Would you like for us to make an integrated Wiki?

[Kyte]

But what if one of them is blatantly wrong, or trolling...?

This is a very valid concern: My opinion? Ban both anyways. If one is blatantly wrong, you can tell an editor and he'll remove the troll far more effectively than a regular user ever will. In this sense, the ban on the "innocent" party is not for trolling, but for failing to operate according to the rules of conduct of the wiki.

[Lianru]

A tempban anyways, permaban is too much for a first offense, especially for the "innocent" party.

[Mike1984]

How much new information do we get anyways? Not much, really. Besides, it's not like you'd know this new information until it gets translated, and then it's up to the translator themself to add the information.

I think you're making a false assumption about the way content will be added, to be honest. The existing knowledge about the Nasuverse is rather fragementory, and it will take some while to get all the information together, particularly given how good some of the members are at procrastination....

Personally, I think locking pages after information is added is a pretty good idea. Although, that might make things take after the encyclopedia aspect and not the wiki aspect. Not that I care =P

It ceases to be worth doing if we're going to do that, because it's not a community wiki any more, it's a site with pages written by one arbitrarily-chosen editor who may or may not be reliable. Certainly, in that case I'd say there's no point in having pages for individual characters, because they'll just be horribly out of date and probably inaccurate anyway. No-one will bother going through the steps necessary to add new information, and we probably won't find enough people who both care enough about an article to moderate every change and are impartial enough to be trusted to do so.

A tempban anyways, permaban is too much for a first offense, especially for the "innocent" party.

I think you're being way too harsh here, and assuming way more organisation (and interest) than we will likely have. This is not Wikipedia, with a large set of highly-interestred admins, it's more like TV Tropes in the way it will likely end up working, where the users mostly resolve their issues and only involve the admins if the disputes get really out of hand (and I don't see what the problem with that is, to be honest, for a wiki like this).

If this is how it is going to go (both the ban thing and the locking thing), then I would vote no, because it's just going to cause hassle and it's not going to be accurate anyway. So, I'd like to know if this would be the intention before I make any decision on whether I support this or not.

Also, I'd really like to know where you're going to find all these editors and admins who can be relied upon to make such decisions without infuriating half the forum in the process. Because I sure as hell can't think of anyone who is both unbiased and also likely to care....

[Kyte]

A tempban anyways, permaban is too much for a first offense, especially for the "innocent" party.

Naturally. Maybe a page-specific ban, with an annotation to watch further behavior and escalate as needed.

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Hymn, it's not on Wikia, that's the point. :P

My bad, slip of the tongue.

Again, that's just silly. It creates too much work for the moderators, and also means that it's no longer really a wiki, and will likely end up being out-of-date and inaccurate due to necessary changes not being made. One individual should not decide what is and isn't "correct".

Uh....no. I think you're misinterpreting what I meant.

After the articles have been made, what is considered fact and not has been agreed upon and the language has been properly sanitized (the idea of which sticks in my craw, but is clearly necessary), I doubt all the many new suggestions would come up. Again, I don't have traffic figures, but once the main information has been hammered out, everything's details.

And, honestly, I don't see how it would help. There might be some edit warring when a page first has new content added to it, but I very much doubt it's going to continue back-and-forth indefinitely, and if it does then we have a problem which arbitrarily locking it on some version is not going to fix.

This would be where I'd suggest the editor in charge makes an executive decision. By acknowledging room for interpretation because lolnasu and story contradicts itself, or whatever's appropriate at the time. Something to stop it and get people to move on. It's not a forum, we can't let the issue be argued indefinitely.

All it will do is make adding new information a lot more awkward, and thus cause people to lose interest in the whole thing, and it to lose credibility amongst people who disagree with the article's editor.

If the point is to add only what's fact, such as stating what happens in the story as connected events instead of interpreting and judging said events, it seems fine to me. In theory.

If you're going to impose a system like that,

Time out.

No, I am not the one imposing a system. Do not put words in my mouth. I offered a suggestion.

then I'd rather not have a "wiki" at all, because at least that way we don't have some horrible sham which people will pretend is community-owned and updated when, in actual fact, it will be owned by a small collection of editors and everyone else will not bother.

Pretty sure the only people who can claim to own it are maybe the admins. Besides, the whole point of the idea was to open it to edits, get it right (for a given definition that I'm sure we can dispute all day), and lock it up afterwards so now one can go on a massive edit streak.

The point of the wiki should be that no-one can dispute its accuracy (on this forum, at least).

For once we seem on the same page.

I say do exactly that, and then put a padlock on it so it stays that way, barring minor changes. Sometimes there's a spelling mistake, sometimes a setence isn't very clearly, or someone has a better picture. That kind of stuff.

If they can, then they should be editing it such that it ceases to be inaccurate (likely by removing the disputed section altogether), and if the edit is reverted then either their argument does not hold water or else other people are being unreasonable.

That doesn't work on the forums. If we really did get to wiki down to bare facts, then there shouldn't be arguments in the first place. Once we get there, lock.

If you have editors who are in direct control of the articles and decide what counts as "fact", that ceases to be true, and if we're going to do that we might as well point people at the TM wiki with the usual caveats applied....

Nooo.....editors who, after a topic is 'finished' and locked, and decide to make changes later on or reopen a topic.

[Kyte]

If this is how it is going to go (both the ban thing and the locking thing), then I would vote no, because it's just going to cause hassle and it's not going to be accurate anyway. So, I'd like to know if this would be the intention before I make any decision on whether I support this or not.
Also, I'd really like to know where you're going to find all these editors and admins who can be relied upon to make such decisions without infuriating half the forum in the process. Because I sure as hell can't think of anyone who is both unbiased and also likely to care....

Ruru is unbiased and cares? I care, and I listen to Ruru enough to heed her if she tells me I'm being biased?
Anyways that particular concern is silly because as much as I talk as if I were admin I totally am not and could very possibly not even be picked in first place. XD

[Mike1984]

Naturally. Maybe a page-specific ban, with an annotation to watch further behavior and escalate as needed.

Again, I think you're being too harsh here. This is not Wikipedia, stop treating it like it is....

Uh....no. I think you're misinterpreting what I meant.

After the articles have been made, what is considered fact and not has been agreed upon and the language has been properly sanitized (the idea of which sticks in my craw, but is clearly necessary), I doubt all the many new suggestions would come up. Again, I don't have traffic figures, but once the main information has been hammered out, everything's details.

Perhaps, but in that case, why bother locking it? Anyone who comes in and significantly edits an article that was pretty much completed six months ago is likely to get their edit reverted fast.

This would be where I'd suggest the editor in charge makes an executive decision. By acknowledging room for interpretation because lolnasu and story contradicts itself, or whatever's appropriate at the time. Something to stop it and get people to move on. It's not a forum, we can't let the issue be argued indefinitely.

And who is this "editor" going to be, exactly? Because I sure as hell am not going to just ignore someone who is blatantly anti-Sakura making such an "executive decision", and it will not stop arguments.

If the point is to add only what's fact, such as stating what happens in the story as connected events instead of interpreting and judging said events, it seems fine to me. In theory.

But, in that case, it's not necessary. If someone edits the article unnecessarily, it will just get reverted again.

Time out.

No, I am not the one imposing a system. Do not put words in my mouth. I offered a suggestion.

I meant "you" in the plural, not you individually....

Pretty sure the only people who can claim to own it are maybe the admins.

No, the point of a wiki is that it's owned by the community as a whole. Admins exist, yes, but they do not control the content.

Besides, the whole point of the idea was to open it to edits, get it right (for a given definition that I'm sure we can dispute all day), and lock it up afterwards so now one can go on a massive edit streak.

Why is that necessary, though? Why does it matter if someone does "go on a massive edit streak"? You just revert their changes if they're wrong, and if they're valid then you keep them....

And, besides, I don't think there are enough people interested enough that a editor for each page is plausible, or that having editors makes sense at all. You're just going to end up annoying the people who aren't editors, and then the few editors will be left to do all the work. Then, the whole thing will fall over and die.

For once we seem on the same page.

I say do exactly that, and then put a padlock on it so it stays that way, barring minor changes.

I don't see why we need to lock it, though. Further, just because no-one disputed the accuracy six months ago, that doesn't mean they won't come across some new piece of information that means they dispute it now.

Sometimes there's a spelling mistake, sometimes a setence isn't very clearly, or someone has a better picture. That kind of stuff.

And these are exactly the sort of things that won't get changed if you need editor approval. People just won't bother.

That doesn't work on the forums.

That's because the forums are not about facts. A wiki is.

If we really did get to wiki down to bare facts, then there shouldn't be arguments in the first place. Once we get there, lock.

Yeah, until new facts come in, and then the whole thing falls apart.

Nooo.....editors who, after a topic is 'finished' and locked, and decide to make changes later on or reopen a topic.

And how can you trust them?

Ruru is unbiased and cares? I care, and I listen to Ruru enough to heed her if she tells me I'm being biased?

Is she?

I honestly don't know whether I would consider her opinion of Sakura to be "unbiased"....

Anyways that particular concern is silly because as much as I talk as if I were admin I totally am not and could very possibly not even be picked in first place. XD

You're not, no, but Hymn is a mod, and I sure as hell don't trust him to be unbiased....

[Lianru]

And who is this "editor" going to be, exactly? Because I sure as hell am not going to just ignore someone who is blatantly anti-Sakura making such an "executive decision", and it will not stop arguments.

If you want someone un-anti-Sakura that much, I'll do it. Kyte is pressing himself for editor, but I know you don't like Kyte. Is that good enough?

[Kyte]

And who is this "editor" going to be, exactly? Because I sure as hell am not going to just ignore someone who is blatantly anti-Sakura making such an "executive decision", and it will not stop arguments.

You're assuming only one person'd pull such an "executive decision".

Yeah, until new facts come in, and then the whole thing falls apart.

Unless you unlock the page.

And how can you trust them?

The admins do? That's why they get elected.

Is she?
I honestly don't know whether I would consider her opinion of Sakura to be "unbiased"....

Ruru is the most unbiased and level-headed person in the entire forum, if she's not biased then nobody is.

You're not, no, but Hymn is a mod, and I sure as hell don't trust him to be unbiased....

Nobody said mods would have any power in the wiki?

On a more general topic: You've already acknowledged solutions for the very topics you're raising against HoR. Are you being contrary on purpose?

[Mike1984]

If you want someone un-anti-Sakura that much, I'll do it. Kyte is pressing himself for editor, but I know you don't like Kyte. Is that good enough?

I don't actually know your opinion on her and, whilst you may not be "anti-Sakura", I'm not sure that you're truly unbiased. Better than Kyte, certainly, but then he is most definitely anti-Sakura.

But, regardless, I don't like the idea of having such an editor at all. It is not necessary, and it is totally contrary to the point of having a wiki in the first place. If we're going to do that, we might as well just have a bunch of threads which the owner or a mod can edit on request, because that's essentially all this wiki will be. No new information will get added unless the editor has the time to go out looking for it (and, IIRC, you lack that time).

You're assuming only one person'd pull such an "executive decision".

Well, perhaps.

But, regardless, I really don't see the point in locking pages like that, certainly not pre-emptively. It defeats the whole point of having a wiki, and IMO will not be necessary. Because, despite what you might think about me, I am not going to start editing pages about Sakura that were written six months ago unless I have a damn good reason for it (and I will explain why I am doing so, too).

Unless you unlock the page.

Which requires people to bother asking the admins to do so. Which I bet a lot of them won't.

Honestly, what reason is there for locking the pages at all? It's not going to be a high-volume wiki, I'm sure the mods can deal with any arguments or edit wars which do arise without needing to go to the extent of banning people or locking pages (except in extreme cases). It just makes everyone's life more difficult.

If an edit war does happen a long time after the page as first created, it'll be over a change which is reasonable (e.g. based on new information). None of us is going to come in and change around carefully-decided wording six months after the fact, and if we do it'll just get reverted again anyway.

Ruru is the most unbiased and level-headed person in the entire forum, if she's not biased then nobody is.

Does she not have opinions on the characters, though?

Nobody said mods would have any power in the wiki?

Perhaps, but the admins trusted him to moderate, so why not to look after the wiki...?

[Lianru]

(and, IIRC, you lack that time).

Leo, this is what happens when you make fun of me. :<

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Perhaps, but in that case, why bother locking it? Anyone who comes in and significantly edits an article that was pretty much completed six months ago is likely to get their edit reverted fast.

Easy. Deterrent. And instead of making it an easily fixed mistake, make it so that it can't be made to begin with.

This does assume relatively little alterations to be made afterwards, so few that they can be done on a case-by-case basis. That would be a flaw. Couldn't be used if lots of suggestions, valid or otherwise, were made and continued to be made after the page was locked.

And who is this "editor" going to be, exactly? Because I sure as hell am not going to just ignore someone who is blatantly anti-Sakura making such an "executive decision", and it will not stop arguments.

You seem to think I already have an evil plan or something mapped out.

It's a suggestion Mike. Speculation. That's the point of talking it out, testing the idea.

But, in that case, it's not necessary. If someone edits the article unnecessarily, it will just get reverted again.

And some people may do it just for a laugh. I favor prevention over cure in this case.

I meant "you" in the plural, not you individually....

Fair enough.

No, the point of a wiki is that it's owned by the community as a whole. Admins exist, yes, but they do not control the content.

Technically speaking, reverting the page after a bad change is made is exactly that. I don't think you have room to stand on this point.

Why is that necessary, though? Why does it matter if someone does "go on a massive edit streak"? You just revert their changes if they're wrong, and if they're valid then you keep them....

Because it means someone has to clean up after them, and that's assuming some doesn't go on a counter edit streak. Better to screen them from the beginning and prevent an edit war.

And, besides, I don't think there are enough people interested enough that a editor for each page is plausible, or that having editors makes sense at all. You're just going to end up annoying the people who aren't editors, and then the few editors will be left to do all the work. Then, the whole thing will fall over and die.

The idea would indeed hinge upon not many edits coming up after the pages are locked, yes.

I don't see why we need to lock it, though. Further, just because no-one disputed the accuracy six months ago, that doesn't mean they won't come across some new piece of information that means they dispute it now.

And that's why we leave the option to change it open, and should lots of material come out, reopen the page. Or portions of it.

And these are exactly the sort of things that won't get changed if you need editor approval. People just won't bother.

What, no faith in conscientious, nitpicking community?

That's because the forums are not about facts. A wiki is.

Alright. Assuming we can get down to 'just facts', this assumes that eventually we reach a point where we have 'definite facts' and 'disputed facts.' Or plain speculation. So the facts stay on the wikia and get locked up until such a time where more come up. I see no problem. Seems to me like people want this feature to prevent misinformation.

Yeah, until new facts come in, and then the whole thing falls apart.

No, then people unlock the pages for open editing. Admittedly this would probably be a rather trying time to keep up though, so plans should probably be thought out.

And how can you trust them?

Presumably by the admins choosing someone they trust, putting it in their hands, see what happens, and clean up if necessary.

And then we get on with our lives.

Is she?

I honestly don't know whether I would consider her opinion of Sakura to be "unbiased"....

And then people question whether your judgement is unbiased, you question something else, and then it never ends.

At some point you make a choice and let the dice fall where they may.

You're not, no, but Hymn is a mod, and I sure as hell don't trust him to be unbiased....

Clearly you can't please everyone.

[Mike1984]

Easy. Deterrent. And instead of making it an easily fixed mistake, make it so that it can't be made to begin with.

But it also prevents people from making actually useful changes. And mistakes are easy to rectify, useful changes are not easy to pull out of the ether.

This does assume relatively little alterations to be made afterwards, so few that they can be done on a case-by-case basis. That would be a flaw. Couldn't be used if lots of suggestions, valid or otherwise, were made and continued to be made after the page was locked.

I'm not convinced that is true, though.

You seem to think I already have an evil plan or something mapped out.

It's a suggestion Mike. Speculation. That's the point of talking it out, testing the idea.

Again, it was a plural thing. The community as a whole, not you as an individual.

And some people may do it just for a laugh. I favor prevention over cure in this case.

Then just revert it, and if they're trolling block their account (for the forum too, potentially).

Technically speaking, reverting the page after a bad change is made is exactly that. I don't think you have room to stand on this point.

Non-admins can revert too, though....

Because it means someone has to clean up after them, and that's assuming some doesn't go on a counter edit streak. Better to screen them from the beginning and prevent an edit war.

No, because it also screens actually useful edits, and leaves the make-up of the article down to one individual and not the community as a whole.

The idea would indeed hinge upon not many edits coming up after the pages are locked, yes.

Which I do not believe to be the case.

And that's why we leave the option to change it open, and should lots of material come out, reopen the page. Or portions of it.

But that requires the editor to make that decision, and I do not trust them to do so reasonably, and nor do I expect people will bother to ask.

What, no faith in conscientious, nitpicking community?

Well, you clearly don't have any faith in them, so....

Your idea basically treats us like five-year-old children who can't even run a wiki properly, and puts the power in the hands of a few arbitrary people. That is not a good way to encourage involvement.

Alright. Assuming we can get down to 'just facts', this assumes that eventually we reach a point where we have 'definite facts' and 'disputed facts.' Or plain speculation. So the facts stay on the wikia and get locked up until such a time where more come up. I see no problem. Seems to me like people want this feature to prevent misinformation.

Again, if the page is undoubtedly "just facts", then why do you need to lock it? People will not edit such a thing without good reason (barring trolls, and they can be dealt with).

No, then people unlock the pages for open editing. Admittedly this would probably be a rather trying time to keep up though, so plans should probably be thought out.

Exactly, it would be very trying for the editor, in general. And, I don't think it will work that way in any case. People will just not bother to go through the hoops needed to correct the articles, and they will stay broken.

Presumably by the admins choosing someone they trust, putting it in their hands, see what happens, and clean up if necessary.

And then we get on with our lives.

I do not trust the admins to be unbiased on the nature of particular characters, though.

And then people question whether your judgement is unbiased, you question something else, and then it never ends.

At some point you make a choice and let the dice fall where they may.

Or, you treat it like Wikipedia or TV Tropes, where the articles naturally converge on something good via community consensus, and remain that way via the same consensus, with admins only involved when they are really needed.

[Kyte]

Personally I don't favor the idea of preemptive locking. It does defeat the point of a wiki, after all. Might as well use the preexisting CMS framework and save $70+30x.

Also, I feel nobody should pull double duty. Both because too much power and because it causes burnout.

Also: So long as there are multiple mods, biases will get cancelled out, anyways. All this speculation about bias revolves around the idea of a single person making all the decisions, which is tbh a ridiculous notion.

Therefore: Mike, HoR, were're just retreading previously discussed points. How about we chill out and wait for the poll to close?

[SeiKeo]

Or, you treat it like Wikipedia or TV Tropes, where the articles naturally converge on something good via community consensus, and remain that way via the same consensus, with admins only involved when they are really needed.

But TVTropes isn't good.

[lantzblades]

But TVTropes isn't good.

see i'm not the only one who doesn't accept TVT.

[Lianru]

[18:15] <Kyte> [18:12] <Lianru> I really want the BL wiki to be something more like a compilation of all the stuff we've translated and gathered // +
[18:14] <Aces> What Lianru said
[18:14] <Aces> I think that's a better idea

If that's the case we probably don't even need to spend money on the wiki itself, but that's only if people agree with me.

[terraablaze]

Are we bashing TvTropes? I can bash TvTropes too.

[lantzblades]

Are we bashing TvTropes? I can bash TvTropes too.

ppl misunderstood me awhile back when they used tvt to site mary sues and such. my reply was a bit harsh and misunderstood. but the idea that the fact that others here don't trust TVT validiates my statement.

[SeiKeo]

ppl misunderstood me awhile back when they used tvt to site mary sues and such. my reply was a bit harsh and misunderstood. but the idea that the fact that others here don't trust TVT validiates my statement.

Well, their Mary Sue pages and others are right, it's just that a fair bit of the rest of TVTropes is a perfect example of neckbeard creepiness, even more than we are sometimes.