Important Question: Wiki Opinion on Verse Audits

[Mr. Bambu]

Hey guys. This is just a relatively simple thread to ask the wiki at large's opinion on an idea that's been floating around. Essentially, this thread wishes to discuss the possibility of creating an audit group for verses, comprised of staff and trusted users alike. The idea would be to work through every single verse on the wiki and look out for outright false information, questionable statistics, dead verses, etc.

Before starting this we'd like to hear user input on the idea, suggestions for how it would function, etc. For reference, this arose after concern about verses maintaining false statistics with no contribution outside of supporters. Such an audit system allows those interested to oversee such a issues.

Nothing is concrete yet, so if you have a hankering for suggestions or questions on stuff, ask now, ye?

This arose from concerns found in this thread.

 

[Wokistan]

I agree, but I also helped out a little behind thr scenes

 

[Agnaa]

I agree but (as you can tell from the linked thread) I helped out a lot behind the scenes.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I agree but I helped out a lot behind the scenes.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I agree but I didnt help at all behind the scenes.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well.

Do so now so you can adhere to the obvious comment dress code.

 

[Andytrenom]

You highlighting this?

 

[RegisNex1232]

As long as it doesn't result in dumb flame wars and rants I'm fine with it. Though I am not sure it will be successfully implemented.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Rework every dead verse?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You highlighting this?

We can but I'm not sure that's needed.

 

[Agnaa]

Rework every dead verse?

If there's no-one around to rework it and it's unreliable, we kill it.

If a supporter actually provides scans, it'll get reworked, but that's their duty.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ok, then I agree. I can even name verses hehe.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Bambu This is supposed to get community input for something that would be a fairly major project aimed at improving the site overall. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that would call for a highlight?

 

[Promestein]

It'd probably be helpful.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If you believe so. Agnaa appears to agree, so I can do it. Like I said, I'm not sure and I'd prefer not to be vastly trigger happy with highlights, as we've been in the past.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I agree with this too. My opinions on it are probably in the discussion at Matt's wall.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that this seems like a good idea, as long as we have very good reasons for getting rid of profiles for different verses. The information should be very unreliable in order to do so, and the pages preferably of poor quality (structure, grammar, etcetera) as well.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That's the idea. We've set up a list of criteria that stuff would need to break to even be considered for deletion.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Then it seems fine. I just want us to be rational and not indiscriminate.

 

[Agnaa]

That's the idea. We've set up a list of criteria that stuff would need to break to even be considered for deletion.

Should we post that list of criteria now for scrutiny, or wait for more input untainted by our envisioned criteria?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

For now I'd rather wait to see what people think before concretely announcing what we have in mind.

 

[Antvasima]

Should I make a highlighted announcement for this thread? It might turn too bloated and chaotic though, so maybe it is better to make it staff only first?

 

[PsychoWarper]

I agree with this as long as it's handled with care obviously.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Staff only defeats the purpose of the thread. This is for open input and sort of to allow people to participate. The future thread, if this is greenlighted, will likely be closed at all times except when updating the list and announcing decisions (so people can contribute elsewhere on said changes).

 

[Hellbeast1]

Interesting

 

[Andytrenom]

Big stats ie tier 1 need good evidence, although they don't need to be necessarily in the form of explanation blogs, links in the page should be enough if the stuff is straightforward. The same applies to tier 2 as well now that I think about it

Regarding inactive and obscure verses, I think others have already said whatever I could say myself

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should I highlight this anyway then? There would likely be a massive amount of replies if I do.

 

[Andytrenom]

Bambu already highlighted this

 

[Andytrenom]

Wait do you mean announcing it?

 

[Antvasima]

I mean with an announcement/real highlight.

 

[Antvasima]

I mean the bell in the upper right corner of the screen.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well I say yes. Although it'll be a lot of replies, there are still verses from the normal users that will end up getting reworked or erased, so it should be highlighted.

 

[Imaginym]

I do worry about the "dead verses" bit. As in, deleting a 'verse for being inactive?

 

[Agnaa]

I do worry about the "dead verses" bit. As in, deleting a 'verse for being inactive?

As in "Deleting a verse for having statistics that aren't backed up by scans, with no-one willing to provide scans".

 

[Antvasima]

Well, deleting verses for having no or very bad explanations seems like a better idea than deleting any of them with no linked scans. We would have to wipe out a large portion of the wiki otherwise.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I will highlight this with an announcement then.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Inactive and unreliable. If a user isn't around to substantiate the stats of such a verse and they aren't proven on the page then there isn't really much else we can do.

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr. Bambu

That is true.

 

[Antvasima]

However, not all verses are of an easily proven visual nature. Evidence would be very hard to post in such cases, so researching past discussions about the verses for explanations is also an useful option.

 

[DarkGrath]

This overall seems like a reasonable idea.