Team Fortress Wiki talk:Discussion/Wiki Cap/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Distribution Model

In response to the 'Nominate and Approve' model discussed on the project page:

• With the previous Wiki Cap distribution method, the key flaw that the staff seem to agree upon was the fact it was automated, dependant upon whatever data the wiki had easy access to. However, the idea of collecting candidates into one ongoing list is not inherently flawed on its own; how about setting up a private PasteBin (or other remotely-hosted) list of candidates, possibly with a regularly-changed password, that any of the Wiki higher-ups could add candidates to? After you establish an initial list template and first set of nominees, any new candidate submissions would be added to the bottom of the list, keeping the old nominees near the top and in regular consideration. As long as a good template is agreed upon, this would hopefully solve some of the issues inherent in the previously-used method, while retaining a familiar and dependable data format. Mainman ^{(Talk ▪ Contribs.)} 15:51, 17 July 2011 (PDT)
• I figure I'd throw in my two cents since (heh) someone asked for opinions in the IRC. As far as the previous system is concerned, I'm glad it was removed. It encouraged a 'stats' type system where people weren't making quality edits anymore, and were more concerned about being on a list. For the new method, I would support the nomination and voting method. Anyone can nominate anyone else, and votes are publicly seen under each persons name. The votes being publicly available are important, as they can help a user know what he is doing wrong, and what to improve. And of course there is bound to be a good handful of votes of people for themselves, and other things like that, and the solution to this, I think, is easy. Simply post a noticeable banner/section at the top of the page, outlining basic rules like "Voting for yourself is allowed, but not desirable" And other such guidelines, as well as tips for users to spot other good users out there. As far as the lazy-ness goes, I don't think it's a problem. Plenty of people still these days go wack-o over wikicaps. And the last important thing to do would be to make users very aware of the new process once/if it's enacted, and have a noticeable, permanent, link on the mainpage, or sidebar linking to the wikicap articles. I just don't think that a small link somewhere stuffed into the mainpage will draw that many users in. Well that's my opinion, I'd hope that you guys take it into consideration, that is, if anyone even sees this :/. MogDog66 15:20, 17 July 2011 (PDT)
• I think IRC logs must be visible, "but only mods / admins should be allowed to join when there is discussion going on" (In the words of seb26) -- Cappy ^talk 22:24, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

Visibility

On the subject of visibility (i.e. transparency), I would like to re-emphasise that the Wiki is a community project. That was the rationale behind its creation, the way in which it has been, and still is, advertised to the playerbase, and the way in which it is regarded by the community at large. Transparency is of critical importance for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the ability to ensure that the community can have confidence in the Wiki's leadership. This is important to consider, as certain allegations have been made in past that accuse the Staff of impropriety (such as the alleged awarding of Wiki Caps to friends, etc) and will no doubt be made again in the future. Regardless of the accuracy of such allegations, the best defence against such rhetoric in the past has been "check the logs". If the process of awarding Wiki Caps becomes opaque to the community and the process happens behind closed doors, what will the Staff's official answer be to any such allegations? How can the process be defended if it is not transparent? How can the community have confidence in a system that they cannot participate in, and have no visibility into? The former is not necessarily a problem because members of the community would not necessarily be aware of the contributions of individuals, but the latter? A lack visibility into the process would only add credence to those detractors that claim that the Wiki is run by a "secretive cabal", and that is the sort of view that, if adopted by more than a vocal minority, could have a deleterious impact upon the reputation of the Wiki and its Staff. Considering the excitable nature of communities such as the Steam Fora, such a dramatic policy change will certainly be inflammatory when introduced, and questions *will* be asked and (probably erroneous) assumptions made.

It is a change like this that has the potential to have a significant, negative impact upon the public's perception of the Wiki, which would be a serious setback for a community site. Altering the process and making it private sends a strong message to the community at large and, even if the policy change were explained and outlined in depth, it is probable that it would still be misinterpreted. Rather than being seen as a practical change for convenience and in order to improve the Cap distribution system, the change could be seen (most likely by a vocal minority) to have been implemented for nefarious reasons. The problem is that such minorities can be quite loud, and even if they are merely "trolling", there will always be people that take them seriously, and such tales inevitably spread to the community and even to those that do not utilise the Steam Fora. As a public Wiki, the opinion of the community is of vital importance and this should be taken into consideration. The Wiki is not a private enterprise after all, and is a community resource (albeit one officially recognised by Valve). As such, I would contend that the Wiki actually has an obligation to be transparent, even if the community is not directly involved in the Wiki Cap distribution process. Indeed, the very fact that they do not means that full transparency is the one of the best ways to ensure that the system is equitable and above reproach. Just a little food for thought. --- Esquilax 16:35, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Have to say I agree with all the points Esky mentioned here. The wiki is transparent by nature, and closing doors will only cause problems. It's obvious you guys wish to avoid the "friends of the admins" appearance, yet if you close doors, how will anyone know anyway? For all they know you can still be inviting non admins. The wiki is a transparent place where all users can exchange and view the flow of information, regardless of said information's topic, or whom is discussing it. And as for excuse that making the process visible would hurt the wiki's image anyway, as some people get heated in the discussion, I don't think that's anyone's fault other than whoever got heated. I don't understand why an entire staff should have to compromise to hide the 'entire discussion, just because a couple of people can't be calm. As far as I'm concerned, those who cannot control themselves and be civil should be talked to, and asked to calm down. After all, if we have angry staff, that's bad for the image anyway, open discussion or not. Excuse me for being a bit blunt, all the wiki staff are nice people, and everyone has their faults, I just find it necessary to express all my opinions in a discussion I find to be very important. MogDog66 13:48, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

Closing the doors of the wiki cap discussions, and discussions in general puts out a very strong message that the views of the community are not regarded or considered. Even the opinions of those of us who have been around for a while and are known to all of the moderators and admins seem to have been cast aside, as even on the discussion on the wiki cap talk page was restricted to "staff only." Those of us who also had opinions were told, "go over here and slap down an opinion on this other page if you really have to say something." We are talking about an item which is rewarded to those of us who go out of our way to better the wiki and help the community. To close out the community in anything goes against the whole point. Is it valid to say that anyone's opinion is more valuable than anyone else's? -- GenCoolio (talk | contribs) 20:29, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

I don't see why the selection process needs our intervention. We are not the ones whom will judge who gets what and when. Too many cooks spoil the broth. I personally do not like the idea that these discussions are "OPEN" for everyone to view. I would not want others to read the discussions that the Staff members may have about me with regards to being considered for a Wiki Cap or my behaviour if it has been unruly, etc. That is something that should be done behind closed doors where the Staff can say what they need to and/or look into my work and judge it. I don't want to know nor should I care to read the discussions that do not concern me, and most of the time, said conversations bring about pure drama, competition, and even jealousy.

Imagine if your school grades were discussed in front of the entire class, if personal information you wanted to remain private was revealed to everyone. That's what we're basically looking at here: dissemination of information that should remain private as it pertains to individuals, rather than the Wiki as a whole.

If I have any concerns on how the Staff members are handling a situation, I know I can go to them and discuss these issues further. I have never been turned away, and I know they would be as helpful as possible. They have nothing to hide and have a proven track record of responsiveness and openness. If they wanted to do it behind closed doors, I fully trust them to do so. If I didn't, I would not be here right now. And if I feel something regarding my work on the Wiki needs to be privately discussed, including my own Wiki Cap selection process, then I think a one-on-one option with an admin should be viable for all members of the Wiki, rather than a public discussion.

In response to concerns about outside opinions on the Wiki Cap selection process:

We should not allow ourselves to be concerned with unfounded, biased perceptions into our selection process, as this can be detrimental to any sort of meaningful and productive discourse relating to important decisions on the Wiki. Rather, we should allow those elements to bicker amongst themselves (which they will anyway, with or without our influence) and put our focus on deriving progress in discussions about said issues.

Remember, according to Valve - Robin Walker to be exact "No bias towards the Steam forums either, they're only around 3% of the player base. They try to focus on problems, not solutions, until they're sure they've identified the problems correctly. THEN they're interested in what solutions the community proposes." Robin Walker interview by Political Gamer, the majority of the TF2 fanbase is not centralized on a specific, official forum. Likewise, we should not put so much weight on what a message board thinks about our operations. BiBi 17:07, 23 July 2011 (PDT)

Okay, how about this:

• A new channel, #tfwikicap or something, is made, with private logs and passworded entry. Only wiki cap matters should be discussed in it, so that other discussions (establishing policies etc) can still be handled publicly in #tfwikistaff
• Spacenet goes in there, like the omniscient bot that it is
• When it's time to review someone, Spacenet would have a command like "!startlog SomeUsername" that people in there would trigger
• People would then talk about SomeUsername's work, review, decide etc
• When done, someone would say "!endlog", and that would end SomeUsername's log
• This log would then be viewable online but with a password unique to SomeUsername
• SomeUsername may then ask an admin to give him URL/password so that he can view the log if he wants to
• SomeUsername may share said URL/password if he decides to make it public; but again, this would only make public his log, not the others' logs

This requires that extra functionality added to Spacenet, so it may take some time to get it working right, but I feel this would give the proper transparency/privacy balance. Please let me know what you think~ — Wind 19:04, 23 July 2011 (PDT)

I like this idea. If it were to be implemented though I think all users must be made aware of their right to this information. —Moussekateer·talk 15:19, 24 July 2011 (PDT)

Why yes, that would be part of the guidelines rewrite we have to do — Wind 16:36, 24 July 2011 (PDT)

Yes, this might work. However, as Mousse said, all users need to be very aware of the channel, and its process, and they need to somehow be reassured that wikicap is discussion is all that would be going on in there, as I trust the staff wouldn't go around the community's back like that. Showing the user the logs allow the user to see why or why not they received the cap, and allows said user to share the log to other users so they have an outline of appropriate behavior/actions, while still retaining most of the transparency in all wiki-related matters. I support this, as long as it's incorporated correctly. MogDog66 20:52, 24 July 2011 (PDT)

Hmm, an interesting idea. It may be a good compromise, however it is not difficult to imagine the community in general complaining about *any* private channel, as they may suspect that it could be used for "secret discussions" that do not relate to the Cap. The irony being of course, that there is nothing to stop the Staff doing that now through other methods such as Steam or IM ;). One alternative that springs to mind would be scheduling the logs to become public after a certain period of time. This would not prevent the Staff members' passion (if any) from being displayed (which as I understand it is a concern), but that could be overcome by obfuscating specific lines. Naturally, that too has its problems (not to mention additional work for someone). I suppose that in the end, the question of why some Staff become so impassioned that they feel the need to keep their comments private (not that there is anything wrong with that) is at the heart of the matter. Is it simply a matter of personalities? Interpretations of the rules? Perceived nepotism? I wonder if this is something that could be addressed, i.e. work with the people in order to avoid any vitriol as opposed to implementing a technical solution that may not be necessary. I do not know enough about the current wrinkles in the process to comment, but it's just a thought. --- Esquilax 21:12, 24 July 2011 (PDT)

As you said, there could already be such private channels among staff, and we obviously cannot prove that these are not being used to discuss wikicap-related issues. It's a matter of trust, one way or another; just like you trust the existing logs to be accurate in the first place. I could modify them at will if I wanted to (and I do, when things like street addresses and such are erroneously pasted inside publicly-logged channels), but the community (already) trusts that this doesn't happen. — Wind 20:45, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

I think this is very good idea! — Cappy ^talk 10:54, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

Just might be awkward for someone if they ask for their log and the answer is "...we don't have a log for you" But that's kind of an unavoidable problem. Balladofwindfishes 11:03, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

The idea that private discussions don't already take place is quite silly. No one can prove they have happened or that they haven't. Let us not forget that. The key here is not that staff comments should stay private, for logs should be provided if requested by the individual in question, the point is that the "individual" whom the staff members are reviewing should have the "choice" of whether they are happy for everyone to read the comments staff members make about them. Whether good or bad, it should be a choice made by the individual that is getting reviewed. So my concern is not so much about what Staff members not been able to speak openly, because to be frank, if you are an administrator or moderator you better feel pretty comfortable about speaking out and knowing that things you say may go under scrutiny. Sometimes admins/moderators maybe right and sometimes wrong but one thing they should always be is comfortable with being open and honest with those they are trying to help. This I feel is the case with our current Staff members so lucky us that we have such a great team. BiBi 11:27, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

Dissolving Edit Minimum

I would first of all like to emphasize that hat is for the community, and should, in my opinion, be handed out based on a user's impact on the community. A user who does not participate in discussions, who does not go on IRC, but has over 1,000 edits based off of work a bot could do, should not be getting a Wiki Cap. While on the other hand, a user who has only around 100 edits, but that are centered on talk pages, discussions, and is on IRC, should get one. The 400 edit count rule drives people to make edits a bot could do and put lousy edits as fast as possible. If the guidelines were more community oriented, or even completely about the community impact, you would stop people from 'edit whoring' and putting useless information. Lastly, it's called the Community Wiki Cap, why isn't it based on the person impact in the community. Thank you for reading this proposal. --_Sp3c^Talk 00:08, 4 August 2011 (PDT)

There is no minimum edit rule with the solution we've been discussing on this page; that's part of the old distribution process we're replacing. -RJ 00:11, 4 August 2011 (PDT)

But there's no thread that is saying that shouldn't be one in the new distribution process :P. --_Sp3c^Talk 00:23, 4 August 2011 (PDT)

The new distribution process is essentially "nominate & evaluate". The quantity of edits won't be taken into consideration, a user's impact on the Wiki as a community will. -RJ 00:28, 4 August 2011 (PDT)

Thank you, that's exactly what I think should be implemented. --_Sp3c^Talk 00:29, 4 August 2011 (PDT)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.