Important Question: Wiki Opinion on Verse Audits

[Yobo_Blue]

I like the idea but I feel like depending on the details this could go very wrong

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Xulrev seems to have a good grasp of what is required.

@DontTalkDT

The problem is that there are no extra safety checks if we start to mass-delete pages, and the template would be easy to add for members who are not part of the audit group as well, which can result in serious errors.

 

[Andytrenom]

the template would be easy to add for members who are not part of the audit group as well, which can result in serious errors.

This was my main fear. Is there a way to get around this?

 

[Antvasima]

Not that I know of via that method, but didn't Agnaa mention that the group would rather focus on writing lists of the affected profiles in a revision thread, and use that to keep track of them, and how many days that would be left until they should be removed?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I did have the same idea as Xulrev. It's best if they are seen from some certain people than have a thread. So my current idea is.

We should select a group of...let's say around 30 people (since there are many verses to look at), and they discuss among themselves, present it to an admin or something, then the admin makes a thread on that verse and highlights it. So if we reach a verse like Terra Formars. People find flaws with it, an admin makes a thread like "Terra Formars profiles being in the deletion list" (or something similar) and highlights it. People who are not knowledgable on the verse will just unsub, and if we have anyone who is knowledgeable on the verse and is willing to contribute in this wiki, then he will answer the thread.

I believe this would be the best way to handle it. @Antvasima

 

[Agnaa]

@Firephoenixearl I'm worried that making a thread and highlighting it for every single verse deletion, no matter how old or obscure, would have much of the userbase annoyed with the constant highlights.

I think just having a single thread that updates are posted to which members are encouraged to follow is better.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Agnaa.

 

[The_Axiom_of_Virgo]

I agree with the proposals above, making the Wiki more streamlined as well as keeping up the standard of accurate information is very much appreciated.

Ofc there'll be extenuating circumstances (e.g verse supporters having to take break or going on hiatus) but the solutions are pretty self explanatory there.

 

[Sera_EX]

I should remind everyone that we cannot highlight threads traditionally in the first place. We have to use a backwards method because Fandom removed the feature for no good reason whatsoever.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

This seems like a good idea though I disagree with using a mass deletion bot.

 

[Overlord775]

Agree with the idea, disagree with using a bot, as it could easilly mess up and delete pages it shouldn't have

 

[The_Wright_Way]

I agree only if this deletes verses that no one here knows. For example, I don't want Homestuck to be deleted just because it's profiles currently suck, because it is going through a content revision as we speak.

 

[The_pen_or_the_sword]

Im alright with it as long as we attempt to contact knowledgeable memebers first so profiles can be disscussed/worked on if there is no repsonse/interest in fixing the profiles then I have no problem with deletion.

 

[BakiHanma18]

This seems like a good idea. Somethings are widely misunderstood, causing a character to be in a tier they really aren't (to name one instance off of the top of my head is a lot of people say Superman Prime One Million is at least universal because he's been quoted to say "Welcome to MY universe", not taking into consideration that he was just inviting someone from another universe into the universe where he lived, not that he made a universe).

 

[Bobsican]

This page can be of help regarding this

 

[Dvorak1902]

Like I said on that thread, I fully support this idea as long as it's well organized.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I could help out with this, I to do actively look at obscure verses I may be interested in and even ones I have not as much interest in and look at the stats and justifications carefully. Though, I do agree with Ultima and DonTalk about a legit discussion before deletion.

 

[Bobsican]

I can also help, I always check andom pages and will notify if I find something questionable.

 

[Antvasima]

This page can be of help regarding this

Yes, it might. Thank you.

 

[TartaChocholate]

This is a pretty good idea, actually. More than good, actually feels necessary.

Just throwing an idea here: if instead of making a highlighter thread for every verse that is about to be deleted or is being inspected, the thread instead lists all the verses the team has viewed in a weekly or so basis? That way users can check themselves which verses are being affected without too many notifications.

 

[Lilixa]

there should be mindmap plan regarding of this. Imo the easiest one is looking Profile that has controversial AP and speed tier but dont has justification like obscure reason or Broken link blog.

The hard one to justifce power and abilities in certain Profiles.

 

[The_Divine_Phoenix]

Well, it seems I mostly missed the conversation regarding this.

I was part of the people discussing this on Discord, so I agree with the idea and would be willing to help as well.

Particularly I agree with having a single thread where this is all handled, A Verse Evaluation thread of sorts. Anything else I could say here has already been said. Using a bot seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I've just woken up so let me reply to a few posts, forgive me if they're all a bit old, stale, and moldy by this point.

@Earl I don't believe in absolutes in the way that if a verse cannot fulfill all criteria it will absolutely be deleted. After all our favoerite term on this wiki is "case by case scenario".

@GyroNutz All discussions about a verse's deletion would be announced beforehand and all listed knowledgeable members and experts would be contacted long in advance before a verse would ever get deleted, so yes, everyone would get a chance to "defend" their verse. This leads to another point I'd like to make known- assuming we make the metaphor of a sort of court case, in no way will a defendant be their own judge. For example. I would not be able to give a final verdict on Dungeons and Dragons or Discworld or Bloodborne, someone like Wok wouldn't give final judgement on Destiny or Warhammer 40,000, and so on. This is because these people would be expected to be the ones actually justifying the verse to others rather than just saying "yeah my verse is all g00d, moving on".

@RatherClueless I don't think this will be a new staff group, rather just a continous section of people willing to help out. Not adverse to the idea of it being a tag I just don't really see a point if it has to get a color, dibs on pink

@DontTalk Your criteria fits with ours quite a lot, actually. We had it set up so that verses that were initially unreliable would first get announced and related users would get contacted, if such was impossible, or if even after talks with said users we still didn't have enough to go on, a CRT must be made and the verse goes on a one week grace period before deletion. I would say I'm against automatic bot deletion though.

@Causality/Zarathustra Each verse that has the potential for deletion would receive its own thread for discussion with the people who made the page, listed experts, and supporters. Hopefully every user would be Following the thread in which we announce changes so everybody will have the ability to see a verse they may secretly be an expert on and come forward, too. Discussions for said verse won't be handled on the main thread (which we're currently referring to as the Hub Thread) but would be linked on there.

@Zarathustra (again) Personally I am against deletion under the premise of only one supporter. That may occur if that one user is unable to substantiate his claims or simply refuses to do so. With two users, they can potentially confirm info between each other, leading to less false information, which is essentially the issue. A single supporter alone will not lead to a deleted verse. We're not dictators.

@Xulrev Your ideas actually fit a lot with my original ones, that is, divide the entirety of the Verse category among a group of hand-selected users while each user group (I suggested two people per group) merely picks up a verse, audits it to the best of their ability, then moves to the next.

@Earl The idea is to announce stuff before decisions are actively made so supporters can come forward. If you simply ignore the post saying "Please remained followed to this thread" then there isn't really much we can do to account for your laziness and inability to list yourself as an expert/supporter. At that point we've done all we can to find people who are supporters.

@Udlmaster Revisions likely will still need staff input to some extent.

@Earl Close to our original concept. We'll be taking on a number of people and split into groups, each group being assigned a verse over discord and auditing it. This group will be comprised of trusted normal user names, all brands of moderators, admis, and bureaucrats if they actually desire to chip in. Any verses suggested for potential deletion will be announced in a single core thread everybody is expected to follow and check to see if a verse they are willing to defend is on there- this means not every potential deletion and revision needs highlighted.

@Wright No verse is going to be deleted, and I quote, "because profiles suck". That's never the intention. Priorities are to make pages better rather than blindly deleting them. The ultimate goal is to remove verses that ostensibly cannot be fixed after a long list of actions taken by the audit group.

And I think that's about it on my needed responses. Everyone so far, thank you for the input and the overwhelming support. Cheers to you all.

 

[IMadeThisOn8-1-2017]

While I agree with the idea, my omly issue would be in regards to the "selected staff and users" that would go through everything.

Bias exists among staff and users whether we like it or not, some will favor wanting to remove or "save" a verse from having it's stats removed. So how do we know the selected users are going to be true to task or at least unbiased?

 

[Elizhaa]

My view is pretty much on the thread on Matt's on wall and the discussion that took place on discord. I am entirely supporting of the audits and willing to help. Like, I said on discord a discussion thread of sort should take place in the wiki to handled this topic rather just having mass-deletion.

The bots deletion likely would be a bad idea since everyone unless the page is lock can add the delete template in pages so I think trolls will likely take advantage.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

I support this idea, although I have some fears that the whole thing can go downhill. Hope that doesn't happen.

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

An "audit group" can't possibly be knowledgeable on every verse they're in charge of "purging", as was so eloquently said in the OP. It's just not concievable. This is just one man trying to enforce his control and change the rules of the wiki because he's angry about one verse's upgrade.

 

[GyroNutz]

An "audit group" can't possibly be knowledgeable on every verse they're in charge of "purging", as was so eloquently said in the OP. It's just not concievable. This is just one man trying to enforce his control and change the rules of the wiki because he's angry about one verse's upgrade.

The point is more that people who are knowledgeable on the verse can present their arguments, and the (rest of the) audit group can objectively review the evidence for the verse's ratings. At least, that's what I'd support.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, what if your not an official knowledgeable member, but that person who isn't did heavily help make revisions on a verse, and had massive involvement in that verses particular topics?

 

[Dvorak1902]

An "audit group" can't possibly be knowledgeable on every verse they're in charge of "purging", as was so eloquently said in the OP. It's just not concievable. This is just one man trying to enforce his control and change the rules of the wiki because he's angry about one verse's upgrade.

Please don't try to turn this into another social drama.

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

An "audit group" can't possibly be knowledgeable on every verse they're in charge of "purging", as was so eloquently said in the OP. It's just not concievable. This is just one man trying to enforce his control and change the rules of the wiki because he's angry about one verse's upgrade.

The point is more that people who are knowledgeable on the verse can present their arguments, and the (rest of the) audit group can objectively review the evidence for the verse's ratings. At least, that's what I'd support.

It's just a fancy way of saying "Only certain people are allowed to give their opinion on CRTs".

 

[Crabwhale]

An "audit group" can't possibly be knowledgeable on every verse they're in charge of "purging", as was so eloquently said in the OP. It's just not concievable. This is just one man trying to enforce his control and change the rules of the wiki because he's angry about one verse's upgrade.

This is a weak attempt to try and paint this as something it isn't. Stop fanning drama.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, what if your not an official knowledgeable member, but that person who isn't did heavily help make revisions on a verse, and had massive involvement in that verses particular topics?

 

[Dvorak1902]

I repeat that my idea was to simply let people know which verses or pages are on a state of disrepair, and then enforce more strict quality control.

"0 supporters and a lot of dubious information should be grounds for deletion, just like having only totally unreliable or uncollaborative people as supporters".

"Please make a proper list of all those verses before attempting to delete them. Some people might want to pick them up".

I don't think that fixing stuff should be monopolized either. I think said group should be more focused on constantly reviewing content than on attempting to fix everything.

 

[The_Causality]

So what about the criteria ? They will be Blacklisted because of the lack of scan? The number of edits? Lack of explanation? Dubious rants ?

 

[NeoSuperior]

[...]
I don't think that fixing stuff should be monopolized either. I think said group should be more focused on constantly reviewing content than on attempting to fix everything.

Aren't content moderators already covering that part?

 

[GyroNutz]

It's just a fancy way of saying "Only certain people are allowed to give their opinion on CRTs".

That's the opposite of what this is about.

 

[TataHakai]

I can see both Positives and negatives about this in all honesty

The positive is that it seems like a more efficient way of getting accurate ratings, because honestly the way we do content revisions now is pretty bad, i mean all one needs to do is write a wall of text and have 5 content moderators who may or may not know about the series or the context of the change, with these audits we can have trustworthy members

On the other hand "trustworthy" members is a thin line, it's impossible to stop people from wanting to highball or lowball certain verses, that's an issue for the wikia as a whole and these audits may work in the opposite way that is intended by giving more power to those bias people

So how exactly would recruitment work? will mistakes/bias lead to the role being taken away? These are important questions that need to be discussed far before the role is even thought about, personally i see the audits as way too risky of a change with barely a difference to how we already do things and the consequences of it could be for the worse than better.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

An "audit group" can't possibly be knowledgeable on every verse they're in charge of "purging", as was so eloquently said in the OP. It's just not concievable. This is just one man trying to enforce his control and change the rules of the wiki because he's angry about one verse's upgrade.

That isn't the point. The audit group isn't meant to be knowledgeable, it's more to make sure that knowledgeable people do indeed exist and can back up ratings. This isn't about blocking people out of revisions, it isn't about putting one man in control. It's about allowing the wiki at large to fix mistakes and take part in revisions where a verse has obviously gone awry. In other words, quality control.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I can see both Positives and negatives about this in all honesty
The positive is that it seems like a more efficient way of getting accurate ratings, because honestly the way we do content revisions now is pretty bad, i mean all one needs to do is write a wall of text and have 5 content moderators who may or may not know about the series or the context of the change, with these audits we can have trustworthy members

On the other hand "trustworthy" members is a thin line, it's impossible to stop people from wanting to highball or lowball certain verses, that's an issue for the wikia as a whole and these audits may work in the opposite way that is intended by giving more power to those bias people

So how exactly would recruitment work? will mistakes/bias lead to the role being taken away? These are important questions that need to be discussed far before the role is even thought about, personally i see the audits as way too risky of a change with barely a difference to how we already do things and the consequences of it could be for the worse than better.

I completely agree with TataHakai on this.