Board Thread:Petitions/@comment-30779788-20171203163351/@comment-24634078-20171205141218

It's just not the same in general visibility or use. Exactly. That's the whole point. Remember the article comment debate? It was proven that the early 20s age bracket didn't like the immature article comments; why would highly visible blogs be any different? And also, we want our more visible comments (like blogs) to be as professional as possible—message walls, which are less visible, not so much. As I've said many times here, it's not really fair......crap, uh....it's not fair that this is the way you're implementing these?? I just can't focus enough to say this right, but like.......it's mean kind of to have rules that are too strict in my opinion like this. They're bad. Even if you have actually alright rules (like one that wouldn't include adding pictures and links), this is kind of an area that should be treaded carefully. After the complete elimination of article comments, the slow demise of forums, the quick increase in sudden and unexpected change after the merge (I can give examples???), and more it's fair that people might feel a bit trapped lately, especially the younger ones? I know we're trying to be professional, this just crosses the line of being too strict imo. I agree with most of that. Too many rules are bad. But where do you draw the line? Should we not have policies about a highly visible part of the wiki? And shouldn't they be fairly strict? A very weak point that I'm not even sure of myself but.....isn't it kind of good to have just ONE big, outward-facing place that isn't completely buried by heavy duty rules??? In layman's terms, here's a crazy idea: maybe there should be a little bit of quite visible slightly crappy stuff? Again, something like this could drive off that early 20s age bracket, as well as other prospective users.