Template talk:Agree
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Mike.lifeguard
I'm changing to a simple "I agree", which is more intuitive, and leaving the "because" up to the poster. I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes with this edit. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- The intent in including "because" is to separate it from the support and oppose templates by requiring that a reason be given. Like a fill in the blank type of template "I agree because _______" --dark
lama 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- But what if you simply want to announce that you agree with someone else's arguments? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- The intention is to also avoid "me too" type of responses as well, and get people to explain exactly what it is a person is agreeing with and why. The point is to encourage better quality discussions. --darklama 22:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- But some users specifically don't comment at all on discussions because they simply don't feel they have the time to write out a response. My goal is to encourage more voices to be heard; it is better to have 2 people with lengthy replies and 5 other people saying "me too", than to just have 2 people with lengthy replies. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we could have two different templates? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've thought about that. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't consider it helpful to have "me too" responses. I think they can degrade or hinder discussions and compromise since they do not provide any information that can be responded to, could be used to bring about a compromise, aid in finding a solution, bring closure to issues brought up or could be used to determine what consensus is. I think in assents "me too" responses are like yes/no votes or polls which polarize the community since no opinions, thoughts, reasons, etc. are voiced. My creation of this template was an attempt to make it basically impossible to not comment when used. I didn't want this template to be just another simple vote/polling template, but rather an alternative to that approach. --darklama 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think polling is very useful in gauging where consensus lies. Yes, fully responses are better, but I am always glad when people come and chime in "me too"; that means one more perspective, essentially. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Meta:Polls are evil. They don't help people who disagree understand why people who agree agree and people who agree understand why people who disagree disagree when no reasons are given. I made three templates to try to aid in getting people to provide reasons and avoid this problem: this one, {{disagree}} and {{query}}. Removing "because" removes an essential element necessary in carrying out that goal. --darklama 23:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. I think that people should be encouraged to chime in regardless of whether or not they initially explain their position. I find polls helpful, not evil. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think encouraging people to participate in discussions is way more important than getting people to chiming in with "me too", especially in an environment where we're trying to learn from one another. Getting people to chime in with "me too" votes could be interpreted as an attempt to have people act on your behalf as Meatpuppets — in the sense that they are new to the discussion and may not voted otherwise, or as attempting to canvas people to manipulate the results. --darklama 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think encouraging people to participate in discussions is way more important than getting people to chiming in with "me too", especially in an environment where we're trying to learn from one another. Getting people to chime in with "me too" votes could be interpreted as an attempt to have people act on your behalf as Meatpuppets — in the sense that they are new to the discussion and may not voted otherwise, or as attempting to canvas people to manipulate the results. --dark
- I strongly disagree. I think that people should be encouraged to chime in regardless of whether or not they initially explain their position. I find polls helpful, not evil. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Meta:Polls are evil. They don't help people who disagree understand why people who agree agree and people who agree understand why people who disagree disagree when no reasons are given. I made three templates to try to aid in getting people to provide reasons and avoid this problem: this one, {{disagree}} and {{query}}. Removing "because" removes an essential element necessary in carrying out that goal. --dark
- I think polling is very useful in gauging where consensus lies. Yes, fully responses are better, but I am always glad when people come and chime in "me too"; that means one more perspective, essentially. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we could have two different templates? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- But some users specifically don't comment at all on discussions because they simply don't feel they have the time to write out a response. My goal is to encourage more voices to be heard; it is better to have 2 people with lengthy replies and 5 other people saying "me too", than to just have 2 people with lengthy replies. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- The intention is to also avoid "me too" type of responses as well, and get people to explain exactly what it is a person is agreeing with and why. The point is to encourage better quality discussions. --dark
- But what if you simply want to announce that you agree with someone else's arguments? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just parameterized this, with the default using "because" - this allows us to encourage giving reasons, while allowing those who want the text to say something else (such as "I agree" or "Super-duper awesomeness" or anything else) can simply use a paramter. I think this is a compromise all parties should find suitable. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Great idea! --mikeu talk 02:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)- okay. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 03:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad you think so. I'm of the opinion that most templates like this should be as flexible as possible. That's the whole point of parameters, after all! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
