inator wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:03 am
Should we contribute directly to the wiki?
Yes. Your changes will be read pretty quickly. Aim more for adding than taking away, but moving or reorganizing stuff that was there is fine.
inator wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:03 am
Since I'm not a native English speaker
I don't think anybody would have guessed. Your English is excellent.
inator wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:03 am
and also don't really have an overview of everything that has been discussed on the forum (I might leave some relevant information out)
That's OK, somebody else will add it later.
inator wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:03 am
I'd feel more comfortable proposing something that will be reviewed/modified before being added to the wiki.
It'll be reviewed and modified within a few hours of posting.
inator wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:03 am
I'd also feel uncomfortable editing something someone else wrote without us agreeing on it first (which may turn into a longer discussion). So should we first post our contributions here and then add the final version to the wiki?
We could do that for more controversial things. If you just see something that's worded in a confusing way or a small error that's easy to fix without controversy.
Things can also be discussed on the talk page, like if you make a change to somebody else's stuff, it's good to mention what you did and why briefly.
inator wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:03 am
The information on the forum can be incomplete (for example nutritional info). Should we limit ourselves to what has been discussed here or do we want to give a comprehensive picture of the topics? Should we quote the original sources (e.g. Norris, Greger) of certain claims some of us made on the forum?
I think we can go more in depth, we don't need to limit to forum discussions.
We should probably try to link to sources where we can, but that's not essential for just filling out the content. I think we should minimize quoting to major recognized authorities (like government and NGO) rather than secondary sources. In terms of sources as much as practical, non-vegan sources should probably take priority. If we just have a bunch of Greger quotes, it probably won't be as convincing to anybody who doesn't already follow him.