to start the rating system with the assumption that people will tend not to abuse it, rather than with the assumption that they will. Registering on the wiki just to put in a paltry vote for a forum requires some effort that I think we can safely assume people will not care enough to do. I think we can also assume that the vast majority of people will vote conscientiously, preferring not to vote at all unless they have an actual personal opinion. In addition, we can put a disclaimer at the top of the page to the effect that the votes reflect personal opinions of wikisocion contributors, not all of whom may be qualified to give an expert opinion on matters of socionics.

Any other comments/objections/improvements to the idea? --Admin 20:36, 21 February 2009 (GMT)

I think the committee has more potential but if there is not consensus around it then what can we do? Let's try your idea and see how it turns out. --tcaudilllg 23:33, 21 February 2009 (GMT)

It will be fun to see how many more indents we can add to this conversation ;) KevAsh 01:28, 22 February 2009 (GMT)

The fundamental problem with Wikipedia is precisely due to that. If you ever want a contradiction of the wiki article you are reading, all you have to do is click in the side of the screen to see the article in a different language. I'm just cooling your expectations here; the system that you are proposing may not work as well as you suspect. I agree with you that people generally are not ***holes, but your system is open to abuse, even if it is unintentional and perfectly innocent abuse. The votes in my example do not have to have a malevolent purpose. They can just as easily come from people who honestly feel that they have a beneficial, useful, accurate contribution to make. Also, a problem tcaudilllg indirectly pointed out in his response is: how do we judge when this voting system has failed or is not working properly? After all, it will, as accurately as possible, reflect the opinion of the socionics users on the various forums. We just will not know how those opinions were formulated. We could possibly have a honest system that tells us about the opinions of the community, without telling us anything about the actual reality.

I do not know how to solve this problem. Every approach can (probably will) spawn disagreement. The democratic approach will block open disagreement by having questionable accuracy under the guise of majority opinion. The expert approach leaves too much in the hands of the so-called experts (who in themselves can be disputed). The current approach has us debating pluses and minuses to various different forums and categories. I see a simple, short (2-3 sentences) description that makes no value judgments the best decision. That way, we can at least debate something substantial, such as whether we have adequately described the atmosphere or not and how we can better rephrase it. As a rule, the descriptions should not be enlarged and should be at most three sentences long. Yes, this approach will be hasslesome and people are likely to argue over individual words, but the descriptions will be kept simple and accurate and, dare I say, we can foster a sense of compromise. No one can claim that the description is bad without offering an improvement and no one can "win" entirely without garnering support and compromising with others. Perhaps a lack of compromise is the real problem with not having enough sensors in the community.

There are separate pages that describe each forum, but a single page that is a simple run-down of all the different sites (such as this current page) is much easier to use for people who seek entry into the community. Those separate pages are good for people who are already immersed in the community, not those looking for a quick dip. KevAsh 01:28, 22 February 2009 (GMT)

We can easily create a page on all available socionics resources and take texts from separate articles. However, that's the sort of project that is more easily done by an individual rather than a group of contributors. If someone wants to take it upon themselves to create such a page, go for it. This wiki so far lacks a "beginner's guide" set of articles, though one is linked to on the main page (at the top).

I suggest we give my idea a try. We can put up the polls and leave the pluses and minuses there for the time being, and if after, say, a month almost no one has voted, we can just scrap the idea. But I think people are bound to vote on it, because it doesn't require any extra work on their part. Look at how successful Niffweed's user type project was, and how much activity it generated. All people had to do was give their own opinion, not carefully formulate a consensus opinion. The idea of a committee, while good in theory, requires a degree of responsibility that few people are interested in taking on at this stage of wikisocion (too few active contributors in general). --Admin 04:06, 22 February 2009 (GMT)

If you want a beginner's guide, I'm basically free tomorrow and can write at least some of it. Only, do you want it on separate pages or should I just continue and expand that introductory page? If it is the former (although that is unlikely), you will first have to tell me how to create a new page. I'm not familiar with Niffweed's project, but I've never said that people are not going to vote. I merely questioned what their vote will signify. KevAsh 06:31, 22 February 2009 (GMT)

We definitely should have people leave their names if we start a poll like this (a subpage for each site's poll + a tally/summary on the main page). Otherwise people will forget whether they have voted or not.

I personally think it's unnecessary to review sites at all. People can easily see where so-and-so participates actively, if they really want so-and-so's opinion on what sites are best. Popularity is really the only relevant thing from the POV of Wikisocion. Thehotelambush 04:24, 23 February 2009 (GMT)

I think some people would disagree with you on that. Popularity is unimportant when the content is poor, as the members of metasocion forum are pointing out. tcaudilllg 16:43, 10 March 2009 (GMT)

[edit] follow up

So far we have not followed up on this. Shall we try the poll/vote method outlined above? Another quick alternative is to simply lock the page for non-administrative edits and have additions discussed on the talk page. In this scenario, links could have no comments on them at all, or they could have a brief neutral description whose objectivity could be contested on the talk page. That would be the quick and dirty method. --Admin 01:27, 12 March 2009 (GMT)

Again, let's follow up on this. There's far more editing 'wars' on this page than there needs to be, and the current comments are of little practical value to Wikisocion visitors, as they reflect interfactional strife rather than actual content. The choices for reforming this page are:

1. Get rid of comments altogether, but include links to Wikisocion articles on the given resource when such exist.
2. Include a reader poll on each socionics resource as discussed in the section above on this page.
3. Block the page for edits by non-administrators, and I write very short, neutral descriptions of each resource with minimal relevant information, as well as a link to corresponding Wikisocion articles. My descriptions could then be contested on this talk page.

As an example of the third option, a description of Socionics.com might read as follows: "Articles on socionics basics. Forum. See Wikisocion article on Socionics.com." --Admin 00:13, 14 April 2009 (BST)

We should at least have short, neutral descriptions. Anonymous comments with weasel words, like "Some dispute the accuracy of this site", will only provoke editing wars, so any input that is at all non-neutral should have its author listed somewhere. If we had an anonymous poll, we would need to keep track of who voted for what. I would prefer to just have a subpage Wikisocion:Links/Site reviews where users can say what they think about the sites and sign their comments; that would be far simpler to maintain than an anonymous poll. Thehotelambush 00:51, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Or even better: in the review page we could do a wikipedia-style vote system (see [1]) for each site with the generic statements you listed above (same thing as a tally system but not anonymous). Thehotelambush 01:02, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Those are good ideas. I can do short, neutral descriptions. As for reviews, I'm only worried that if we give people a chance to comment on the sites rather than just cast their vote, it will just continue to feed animosity and give another outlet for people with vehement resentment of different sites to vent. We could also put those polls on the respective articles on each socionics resource, with people casting the vote on the talk page, while the result is displayed on the article page. Otherwise, the collective polling page could grow very large. What do you think? --Admin 01:54, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Seriously, at least do option number 1 right now temporarily. Half the comments are adverts and the other half are just forum war junk. RedBeanPaste 22:23, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Agreed. --Admin 22:32, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I am replacing the whole rating system currently in place with some neutral comments and block the page for non-administrator edits. If anyone has a site to add or wants to dispute the accuracy of a description, write here. We can figure out how to integrate user opinions later, based on ideas posted above. --Admin 22:32, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Okay, I've revamped the entire page and written very short descriptions. Any feedback? Are they too minimalist? --Admin 01:39, 16 April 2009 (BST)