User talk:Matthewfaulconer

Leave comments for Matthew Faulconer here.

Check the history for old comments.

Scripture window

The formatting seems a bit different to me--in particular, if my screen setting is set to 1024x768 or smaller, the scripture pane is too small to read a line without using the left-to-right scroll bar, even if I maximize the window. At least I didn't notice this problem before. Anyone else have this problem? (This is with Maxthon, I haven't checked with Iexplorer....) --RobertC 12:59, 1 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a change. One of the lines in the scripture window set not to wrap--It is the one that says print, listen, previous, next. So once that line is fully compressed the text in the scriptures does not wrap. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not. I would be surprised though if they would change it based on a request since, except for cases where you are framing the scriptures in a small window, this problem is not noticeable. Btw, I don't get this problem at 1024x768 in either IE or Firefox. For me it looks like it starts to happen at about 850 width--but I didn't measure exactly. Since the problem occurs based on when those words get squished together, it will depend upon the font type and size of that text on your screen. --Matthew Faulconer 18:31, 1 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding this wrapping problem annoying. If I don't have the page maximized (for me 1024x768) then the scripture window doesn't look good. I'm thinking of changing the window so that instead of a narrow column like window that the commentary wraps around (which I like--but only if it works) you have a wide full-width window at the top of the page--like you now get when you hit edit on a page with the scripture window on it. What do others think? --Matthew Faulconer 06:45, 6 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Can you try it out on a couple pages, one with little commentary and another with a lot, to get a sense?

Also, is there any way to put the commentary part of the page in a scrollable window? If so, would that mess up the edit tabs? A lot of times I just open a separate window with the relevant scripture passages (usually from lds.org) when there's a lot of commentary on a page, b/c of the inconvenience of scrolling up to the scripture window.

--RobertC 16:12, 6 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed this comment and just noticed it. Re: try it out. No unfortunately this is the type of change that would take some special work to get it to apply just to a few pages. It isn't the type of change I can make without working with Gabriel. However, given that the LDS scripture site seems to have reverted to the previous version of their application the problem that prompted this line of solution--the scripture window not wrapping properly--is no longer an issue.

re: frame versus inline frame. I think there is a way to do this. I'm not sure off hand how to do it easily. An inline frame is pretty easy to squeeze in somewhere. I think if we actually used a regular frame (so that it was scrollable separately) I'm not quite sure how to go about it without really digging into the wikimedia software a bit. Also, I'm not totally sure that we would want to. You used to see frames all over the internet. Now you hardly see it. I'm not sure why people have moved away from using them. Maybe just a fad.

On a related topic it would be great to have a development environment for Feast and someone (or more than one person!) to work on customizing the wikimedia software more to the needs of the site. To do it right we would want to do it when we felt that there would be help in the future as well--that it wasn't just a short-term thing--because it would be a pain if someone customized the software a lot and then we were stuck on a certain version of wikimedia because no one had the ability to apply those same customizations to a newer version. For now I think the priority is building the content which is why I have sort have taken a minimalistic approach to customizations. --Matthew Faulconer 06:15, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts here. I think frames may cause more problems across different browsers--that's my guess why you don't see them too much nowdays. In theory it would make sense for this site b/c there are two distinct sets of text (scriptures and commentary), but probably tricky to implement in a way that would really make it worth it. --RobertC 07:05, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Content projects

Regarding not hating evil, I like Rom 12:21: "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." I actually thought I'd posted something about this before but couldn't find it.... --RobertC 05:41, 11 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Thanks Robert, That is a good one to add to the list. --Matthew Faulconer 08:06, 11 Sep 2005 (CEST)

I stumbled on this verse that made me think of your project again: "Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee" (Prov 20:22). I also thought some of the verses in the footnote-suggested topical guide topics for recompense were quite interesting and relevant: retribution and forebearance. --RobertC 16:55, 18 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Very nice. thank you. --Matthew Faulconer 18:30, 18 Sep 2005 (CEST)

The proper use of experts

Responding to the issue listed on the user page as "the proper use of experts" RM Matheson writes:

Ideas are part of what experts develop as their livelihood. If they share their ideas in this free-forum they are giving away some of their proprietary work that they could use in academic articles to further enhance their career. Thus, they are probably only inclined to share links and refer to what they have already published instead of sharing the "lightbulb idea" that occurred to them as they were following a wiki line of thinking.--RM Matheson 00:23, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hi RM Matheson, I think you make a good point that needs to be kept in mind as we try to involve experts. What I am interested in doing is finding ways to encourage academics to contribute in spite of this issue. I haven't devoted any time to trying to do this yet. Here are a few ways in which that could work though (I hope):

• Get seminary/institute teachers involved. I think (not sure though) that many of them don't actively publish so that this site wouldn't be seen by them as competition for publishing their ideas elsewhere.
• Get professionals involved who publish stuff that would be "too academic" for this site. In my view, there are a set of professionals involved in work related to the scriptures but the type of stuff they would publish in peer-reviewed journals is too academic. For example, I don't think we would actually need a 40 page discussion of how guerilla warfare works in the Book of Mormon embedded as part of this wiki. That stuff is perfect as a link. I'm not sure that the average person really has much to add by editing that article anyway. But, the same person who wrote that article may have some interesting thoughts on how Alma's use of faith differs from Amulek's that is perfect for this site and isn't the type of material they could write up and publish in a peer-reviewed article.
• Ask experts to write up something they are experts on to a more general audience. Such work wouldn't hurt, I think, the work they are recognized for in the academic world.

--Matthew Faulconer 13:10, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

academic stuff

I've been thinking more about how we use scholarly analysis to inform what is written on this wiki about the scriptures.

I think we shouldn't ignore scholarly works:

• Lots of times we cannot understand well what the scriptures are saying without knowing more about the culture that their words came from. Nephi tells us that we have to understand the Jewish culture if we are to understand the writing of Isaiah (er.. I think he does somewhere... I seem to recall that). Sucholarship can help us understand that culture.

Concerns:

• Maybe we don't know enough about what biblical scholars think to correctly summarize their views.
• I think it is possible to get caught up in the scholarly analysis in a way that we miss the spiritual value of the scriptures.

What do others think on this?

--Matthew Faulconer 16:17, 7 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Exegesis should focus on text: I've been thinking about this a fair amount (hence all the new links to academic studies on the other scripture resources page). I think the exegesis part of the site should focus on the text of the scriptures, which rules out a large portion of scholarly work (my understanding and sense is that there's been a movement toward literary analysis of the scriptures that focuses more on the meaning and possible meanings of the text itself, with less focus on historical questions of how the text may have been changed or what cultural influences influenced the writing of the text; part of my understanding is based on the writing of Robert Alter, who your dad is very fond of--see comments #8 and #9 here for details).

Scholarly work in lexical notes and related links: In the lexical notes and related links sections, I think some summary of scholarly work is appropriate, but it should be worded very cautiously (hyper-NPOV if you will, like what I suggested here for Gen 17:1-5). And I think original sources should be given whenever possible in the related links section (if material is being summarized from a book, I think it belongs in the related links section, but then 'links' becomes a bit of a misnomer--is there a more appropriate term? maybe references or related links and references?).

My personal interests: Personally, I don't find the historicity aspects of scholarly work very interesting, but other branches of scholarly work are pretty fascinating to me. I think this site is in a unique position to help lay-readers (like me) get some exposure to scholarly work which can be very insightful. Thus I'd like to see more of it on the site (and I plan to add a bit myself).

Why be careful: Nevertheless, I think caution is warranted. Many potential contributors to this site could be turned off if the tone of the site seems to place scholarly work above the word of inspired church leaders. I think the current site policies explain give good guidelines, I just think it'll be important to enforce these policies, or at least flesh out the effective meaning of these policies as specific examples arise.

Volatile discussion of the flood: One example of how easily some readers may get offended is this discussion of the flood. I agree with your dad (comment #125) that the discussion is mostly quite inane (I've only skimmed). I believe the part of the discussion that would be appropriate for this site would be the external references/links to what others have said about this topic (scholarly work and church leaders), with perhaps a brief, NPOV summary of the main issues (similar to your dad's summary of the issues).

--RobertC 20:38, 7 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Layout

I know its been a long while, but I still do visit the site semi-frequently - I need to edit more. Just a comment on the layout. I know I'll be shot for blasphemy for this but have you thought about organizing the scripture inset frame and the table on contents next to each other either at the top or bottom of the page? So a reader could come to the site and see the verses on the left, the TOC on the right and click to the section that he would like to read? It seems to make sense in navigating. Don't get me wrong, the wraparound text is nice, but navigation is key. Just my suggestion. -Visorstuff 22:33, 22 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are visiting and would love to see more of your comments when you have time. I'm sorry I'm not quite getting the suggestion. Take a look at Moro 7:1-5 are you suggesting that we not start the questions section until below the left scripture window? Or are you maybe referring to this page Alma 13:1-5 where (I think this is only true for this page) the scripture window is at the top but the TOC is at the bottom. I agree that is a bit odd (though I did it I must admit). --Matthew Faulconer 06:47, 23 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, I changed Alma 13:1-5 so that the TOC shows up at the very top. On most pages, e.g. Moro 7:1-5, it shows up right after the previous and next links. see what you think. Also, let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. Thanks, --Matthew Faulconer 06:24, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

The alma 13 example is exactly what I was suggesting. I think this is much easier to navigate from the text one is reading to user's commentary on the verses. Users can see the phrase or verse they are reading next to the scripture, and click on the navigation to go directly to that section below to "find out more." The goal is to get them to read the actual text and then go to the commentary for more info. I was on some pages where the navigation TOC was at the botom, which seemed like it shouldn't be there at all. much better. -Visorstuff 21:12, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Bugs

Email user

I noticed that if you are not logged in and try to send a user an email, you get a "No send address" message that states "You must be logged in and have a valid e-mail address in your preferences to send e-mail to other users." However, the "logged in" link is broken on the message page. Sorry I'm not explaining this better. Here's the link to the page I'm referring to where the "logged in" link is broken, though you probably have to be logged out to replicate the error. --RobertC 14:01, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I believe I have now fixed this one. Please try again. --Matthew Faulconer 15:45, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)