I'm sorry if I'm violating DKos etiquette by posting this question here, but I can't find a forum that answers my concern: The copyright disclaimer on the Home page looks to me to be saying that anything we write in diaries can be lifted and published by any editor or publisher of any web site, magazine, or publication, and the diary authors can't be compensated. I'm asking about this for two reasons: I'm getting very positive comments about my writing in my diary; and, I'm struggling financially, so if there's a dollar value to my writing, I want--need--to be compensated for it. Could someone answer this? Thanks.
- Looks like the site's license says that content can be re-used "unless otherwise specified." You should check with kos, but that would seem to set you up to license the work for re-publication if you chose. Please note: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. (Berkeleygrad)
Some additions would be useful. Who decides? I'd like to collect some suggestions from the librarians and post them here. What's the process for adding? -- califsherry
Feb 3, 2006
Draft version of new dKos FAQ. Earlier drafts of this revision can be found in these dkos diaries:
To Do list:
- Mission statement needs to be written and/or copied in from elsewhere
- More quick links at the top to the most common questions
- Descriptions of many of the ongoing diary series needs to be worked on
Feb 18, 2006
Moved FAQ from temporary location (New_DailyKos_FAQ) to live FAQ location. The draft version is archived at (DailyKos_FAQ_2), for various reasons relating to wiki's refusal to overwrite a redirect page with a moved article. -dms
March 20 2006
New version of the wiki software; things have changed.
After much fiddling, it appears that the best way to get reasonable-looking blockquotes is to use this tag:
<blockquote style="background: rgb(240,240,240); border: 1px solid black; padding: 1em;">
Maybe change to 245,245,245 later, but for now 240 seems OK.
Update: Because any instance of a 'div' tag seems to generate a false-positive in the spam filter, I had to fix all of the block quotes one section at a time, rather than editing the whole document at once. Hence the large number of seemingly-identical minor edits in the history.
- -- All the spam we were getting, and it was considerable, was put in div tags. The primary reason for the software upgrade, in fact, was to implement the spam filter, and the easiest way to block all that spam was to prohibit div tags. I didn't know what pages used div tags. Now we're finding out. I can change the css for all blockquotes to use the above style specs, if that's necessary. Centerfielder 05:37, 21 March 2006 (PST)
- --(I just added this from a reply to your dKos comment) Well, eliminating div tags seems to have eliminated the spam. Until they figure out another attack. Besides, there's some question as to whether html tags should be allowed in wikis at all. The idea is that all wiki formatting should be done with the wiki markup. Not sure I entirely agree with that--tables, for example--but I also think div tags shouldn't be necessary. Centerfielder 05:52, 21 March 2006 (PST)
- -- Fair enough. I editted out the last div tag in the page (in the scroll-box example) by squeezing it into a restyled blockquote. I'm not sure div tags are allowed in dkos diaries anyway, so that example might get deleted. -dms
Suggestion for the FAQ
Currently there seems to be much confusion/animosity/discussion among some of the community about whether or not it is appropriate to troll-rate an otherwise reasonable comment because it came from someone who has previously engaged in trollish behavior. If there is any sort of concensus among the lord-high mucketymuks about this, it would help keep things a bit more civil in some of the trenches.
--Bartman 02:21, 30 March 2006 (PST)
'Another suggestion for FAQ' It seems hard to decipher what the numbers mean in the parenthesis behind one's comments. The format is straightforward (0/0), but it is very hard to find something in the FAQ's that addresses exactly what those numbers are supposed to mean. If the moderators could clarify that, it would help new users to figure out the system more quickly. I've been using DailyKos for a while, and I'm not sure. So I'm presuming that other Kossacks might have the same question that I do. I appreciate any clarification of this issue, and hope that my question helps the greater Kossack community.
--jfdunphy 01:05, 5 June 2006 (EST)
More info on trusted user?
Does there need to be more specific information on when a user becomes a trusted user? What is the required amount of "mojo"? Or is this done on a case by case basis?
The precise algorithm for TU status is not something that kos has chosen to make public. The basic system depends on the average value of a comment made by a user (average number of recommends and trolls), and weights more recent comments more heavily. This means that to keep TU status, it's necessary to continue posting (and getting recommends) on a reasonably frequent basis. More detail than that is not available. And I'm not being coy about keeping secrets; I don't know the details either.
--dmsilev 10:25, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
I think it's a good idea to not release the algorithm (and even to modify it from time to time) since this makes it harder for hostile elements who might try to "game" the system.
p.s. I myself don't have TU status (I've had it once or twice in the past, but lost it due to not posting frequently enough I assume) and think that whatever the algorith is is probably pretty fair.
TU algorithm has negative consequences. If one has a long thread with a few other readers, it cannot bring many recs. And often a polite response at the end of a thread will go unread and be a negative. Yet, we want this kind of response which is often a valuable in depth conversation.
May 7, 2006
Anyone looking at the history will notice a name change, and then a change back.
I completely missed the details on linking 'cuz it's buried in the AutoFormat section. Perhaps subsections:
- Styling Text
--Jake 07:20, 19 May 2006 (PDT)
That does seem to be a reasonably common complaint. Subsections for the first two are probably a good idea. Pictures are already in their own section, a rewrite of which is in the works.
-- Dmsilev 08:12, 19 May 2006 (PDT)
A set of requested revisions was recently solicited. The requests can be found in the comments of these two dkos diaries:
Revisions and additions will be implemented as time permits. Any help would be gratefully appreciated.
Dmsilev 09:12, 20 May 2006 (PDT)
Trolls & Policy
I'm not sure how this would work into the FAQ but this diary is a point of view which I think many are missing. I get the feeling that if the concept expressed were repeated more often in these troll discussions, many of the bickerers(?) would get a clue. (This applies to this wiki too.)
Another suggestion: perhaps the policy side of the FAQ should be broken out to a new page - one page for operational questions and another for policy. (Sorry, but w/kids and jobs there's just not much time to do more than suggest...)
--Jake 23:34, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
June 2, 2006
As it has been noted, any registered user of Diskosopedia can get in and tinker around with the FAQ. Is there any way to remedy this?
--suskind 00:19, 2 June 2006 (PDT)
That's a dkosopedia policy issue. Unless the folks running dkosopedia decide to clamp down on the registration process (perhaps by putting in the same sort of delays that dkos uses before allowing posting), we just have to live with it. It doesn't seem to be a huge problem as yet; with two exceptions, all of the contributions to the FAQ have been positive. Those two exceptions were clear-cut cases of vandalism, which can be dealt with by reverting the page and (optionally) banning the user in question.
Dmsilev 19:18, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
Why don't "Recommends" on diaries count towards MoJo?
I don't understand why a 'tip jar' should be necessary. What is the difference between that and hitting recommend on an article?
- Diary recommends count towards only one thing: whether or not a particular diary appears on the Recommended list. Recommends (and troll-rates) on comments goes into a different pot; it accumulates into a mojo score for the commenter. This score is used primarily to determine whether someone has TU status. -dms
- Dmsilev 17:11, 23 June 2006 (PDT)
- Which brings up the idea that maybe we convince KOS himself to give dKosopedia itself TU status, if such a thing is possible. Mainly, dKos itself has to help us get wider coverage, and getting postings encouraging people to check us out and volunteer to do articles. dKos' volume buries just about every posting instantly, and without some help getting us up towards the top, it's going to take longer getting more people involved.--Allamakee Democrat 18:38, 23 June 2006 (PDT)
I've been working on a CT-Sen FAQ, drawing as much as possible from recommended diaries. I'm wondering if it makes sense to have a general question "What does the Daily Kos community think about XXX?" in the FAQ, with either links to FAQs on hot topics, or a subpage with a list of all topical FAQs.
Thoughts? -- RobLa 01:45, 26 August 2006 (PDT)
Profanity In Titles
- Title (12+ / 1-)
- Here is the message I sent MSOC regarding the title:
- You want your site blocked at government sites, libraries, military bases, and schools, that's your prerogative. I have made a decision to not let that happen with Daily Kos. I've asked nicely that people refrain from profanity in titles, saying I don't care if it's used in the body of posts. But you have changed back efforts at evading the censorship filters. Please be respectful of the site's rules. I don't think it's too much to ask. kos
- If she wants to play the martyr, that's her prerogative. I don't think our request was unreasonable.
- by kos on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:58:53 PM PDT
From this Diary:
I think that makes it pretty clear that un-mangled profanity in titles isn't just "strongly discouraged" but rather is "not allowed".
Suggest changing the wording of this section of the FAQ...
... to reflect that. Kraant 15:44, 18 April 2007 (PDT)
Clarification by hunter...
- Frankly, I was hoping it woudn't (1+ / 0-)
- have to be a rule, because I really didn't want to have to police it with the apparent totality that we now see it requires. But on the recommended diaries, where they stay up all day and don't get knocked down the list, we've been editing those titles for a few months now, just like with this diary. It usually happens like this: we edit the title, we leave a note in comments about editing the title, we're done. And that's only if the author hasn't edited it themselves after user requests.
- This is the first time someone has insisted on changing it back -- multiple times. Everyone else has either changed it themselves upon someone asking, or at the least shrugged and let it pass when we said we had changed it.
- As for the I/P thing, I'm open to suggestions (actually, not really, if I get another goddamn suggestion from either side I may be forced to throttle someone), but if the members of those diaries can't police themselves, we need to figure out what will work. That won't mean banning pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli diaries, despite my very heated statement, but it may mean something. The vast majority of the site is embarrassed about that unending stream of meanspirited diaries, and having such a large percentage of them put up by continually banned ex-members looking once again to thwart their own bannings does nothing to convince me that there's much of anything there worth saving.
- by Hunter on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:41:23 PM PDT
Hrrrm... Kraant 20:59, 18 April 2007 (PDT)
I've added a line about the current treatment of profanity in the titles of diaries which make the Recommended list. -- Centerfielder 07:09, 19 April 2007 (PDT)
I've updated the FAQ to reflect the fact that profanity in diary titles is now officially NOT permitted. You can check the diary guidelines page for confirmation. --DavidNYC 18:46, 11 May 2007 (PDT)
The following was removed from the Recommending Diaries section of the FAQ:
- [notice: some people are using this in a way that I think is objectionable to try to force people to unrecommend diaries and authors to delete them. This comment has already been removed once, but until I am convinced that someone who really speaks for this site subscribes to that final statement and that it correctly describes the policy here I will keep my objection in place here. Fred in Vermont email: fga at vermontel.net]
Notice to Fred in Vermont: without addressing whether some people really are using "this" in the way you describe, what you think about it doesn't belong in the FAQ, but here, in the discussion page. -- Centerfielder 06:24, 13 May 2007 (PDT)
Edited 'Controversial Diary Topics' section
I removed the following text from that section:
[UPDATE] From  Hunter: "... every single new pro-Palestinian poster in these threads is going to be presumed guilty until proven innocent, from here on in. I ain't gonna screw around trying to invent elaborate ways of detecting this clown, I'm just going to ban anyone that sounds vaguely like him. I don't have the kind of time in my day necessary to worry about any more "fair" solution, and no inclination. If that results in his side of the discussion being completely wiped from the site except for already well-established posters, then frankly I'm having a hard time getting all teary-eyed about that."
Currently, it is just commented out, rather than being completely ignored. That's to (hopefully) prevent a recurrence. It was removed because it presented the personal view of one admin as if it were site policy, even though in the very same comment, said admin explicitly stated that he was not acting in any official capacity. Without the full context, this text was extremely misleading; with the full context, it isn't particularly important for a global site FAQ.
Proper form for references to the site?
I notice the FAQ is inconsistent in the way it refers to the site itself: sometimes "Daily Kos," sometimes "daily kos," sometimes "DailyKos," and once (just corrected) "The Daily Kos." If there is a standard -- which I assume is "Daily Kos," then the FAQ ought to use it consistently, and perhaps ought to explicitly mention that the standard exists, and what it is. (If I missed that mention, I apologize.) -- Sharpner 08:39, 18 August 2007 (PDT)
This section probably needs to be changed...
It's not troll-rating anymore it's now "hide" instead:
Embedding You Tube Videos
Current text reads:
so for this example, you would type ((youtube 9MpOy1ujOYo)).
Following clarification suggested:
so for this example, you would type ((youtube 9MpOy1ujOYo)). Please note that the entry is case sensitive! ((YouTube 9MpOy1ujOYo)) or ((Youtube 9MpOy1ujOYo)) will not work!