Talk:Nottingham Cooperative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, which collaborates on articles related to cooperatives. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of low importance within the cooperative movement. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on December 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was KEEP. |
Contents |
[edit] About Boldfacing/Capping the NOT in our disclaimer the Mad Community Coop membership:
I say we leave it in there--BUT--it is notable that the edit came from an MCC dweller--who may actually feel somewhat more strongly about the matter than most residents of Nottingham (current author included)--I doubt anyone at Nottingham who works on the Wiki article would have capped and boldfaced the "NOT"--but it is telling that some co-opers would--and I did want to have this nuance spelled out for anyone who would bother looking this far into the matter. Though this is a very, very small thing, I think it reveals the very pith and essence of what makes Wikipedia such a wonderful thing--and that is a very great matter. (utc)
I am the individual who research and contributed most of the content of Nottingham's entry, and I have made the following changes: 1. "NOT" back to "not." Having been around long enough to know Nottingham's relationship to MCC as well as the larger community, I believe the fact that our coop is independent of MCC should be stated, but does not need to be emphasised, especially with it being stated as the last sentence of the first paragraph. Empasising only the word "NOT" makes it look as though Nottingham's independence from MCC is the nost significant thing about the house, whereas to the members and I believe most readers of the article there are more important/interesting things. If the person who made this change feels strongly enough to want to change it back to "NOT", might I suggest we get in touch to discuss this. 2. Deleted "Moe Vee Tee" because apparently this phrase hasn't really caught on yet outside of Nottingham Coop. As stated, I've done a lot of research in order to create a factual entry, attempting to include only content which which would be of interest to the public. If this phrase does catch on- say, if John Stewart uses it on The Daily Show or something like that, then it would merit entry; otherwise it is more of a personal catchphrase. 3. Deleted "non-profit." Currently, Nottingham is not a non-profit. It's still worth mentioning that Nottingham collects no money from shows.
[edit] History section
Could we get citations in the history section? I know we have sources lying around. We should do this before they get lost in time. Acornwithwings 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sidebar
AFAIK we don't follow rochdale principles and certainly aren't owenite or whatever. I'd like to remove the sidebar. (Jim) 66.222.62.214 07:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sidebar
The sidebar, as such, tends to connect Nottingham with things it has partly diverged from--having been through surviving records dating back to the original corporate charter, I do not recall finding a specific commitment to the Rochdale Principles in either the charter itself, or in any of the few attempts at an orientation statement or any of the advertisments or posters that have appeared since that time. In any case, the first formally approved and attorney-inspected compilation of bylaws and policiies dates back to 1998--effectively overturning anything which was not specifically reaffirmed in that canon--and the Rochdale priciples were never discussed or suggested, let alone included. As that original complication has evolved into three editions of an overall orientation manual, Rochdale has been consistently, and to my mind, conspicuously not-included. I do not feel that they are the primary axioms, habits or priorities by which Nottingham guides itself. They might tend to suggest a set of happy end-results worth maintaining if they occur in the course of actual pursuit of our more commonly pursued interests and goals. If the side-bar remains, there should be a paragrpah which attempts to describe the particular goals, approach, and regard for pragmatism that I see as Notitnghams' real way-making: and if it included a very direct disclaimer of any particular allegegience to, history with, or attention ever paid to the Rochdale principles, I would be more willing to see the sidebar remain. Benjamin Pierce
Hello all! Just to clarify, I put up the sidebar not with the intention of connecting the coop with the Rochdale principles but with the general theme of coops on wikipedia. At least as far as I can tell, the sidebar theme (or whatever the proper terminology is) does not necessarily directly imply that the Rochdale principles are guiding principles for Nottingham, ALTHOUGH I understand how this could be construed. I feel that the sidebar does serve a useful function in connected Nottingham's article to the larger theme of coops. As Nottingham is a coop, this sidebar could provide relevant, interesting information to those interested in Nottingham (and assumedly coops in general, or at least housing coops). For these reasons, I would support Ben's move to put some sort of disclaimer acknowledging that Nottingham's history/operation does not seem to involve the Rochdale principles. User:JeffreyN 28 October 2006
[edit] Student Housing Category
Nottingham seems to have been put under the Student Housing Co-ops category. Student cooperatives are a particular category of co-ops that are open exclusively to students. Students nearly always form a fair portion of the membership, but there is no emphasis on being specifically student housing, and in fact Nottingham is more notable for having a diverse population of ages and occupations than for simply having students live there. I will remove this category. Acornwithwings 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
