• 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.
If no one is getting more power than an audit group is unnecessary isn't it? We can just make it part of our practice to search for these guesswork verses and make the appropriate thread/CRT for them if necessary.

That being said, rather than an Aduit group, why not an Audit thread? Similar to the Profile Deletion Thread and similar ones, this thread would be for verse review and after discussion on that thread a CRT can made for said verse if need be
 
@Sera That idea was brought up and discussed from here onwards.
 
The thread will be made, but the idea was to have several people specifically for this job. So several people who would objectively judge a verse and recommend it for deletion if necessary.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that a combination of editing and content revision thread competence should be used as qualifying factors.
Click to expand...
Just a reminder. I think that anybody who has more than 4000 edits and is deemed competent in at least one of the above areas can help the audit group.
 
If I may, the criteria may be good as a guideline but I don't think it should be strict. If everyone can vouch for a member being reliable in this task, but he doesn't fulfill the criteria then he should still be fine to include in the group
 
@Andytrenom

I suppose that makes sense.
 
Andytrenom said:
If I may, the criteria may be good as a guideline but I don't think it should be strict. If everyone can vouch for a member being reliable in this task, but he doesn't fulfill the criteria then he should still be fine to include in the group
Click to expand...
Obviously as i said the criteria shouldn't be fixed, those are more like preferences, rather than actual criterias, so literally guidelines. What we should look for in someone who will be suitable for this job.
 
I prefer if we go by my and Andy's suggestions.
 
Ogurtsow said:
Using the Editcount special page, we can easily reveal which areas someone's edits come from mostly, and who are experienced wiki editors and not just forum debaters. Thus I think 1K edits in the Main Space should be enough for a potential candidate.
Click to expand...
I like this idea too, and it makes sense. However, despite uploading over a hundred pages, I have only 991 edits. I see this was already answered without my input, just further concreting the point that 1000+ edits on articles is also sort of reliant on other factors than contribution.
 
Just to clarify, I strictly referred to Andy's last post.
 
I mean, even I only have 653 mainspace edits but I also did some setup stuff with this and am admin anyways. I could chalk that up to how my edits on profiles tend to just be a ton of stuff at once. Any examples of people who fit this 1k mainspace edit criteria?
 
I have 1065 edits listed for my main space.

Most of them are pointlessly accumulated though, as I tend to randomly visit a profile and add minor changes onto it
 
Yeah I started looking through the mainspace edits for people and some people have an absolute ton of them. Guess i'm low despite putting entire verses up.
 
I've got 866 mainspace edits in total, although I'm finishing up a Pokemon revision so that number'll probably pass 1000 soon
 
Back on topic, I personally feel like CRT contribution would be a better metric than mainspace edits (and not just because I have a weirdly low number.) Mainspace often will skew towards admins and content mods due to them being able to edit every profile and usually being the ones to carry out large verse revisions after a thread is completed, and also because they're supposed to fix minor grammar mistakes. I'd take the people actually contributing stuff in the CRTs and deletion threads over just grammar fixes, as it shows a greater understanding of what goes into a good profile and is generally just more relevant.
 
CRT contribution being???? Always backs up what he/she says with scans + Place to proof read said scan such as original source, said person always address counter points in a "nice" "Levelheaded" manner even when hes proven, or shown to be wrong????
 
We were considering the sum total edit count combined with the quality of profile editing and content revision thread contributions as qualifying factors.
 
GyroNutz said:
I mean, it's the verse with the most profiles on the site.
Click to expand...
Challenge accepted.
 
Is there anyone currently considered for the position? As I reckon it'd be easier to know what standard of user should be elected as compared to a familiar and trusted member
 
Guys, you're looking at an outdated set number. We had already decided to lower it down to 200 edits, since 1K is too high for many.
 
I honestly agree that it shouldn't be based on edits but rather CRT/Thread participation.

The users and staff going through all the pages aren't going to remove nor approve of pages based on their knowledge of editing pages, it's on accuracy of the pages.

CRTs' sole purpose is to revise for accuracy, it's a better background and basis for whoever is selected to be a part of this.
 
How should we check for CRT aptitude? Send lists of applicants to Ant/the other staff he mentioned?
 
Well, I and the people I mentioned can probably help with evaluating candidates based on their editing quality, but as IMade mentioned, consistent high-quality contributions to content revision threads should likely be an even more important deciding factor.
 
I'd like to think the same and before moving on to concretely saying how it should work, I'd like to see if people have any other ideas of their own. As for Ant's stuff... we can take the help of people who monitor wiki activity a lot, that just seems like another task for them to complete in a rather long list of tasks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
AKM sama
Super Moderator Promotions and New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
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
786
Homie890
AKM sama
VSBW Lore: Staff Timeline Returns
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
HammerStrikes219
HammerStrikes219
Back
Top