Team Fortress Wiki talk:Discussion/Wiki Cap
 | Archive July 3 - August 8, 2011 |
Round-the-Clock Moderation
Whilst more of a combination of two of the existing ones, has there been a consideration of removing moderators who are inactive (through a discussions of course), then re-hiring around 5-6 moderators who are in different time zones? For instance, 5 mods from UK/West EU, 5 from USA, and 5 from Eest EU/Asia/Oceania. This kind of a set-up should give a strong moderator presence around the clock.
Most other solutions seem like they might not work in a democratic and fair system: non-staff members could easily bias votes if they think un/friendly things about the candidate, static discussions would mean people would put their views and generally not bother to look at it again, and less staff members mean less discussion.
Just some of my views ^^ 
15:14, 29 August 2012 (PDT)
New nomination system idea
Maybe it looks cold on the first look but i think this shortens it, but also makes it more clear what a person does on the wiki Pick 3-5 main points and after that what the person which is nominated also does. Here my suggestions:
Makes redirects
Creates new articles in "language"
Makes grammar corrections
Deletes bad edits and/or trivia and/or bugs
Uploads new pictures
Creates new pictures (paintable hats f.e.)
Helps new user to improve with informations about a wiki problem
Creates needed templates
Updates articles which are outdated in "language"
Works on the STS for TF2 translations (discussable)
δ³Σx² 08:01, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
- That summarizes most of what can be done on the wiki, I'm against relating the wiki cap to the STS though, it's two completely different things. Working on STS shouldn't in any way be related to obtaining a Wiki Cap. The Wiki Cap is a reward for contributing and improving the TF Wiki, not the STS. Tturbo
(
/ 
) 08:16, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
- I was under the idea that most/all of this was already considered. That and being somewhat active in general. But I agree, the STS stuff doesn't really seem relevant to the wiki. ~Sven~ 08:18, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
- So add some more points, which are missing? If people add a person for nomination they often dont insert certain informations, and only some "could be argument". So i think with these we could shorten the nominations but also show what makes this user good(special). δ³Σx² 08:23, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
- To be very honest, nomination systems should work by giving examples and not simply saying "oh he does this, and he does that~". There should be very clear and very strong examples as to what the user has contributed to the Wiki, be they overhauls, new pages and a lot of content, or pictures they've uploaded (etc). Small things like redirects and tags (i.e. improveimage, delete, move, etc) should not count towards the main nomination, but definitely can be considered in the final decision-making process as a way of seeing what users do - if it's constant redirects and silly small edits to boost edit count then no, it shouldn't be considered. But if it's all a part of several things then it can be considered if the people behind the final decision wish it to be. Also, STS workers should be a catalyst behind decisions and not a reason for a nomination. 08:33, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
- To be very honest, nomination systems should work by giving examples and not simply saying "oh he does this, and he does that~". There should be very clear and very strong examples as to what the user has contributed to the Wiki, be they overhauls, new pages and a lot of content, or pictures they've uploaded (etc). Small things like redirects and tags (i.e. improveimage, delete, move, etc) should not count towards the main nomination, but definitely can be considered in the final decision-making process as a way of seeing what users do - if it's constant redirects and silly small edits to boost edit count then no, it shouldn't be considered. But if it's all a part of several things then it can be considered if the people behind the final decision wish it to be. Also, STS workers should be a catalyst behind decisions and not a reason for a nomination.
- So add some more points, which are missing? If people add a person for nomination they often dont insert certain informations, and only some "could be argument". So i think with these we could shorten the nominations but also show what makes this user good(special). δ³Σx² 08:23, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
- I was under the idea that most/all of this was already considered. That and being somewhat active in general. But I agree, the STS stuff doesn't really seem relevant to the wiki. ~Sven~ 08:18, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
