Talk:Foundation for Intentional Community

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fellowship for Intentional Community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902010802/http://fic.ic.org:80/projects.php to http://fic.ic.org/projects.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Founding of the FIC
The entire first paragraph of the Organizational istory of the "Foundation for Intentional Community" is an error. Delete the entire first paragraph. FIC did not start in Ann Arbor. Error is copied from S. Gurvis' book, "... Flower Children ..." Gurvis' writing is misleading on her p. 107. Error: "the modern "co-op" was established in 1937 in Ann Arbor." Sure, "A" modern co-op started there, yet modern co-ops did not start there. Same error: "the International Cooperative Council (ICC), forerunner of the FIC." 1st, should be "Inter-Cooperative Council." 2nd, ICC had nothing to do with the FIC. This is misleading sentence structure on the part of Sandra Gurvis. I will delete that first paragraph when I get through with corrections for the rest of the FIC Wikipedia entry. AllenInUtopia (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted to prior January 23rd additions / Conflict of Interest
I've reverted the article to before if was completely changed on the 23rd of January. To start parenthetical referencing is deprecated per WP:PAREN, please read WP:REFB which explains how to setup referencing correcty. Also the text reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, and is very long winded. Finally only reliable published sources can be used as references, posts to online forums should not be used. Also sources should be non-primary, rather than based on what FIC says about itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page were editors can discuss changes. Please read WP:PAREN and WP:REFB and learn how to correctly make changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested Your FIC Wikipedia post perpetuates another writer's errors and is totally inadequate for educating people about the FIC. Your objections to my replacement text are based on style and format and not about accuracy of information.
 * I am not currently affiliated with the FIC, although I have been in the past, in various capacities, so I am a "non-primary" source. I do not answer to the FIC, nor have I asked their permission or aid in writing my FIC Wikipedia entry.
 * Your entry perpetuates the errors of Sandra Gurvis' writing in her book "Where Have All the Flower Children Gone" (as I wrote above in my Talk note, "Founding of the FIC") plus your other sources are inadequate as they are written by people who quote other non-primary sources. My sources are primary, including personal letters and articles written by others who have been active in the FIC. That makes me a "non-primary" source.
 * Regarding WP:PREN to which you referred me. I notice that your preference is not a policy of Wikipedia, it is a proposal. I read through some of the comments, and I agree with this one saying about parenthetical citations "I THINK THE HARMS ARE OVERSTATED":
 * My parenthetical citations are at the end of my paragraphs, not inside my paragraphs.
 * I do not accept your criticisms and will insist on your tolerance and acceptance of an FIC Wikipedia entry written by someone with more familiarity with the topic. Allen Butcher
 * From: WP:PAREN
 * Oppose - I think, on balance, this is a net negative. I definitely agree that inline, parenthetical citations, are nowhere near our preferred style or the style which readers necessarily expect from us, but I think the harms are overstated. It is a rare format on Wikipedia but it's not a rare format; I would be surprised if most of our readers are completely unfamiliar with parenthetical citation styles. Does it disrupt the flow of prose? Probably, but just like the little blue numbers and tags we have inline, readers quickly learn to ignore it and skim past. These are definitely not ideal, but I doubt parenthetical citation styles are causing us to lose significant readership. What makes me oppose is that, in discussions like these, people tend to overlook the benefits of allowing unpopular citation variants.
 * Most people have encountered parenthetical citation styles at some point in their lives. Imagine if I told you that to participate effectively on Wikipedia you not only needed to learn a new citation style, but the technological trappings that go along with using it. Most people hate citation styles anyway, so in pitching an edit-a-thon or recruiting editors, it is much easier to get people excited about contributing when I can say "just cite it as you would in one of your papers". That line works for students and professors alike; they already know how to do parenthetical citations, and allowing parenthetical citations lowers the learning curve for many people. VisualEditor has helped, but it's not perfect and not everyone likes using it (among computer programmers I work with, they actually like the source text over the WYSIWYG editor). Among subject matter experts, the parenthetical citation is the dominant style. Many academics and journals publish open access articles under terms compatible with our license. Allowing parenthetical citations means that if an academic publishes an open-access article in a journal that licenses it under CC-BY-SA, we can just copy the lit review section and we've got a new article peer-reviewed and written by a subject matter expert. By deprecating this citation form, it also increases the opportunities for newbie biting. If someone writes a nice article that happens to use parenthetical citations (or copies a properly licensed journal article), and NP patroller comes by and suddenly changes the entire thing, that will be discouraging at best. This isn't even farfetched, wholesale citation style changes and the interpersonal disputes that arose from them are what led to the citevar ArbCom case, so I'm not keen to open the doors to that again. (See discussion below) Similarly discouraging is writing an article and immediately being told there were unwritten citation rules you had to learn before participating. Having a lax policy on citation styles is a benefit for the project. AllenInUtopia (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm wonder if this is a WP:CIR or a WP:COI issue. Also again not my article, not your article, Wikipedia's article. An article I have not editted before tryin to fix the amazing amounts of errors you introduced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As per my talk page, this editor has a WP:COI with this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I dispute ActivelyDisinterested's assertion that I have a WP:COI issue. I am a subject matter expert (SME) who comments upon both the positive and the negative issues with the FIC. That includes both likes and criticisms. I was involved in the FIC from 1985 to 1989, and have not been involved on its board nor its staff, nor in any volunteer capacity since then, 33 years ago. I have been developing a separate initiative I call the "School of Intentioneering." I believe that makes me qualified to write a FIC Wikipedia article, with no conflict-of-interest. AllenInUtopia (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have more interesting things to do. Do as you please maybe someone else will pick up this mess. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)