|
|
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | "For example, at Knox some Sigma Nu's have participated in LARPing. "
| |
| | | | |
| − | The above sentence doesn't need to be there. It is covered by the previous sentence indicating the breadth of interests in Sigma Nu. To include LARPing would require including football, swimming, track, cross country, wrestling, Knox Dems, TKS, Catch, KPW, GIN, and a whole host of other activities that Sigma Nus have been involved with over the years.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == This is pointless... ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | "However, [[Will Yeager]] says that the Knox Sigma Nu chapter is an anomaly, and that most Sigma Nu chapters are made up of [[varsity athletes]] who party "way harder" than the Knox SNU's."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | That statement is true of any fraternity. No fraternity is homogenous throughout the country. There are other "nerdy" chatper of Sigma Nu. There are also chapters of Beta that are choir boys. This is useless information.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Yes but ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Sometimes people say or think things you don't like about your fraternity. Sometimes they will be in the wiki fifre. The fact that you don't like them is not a criterion for their disinclusion.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If you care to disagree, there is plenty of room. But as far as I know, the spirit of The Wiki Fire is never to suppress opinions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Regardless ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The edits I made had nothing to do with them being things I don't like said about my fraternity. Sure, there are LARPers in Snu. But why does the get mentioned and nothing else? The broad statement of "a diverse range of..interestes" covers all of these including LARP. If you feel that some elaboration or example is warranted, don't just limit it to one activity that, at last count, included exactly 3 brother.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Furthermore, my experience with other Wiki's has been that opinion based statements are perfect candidates for "disinclusion". I was under the impression that 1 criteria for inclusion was that the information was encyclopedic in nature. If that's not the case for this Wiki, then it should be clearly stated, but that it the general principal for every Wiki I've ever vistited.
| |
