Talk:Society for News Design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Response to hoax accusations

Trust me, the organization is very much not a hoax. SND's been around a good 30 years, and furthermore, a search for "Society for News Design" comes up with over 100,000 results. Instead of throwing around the hoax card so flippantly, why don't you actually research it first?

I find your criticisms disrespectful and very misinformed. - Stick Fig 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you think we're getting a little trivia-heavy?

It seems like we're trying to tell people every little detail about SND, when the article should stick to the big stuff.

Like, wouldn't it be easier to tell people where to find information about the speakers at SND Boston instead of overwhelming them with a giant list? Or past conferences – how beneficial is it going to be to readers to know where the conference was held a decade ago? The intern thing could probably stand to be cut down to a nub as well.

All I know is that the article was more summary than list six months ago, and it's quickly becoming the opposite.

Mind if I get your guys' input on this? - Stick Fig 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

StickFig: I totally agree with you. I was surprised to see that update the other day (I didn't add it). I think we should look at recrafting the entire thing to focus on a more outsider-approachable summary, just as you describe. Then we could be sure to highilight upcoming events (short list, descriptions) with heavy links maybe? I think someone just got excited about publicizing a strong list of speakers (and many of those speakers are known enough to have wiki links too, maybe that had something to do with it? I'm just speculating). So, being relatively new to wikipedia, how do we go about this? Just edit and post? or should we alert the original writer?Sdorsey2 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's generally good form to alert the original writer, in my book. I already left a note on the talk pages of the users responsible for the most recent edits, so all they have to do at this point is respond. I've had to defend news design from a similar trivia glut in recent weeks. We need to be careful that we aren't losing sight of the main point of the article in putting in all these side details.

I can clear things up, but I'm hoping we can hear from some of the other recent editors before we go down that road. - Stick Fig 19:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)