• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Important Question: Wiki Opinion on Verse Audits

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember, most of the verses that really need this or are in danger here are the ones whos profiles can't substantiate themselves. A profile should have the resources contained within it that can back up the claims it makes, whether it be calcs, respect threads, scans, explanations, etc. Evaluating all that type of stuff is normal as is. We just plan to contact people directly if their verse is on the chopping block so they can try and substantiate their work.
 
But can't we just do that with content revision threads anyways?

How is that different from making a content revision thread and messaging knowledeable members?

The only difference i see is that you'd have to tell them that "the verse is on the chopping block" when messaging them.

The point of the wikia is constant change through new ideas or information, if we surpress the thoughts of others by giving more power and discrepancy to certain people (more than we already do through content moderators/discussion moderators) then it'll do nothing but create a larger shift between normal members and the selected few.
 
Although I still have concerns that probably won't be alleviated until this is put in to action and hopefully works, I agree with the idea and think this could be a good way to spark interests and revive dead or small verses.
 
This is a far more organized and orderly way of going about things. It's a concerted effort to actually seek out these verses that might be bad, as we go through them and look over. (A lot of the problem pages will be stuff that's super old and lacking in justifications, pages like Spider Jerusalem. I can't really envision many that would end up terribly controversial)

The "knowledgeable members list" doesn't really mean that much anymore. Lot of people are inactive, moved on to other stuff, and you don't have some sort of proof requirement here. On the other hand, looking at the main contributors of the verse and those who actually do stuff on pages and threads makes far more sense than using that.

I think the phrasing of "audit group" or whatever is tripping people up. Top contributors and people who've actually demonstrated knowledge aren't just gonna be shut out of saving their own files, and half of the staff thing is even deciding whether the process needs to be initiated in the first place. Nothing will happen to any verse deemed unreliable until its people have been contacted or at least a week has elapsed with no notice, and many verses won't go through things in the first place.

I fail to see how only requesting people who actually made the suspect profiles and know the verse contribute to the question of whether the file can be recovered. Worst case scenario, literally nothing stops you from just asking to contribute
 
I know the detals of this are beig idscussed, but will the group be staff only or a staff position?
 
Dead verses with no supporters/Knowlegable members will be blacklisted right?

What would happen to a verse like Saint Seiya verse that has maybe only 1 or 2 active knowlegable members that are frequently on the site? it currently has those 1 or 2 people slowly looking at the series from what i seen, heard, and understood.
 
TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
Dead verses with no supporters/Knowlegable members will be blacklisted right?

What would happen to a verse like Saint Seiya verse that has maybe only 1 or 2 active knowlegable members that are frequently on the site? it currently has those 1 or 2 people slowly looking at the series from what i seen, heard, and understood.
Click to expand...
They're allowed to just say that's the case, you know. Just show a bit of proof progress is being made and all. I recall matt (i'm assuming he's one of these few people) saying a bunch of files should be deleted anyways, and it's really not hard at all to just undelete something later if need be if it comes to that.
 
I mean i agree with the Knowledgeable members list but i don't see how giving certain people more power than others solves that

Best case Scenario is replace the knowledgeable members list with Audit groups, with people who still have the same amount of power or say as normal members.

And how would this affect verses that "aren't bad", are we still making audit groups for those? I mean for now i'm personally neutral on this but if someone shapes this into an actually reasonable method we can use on the wikia then i'd be all for it, the way we run this place is far from perfect right now
 
Yobo Blue said:
I know the detals of this are beig idscussed, but will the group be staff only or a staff position?
Click to expand...
Not really a 100% set thing. We'd want people capable of evaluating the stuff without bias, and wouldn't have people be on the eval side of verses they're substantially biased with regards to. For example, I wouldn't be able to stay on audit arbiters or whatever if Destiny was marked for deletion for whatever reason because I started the verse on the site and literally run a vbw destiny server. Not all staff would just have free reign for all verses. If blues are solid and reliable, able to eval something objectively, that's fine. Agnaa's already sorta there because he can't take away the rights he has by virtue of starting the area, after all.
 
Wokistan said:
They're allowed to just say that's the case, you know. Just show a bit of proof progress is being made and all. I recall matt (i'm assuming he's one of these few people) saying a bunch of files should be deleted anyways, and it's really not hard at all to just undelete something later if need be if it comes to that.
Click to expand...
From what i recall on past Saint Seiya threads... Matt hasn't appeared in them.. and i remember one thread where a staff member said Matt seems to have lost interest in the verse. but i do agree with profile deletions on a few characters.

overall.. i find this idea to still be a bit confusing as it looks like some areas still need worked out. i'll just continue to observe and read over peoples responses.


 
Oh yeah also: Everyone is planned on being able to view the discussions going on at any time. See something going on you object to or don't like? Can always send some PMs around. Its not like super secret verse deletion gang or whatever.
 
Does this mean the Content Revision forum is going bye bye?? Or will it still be there for people to post things such as downgrades, upgrades, and ability additions/removals???


If a staff member disagrees with the current ratings of a verse. does that prompt an immediate audit group to judge the evidence posted?
 
The content revision forum is not going anywhere. This isn't going to remove any of the old things. It's adding a new thing. That new thing being the verse evaluations.
 
GojiBoyForever said:
How will trustworthy members be selected? I personally think it would be best if both regular members and staff would come together to decide who's worthy.
Click to expand...
I Agree.

Considering Staff have enough to do, a new set of people should be employed to do the job, that is unless said staff wish to take on the job as well.
 
TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
Does this mean the Content Revision forum is going bye bye?? Or will it still be there for people to post things such as downgrades, upgrades, and ability additions/removals???


If a staff member disagrees with the current ratings of a verse. does that prompt an immediate audit group to judge the evidence posted?
Click to expand...
Why would the content revision board go away this isn't for literally every revision. People are seriously misconstruing it. This isn't a "I disagree with these ratings" thing, its a "this profile can't justify that which it states is true with scans and sources" thing.
 
Yobo Blue said:
Well, is there a reasonable method to determine who can value something objectively?
Click to expand...
Having more than one person to look at stuff helps, and the fact that everyone's able to at least view. It's sorta impossible to be 100% objective with regards to anything just due to biases people will intrinsically have for whatever reason, but it's pretty clear who is to be substantially biased with regards to some possible verse just by looking at contribs. Also the fact that it isn't a 1 man show.
 
Thank you for answering my questions.. I am sorry if they were annoying..

I do believe there is a lot of misunderstandings going on from reviewing this thread, in my opinion.. but im starting to somewhat see the bigger picture.
 
Guys, verse evaluation isn't really something that has a place right now. Trying to delete a whole verse on the deletion requests thread generally won't go so well and people are reprimanded for arguing about whether or not something should be deleted there despite that ostensibly being the purpose of a thread. The suggestion is a place where these discussions actually have a place to be, and will be just as publicly viewable as any other area.
 
TataHakai said:
But we already have the content revision thread/profile deletion thread for that, i still don't see the point in this
Click to expand...
Organization is the point. The entire point is that it's an actual unified effort to actively search through our archives as opposed to "eh it will happen eventually". Large discussions are frowned upon in the deletion thread, and it's very easy for CRTs to get chaotic and out of hand.
 
So the only purpose of these audits is to see which verses need deletion?
 
GojiBoyForever said:
Its to review verses and determine if the information is correct if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
This is correct. If the information is determined to be inaccurate or insufficiently justified then the supporters are contacted to fix this. If no one is able or willing to fix it, only then the verse gets deleted.
 
TataHakai said:
So the only purpose of these audits is to see which verses need deletion?
Click to expand...
The initial auditing process is deciding what ostensibly should be deleted yeah. Of those verses, people are then contacted to say their piece and we go from there.

Right now the template has 3 categories: Unevaluated verses, legitimate verses, and questionable verses. Sorting things out of unevaled is done by the group, but if something lands in questionable, then it's dudes are contacted.
 
Question again.. I am sorry.. lets say there is a super popular verse. Like in the top 20 most popular verses overrall, There is 1 particular character everyone scales from (This can range from a lot of verse). If the justification is not satisfactory, and the knowlegable memebers are called upont to fix it, btu what if none of them agree amongst themselves over a new justification? (For questionable ratings)
 
TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
Question again.. I am sorry.. lets say there is a super popular verse. Like in the top 20 most popular verses overrall, There is 1 particular character everyone scales from (This can range from a lot of verse). If the justification is not satisfactory, and the knowlegable memebers are called upont to fix it, btu what if none of them agree amongst themselves over a new justification? (For questionable ratings)
Click to expand...
Tbh verses really shouldn't ever be in such a precarious spot and I have no idea what's been going on to allow something to get to the point where just 1 thing can cause a huge explosion, but if they can't agree then that's when the observing evaluators step in for their evaluation. This is also kinda missing the point, this isn't supposed to be about fate or whatever.
 
So how will it be decided if a verse isn't worth keeping though?

Will someone go through all the pages one by one? How many "legit" pages will a verse need to be exempt from deletion? If it only has 1 out of 10 pages that are legitimate then should that one page still be deleted alongside the rest of the verse or only the 9 that aren't?

And i'm still not sure how the audit members are chosen, you said it's based on who contributes the most etc. but how do you even know their contributions? what about people who created the pages but are no longer active?

If 1 person created an entire verse and their pages then how would you use an audit there?

I know it's a lot of questions but all these answers need to be thought of far before this is implemented
 
Why are we suddenly talking about people getting more power?

I don't see why anyone should get more power in this or anything like that.


This should basically be just a more organized version of a group just searching out statistics they question and making CRT to review them.

The goal shouldn't be deletion, that only comes if a CRT leads to nothing. (Which per default is the case if nobody cares enough to actually respond to questions about the verse, which would be demonstrated to be the case by nobody reacting to the pages possible deletion)

Judgement of the CRT's should happen in the usual manner CRT's are judged.


I would also rather not do something like selecting trustworthy or untrustworthy members. I don't think it would be healthy to have such a class system and it amplifies bias.

It should be about wether evidence can be presented or not. If a random person that joined 3 days ago can present sufficiently convincing evidence there is no problem. It is one thing to give a bit more leeway to people we know well and another to disregard others.


From what I have read to this point Mr. Bambu's proposal generally follows this, I think?
 
TataHakai said:
So how will it be decided if a verse isn't worth keeping though?
Click to expand...
After discussion with the people appointed to it/a week of nothing.

Will someone go through all the pages one by one? How many "legit" pages will a verse need to be exempt from deletion? If it only has 1 out of 10 pages that are legitimate then should that one page still be deleted alongside the rest of the verse or only the 9 that aren't?

There's some neat search categories that aid in finding probable candidates. Stuff like "least overall edits" or "longest time since last edit". If some pages are legit and others aren't it would usually make more sense to just delete the bad pages but this is a case by case basis and solving this question is literally the entire point of having discussions in the first place.


And i'm still not sure how the audit members are chosen, you said it's based on who contributes the most etc. but how do you even know their contributions? what about people who created the pages but are no longer active?

You can click on peoples files and view user contribs. Can also view the history of the profiles and see who's name is popping up all the time, see who's active in CRTs, etc. We aren't robots that gotta follow some algorithm. If nobody's active to save a verse that's questionable it probably goes away. Files gotta substantiate themselves. Of course with everyone being able to view this I'm sure that if the verse has the capacity to be saved by someone on this site, someone will try.


If 1 person created an entire verse and their pages then how would you use an audit there?

You talk to that person just like literally any other number of people and make them provide proof for their sketchy verse (assuming it was marked for deletion).
 
To put it bluntly, if we did this, I would likely actually come back to the community full time. I agree, for sure. We need to have tighter controls in general.
 
@DT (too large to quote)

"Why are we suddenly talking about people getting more power? I don't see why anyone should get more power in this or anything like that."

People aren't really. I think the term of "audit group" is sorta causing fears of that but no verse will actually end up deleted without the chance for people to discuss it.

"This should basically be just a more organized version of a group just searching out statistics they question and making CRT to review them. The goal shouldn't be deletion, that only comes if a CRT leads to nothing. (Which per default is the case if nobody cares enough to actually respond to questions about the verse, which would be demonstrated to be the case by nobody reacting to the pages possible deletion) "

Yeah. I'd anticipate a lot of verses not even being put into questionable tier. People thinking this gonna target shit like Naruto and bleach and fate super hard while I'd be more worried if I was making files like Spider Jerusalem.

"I would also rather not do something like selecting trustworthy or untrustworthy members. I don't think it would be healthy to have such a class system and it amplifies bias. It should be about wether evidence can be presented or not. If a random person that joined 3 days ago can present sufficiently convincing evidence there is no problem. It is one thing to give a bit more leeway to people we know well and another to disregard others. "

This is more "can we not have like a million people all arguing at once and trying to do shit out of spite to other verses" like what happens in stuff like Naruto and bleach. If that guy has the scans to save the verse but didn't get noticed, that guy can always send a PM to someone or something to request access.

"From what I have read to this point Mr. Bambu's proposal generally follows this, I think? "

Yeah
 
Also lets remember that it isn't hard to just click the undelete button if someone miraculously shows up 1 day late with perfect justifications for everything or whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2 3
Replies
85
Views
5K
The_Tetromino_King
The_Tetromino_King
Antvasima
  • Sticky
  • Featured
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
8K
Agnaa
Agnaa
AKM sama
Super Moderator Promotions and New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
Greenshifter
Greenshifter
  • Locked
VSBW, FC/OC and Joke Battles: A Few Questions For Staff
Replies
13
Views
1K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Starter_Pack
I am returned! (Somewhat...)
Replies
8
Views
1K
Homie890
Back
Top