Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@cellio

cellio/Bring your own framework

Forked from jackdouglas/Bring your own framework
Last active December 24, 2015 02:39
Show Gist options

  • Select an option

    Learn more about clone URLs
  • Save cellio/6732161 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Learn more about clone URLs
Save cellio/6732161 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP

Revisions

  1. cellio revised this gist Sep 27, 2013. 1 changed file with 5 additions and 4 deletions.
    9 changes: 5 additions & 4 deletions Bring your own framework
    View file
    Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
    @@ -2,7 +2,8 @@

    We want a site that allows contributors to speak from within their framework. Overall,
    this broadens the appeal of the site, and it preserves the richness of expression when
    answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer.
    answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer, even if this
    means expressing one's framework or opinions as unqualified facts.

    Our aim is to be 'expert' in the context of the internet. This will not be the best
    home for those who do not think deeply about the texts or those who cannot communicate
    @@ -16,9 +17,9 @@ Exactly where and how we draw the line is an implementation detail and outside t
    scope of this question, but suffice to say if answers get positive votes without showing
    enough work then *action will be taken*.

    Under this option is is generally OK to make statements without qualifications such
    as 'Christians believe…' or 'Jews believe…', but while they are not discouraged per se, we'd
    be encouraging folk to support what they assert with reasoning or evidence: "don't just tell me
    Under this option is is generally OK to make statements directly, omitting qualifications such
    as 'Christians believe…' or 'Jews believe…'. We would still encourage (but not require)
    folk to support what they assert with reasoning or evidence: "don't just tell me
    what is true, tell me *why* you think it's true". This is particularly crucial for statements
    that are central to the main line of reasoning in the answer, and we can be a bit less strict
    for breif tangents and interesting asides that help form the character and impression of an
  2. @jackdouglas jackdouglas revised this gist Sep 27, 2013. 1 changed file with 8 additions and 0 deletions.
    8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions Bring your own framework
    View file
    Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
    @@ -16,6 +16,14 @@ Exactly where and how we draw the line is an implementation detail and outside t
    scope of this question, but suffice to say if answers get positive votes without showing
    enough work then *action will be taken*.

    Under this option is is generally OK to make statements without qualifications such
    as 'Christians believe…' or 'Jews believe…', but while they are not discouraged per se, we'd
    be encouraging folk to support what they assert with reasoning or evidence: "don't just tell me
    what is true, tell me *why* you think it's true". This is particularly crucial for statements
    that are central to the main line of reasoning in the answer, and we can be a bit less strict
    for breif tangents and interesting asides that help form the character and impression of an
    answer.

    This outcome is where we are currently heading. This is not a reason in itself for it to be
    chosen, but it is of course the least risky option. It's clear our traffic is growing, and
    although traffic can't be the only gauge of success on an expert site, it *is* necessary
  3. @jackdouglas jackdouglas created this gist Sep 27, 2013.
    28 changes: 28 additions & 0 deletions Bring your own framework
    View file
    Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
    @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
    **Bring your own framework**

    We want a site that allows contributors to speak from within their framework. Overall,
    this broadens the appeal of the site, and it preserves the richness of expression when
    answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer.

    Our aim is to be 'expert' in the context of the internet. This will not be the best
    home for those who do not think deeply about the texts or those who cannot communicate
    clearly and effectively. It is not our aim to be home only to academics or full-time
    theologians: that would narrow the user-base too far and not be sustainable.

    However we do not want a free-for-all (of course). The aim is primarily for our content
    ***to be useful***. This means that we must encourage content that is widely
    comprehensible and we will do this by insisting that contributions must 'show their work'.
    Exactly where and how we draw the line is an implementation detail and outside the
    scope of this question, but suffice to say if answers get positive votes without showing
    enough work then *action will be taken*.

    This outcome is where we are currently heading. This is not a reason in itself for it to be
    chosen, but it is of course the least risky option. It's clear our traffic is growing, and
    although traffic can't be the only gauge of success on an expert site, it *is* necessary
    for the site to be viable:

    ![Quantcast](http://i.stack.imgur.com/ET7KZ.png)

    This is not about individuals. There is no outcome that will please everyone and we need to
    recognise that whatever we choose will suit some and alienate others. This is not the aim of
    course but we must pursue the best long-term goal for the site.