(→Revamp) |
(→Revamp) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::::::Gender was what I had an issue with. Removing positions sounds like a ''dumb'' idea to me >_> The positions have to stay to avoid confusion.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
::::::Gender was what I had an issue with. Removing positions sounds like a ''dumb'' idea to me >_> The positions have to stay to avoid confusion.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::::Gender is a legal discrimination issue though. For example (don't know 'bout US, but out here) gender isn't something you list on things like resumes, just like you don't list your sexual orientation, as it is not something you should be judged by. That column doesn't show that we're not male dominant, it shows the opposite: that we are male dominant, but have a few females. Whilst it has the advantage that users may prefer to speak to a specific gender, people can use names to judge that. Gender doesn't seem ethically right to me, and if it's just a column filler to make the table look good, then we don't really need it, do we? That's the only problem I have with this. Also, I wasn't meaning to have more than one site listed for me. ;) {{:User:Melchizedek/sig}} 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
+ | ::::::Gender is a legal discrimination issue though. For example (don't know 'bout US, but out here) gender isn't something you list on things like resumes, just like you don't list your sexual orientation, as it is not something you should be judged by. That column doesn't show that we're not male dominant, it shows the opposite: that we are male dominant, but have a few females (6 to 1 ratio). Whilst it has the advantage that users may prefer to speak to a specific gender, people can use names to judge that. Gender doesn't seem ethically right to me, and if it's just a column filler to make the table look good, then we don't really need it, do we? That's the only problem I have with this. Also, I wasn't meaning to have more than one site listed for me. ;) {{:User:Melchizedek/sig}} 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:03, 29 September 2009
Template:Archives
Accuracy
I don't really like the information in the page's header. It's rather misleading. Not exactly accurate at all. It doesn't accurately describe what the positions mean and what importance is behind each one.User:Matt/sig 06:20, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
- Then change it? If someone doesn't like it we can modify it further. --Xizor 07:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Revamp
I went and improved the admin table. I dumped my results here. Once I get the green light here I'll put in on the actual page.User:Matt/sig 19:47, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
- I like it, looks good. Personally think at this point in time, we should no longer have this distinction between crat and admin, but rather, just highlight the activity level instead... Also don't think a listing of sites is necessary. However, it's not something that bothers me much. More information is always good I suppose. Nice work. Mases 21:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that would be good on the administrators page. Looks good.User:Mandi/sig 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- My light is yellow. It's looking good for the change, but probably needs some adjustments. I don't see Gender as a necessary field, and like Mases, maybe positions aren't necessary, but I wouldn't have raised that myself. Will look good once implemented though. Also, I'm guessing that only crats can have a site other than ZW listed. ;) User:Melchizedek/sig 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll explain it here. Gender helps. It shows we're not male dominated, it improves the trust users have in us, and the table looked better with six columns. More than one listed site breaks the look of the table. The positions are needed, because like it or not they are not the same. Symbolically they are very different. And technically the distinction is critical for the renaming of users. Without the positions they will be hopelessly confused.User:Matt/sig 00:09, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Gender was what I had an issue with. Removing positions sounds like a dumb idea to me >_> The positions have to stay to avoid confusion.User:Mandi/sig 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Gender is a legal discrimination issue though. For example (don't know 'bout US, but out here) gender isn't something you list on things like resumes, just like you don't list your sexual orientation, as it is not something you should be judged by. That column doesn't show that we're not male dominant, it shows the opposite: that we are male dominant, but have a few females (6 to 1 ratio). Whilst it has the advantage that users may prefer to speak to a specific gender, people can use names to judge that. Gender doesn't seem ethically right to me, and if it's just a column filler to make the table look good, then we don't really need it, do we? That's the only problem I have with this. Also, I wasn't meaning to have more than one site listed for me. ;) User:Melchizedek/sig 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)