Hi fellow wikipedia lovers,
I am getting feedback on people wanting less rules on titles. I intentionally made it not a hard rule, but I think there’s something beautiful in just using the wikipedia title by default. Wikipedia is a site immune to clickbait with strict policies on titles, and so aesthetically, I prefer to put the description in the post body, not the title. It also makes it much easier to moderate :D But please tell me your thoughts on this topic and we can re-calibrate the rule, if people would prefer. This community doesn’t belong to me; I just made it because I wanted it to exist. Also, on that topic, since our community is well over 1000 monthly active users, would be great to bring on 1-2 moderators, because I don’t have any intention to be BDFL of this community and I honestly have enough going on as it is. Please comment or DM me if you are interested. I will select applicants based on prior engagement here.
Cheers, Your humble local mod who is definitely not using this community as a trojan horse for clam facts but here’s an article about wampum because I feel like it
Wikipedia-titles often don’t give enough context for one to understand if it’s worth clicking-into.
I’ve got enough web-parasites trying to machiavellianly pry into my finite-mental-strength, … so it’s more likely for me to just ignore any post in this community which I can’t understand whether it’s worth digging-into,
& therefore am much more prone to not engaging, thanks to the “laconic” non-informativeness of the posts.
Others may have the same reaction…
Take a look at www.TVTropes.org & see how their titles pull people into their articles, & see the difference with this community’s posts…
Also, thank you for making this community: there are a few very interesting ones I’ve found only because of here.
_ /\ _