FANDOM


  • Atvelonis
    Atvelonis closed this thread because:
    Consensus reached.
    16:00, October 20, 2018

    Hi all, Atvelonis here. So in a moot decision on February 6th, 2016 (text), we decided to change the way that we handled nominations for Comprehensive, Good, and Featured Articles on the wiki. Formerly, an editor would nominate an article that they believed met the requirements for a status, and then the community would either support or reject their proposal. This was all well and good, but a number of editors (myself included) became annoyed at the slow pace these nominations went at, and at the fact that some members of the community were not properly vetting nominated articles.

    So we changed the system. Five active users were chosen as members of the so-called "Circle" to review status article nominations and skip the slow community vote entirely. And it worked! Well, it worked for a little while. Unfortunately, in the long run we've had many fewer status article nominations with this "streamlined" system than we had initially anticipated. This makes a lot of sense in hindsight. Placing the responsibility of reviewing these votes in the hands of only five editors, and further requiring them to discuss nominations in real time with one another, is ridiculously inefficient. I think there has also been a certain amount of confusion as to whether users are even allowed to nominate articles for statuses anymore. Clearly, we need to reevaluate the way we're doing things.

    At this time, I would like to propose that we annul the moot decision from February 6th, 2016 and return to the old system of a public community vote. If an article meets the requirements laid out for CA/GA/FA, a user should write a nomination for said article on the appropriate nomination page, and the community should subsequently review the article, review the requirements, see if they match, and cast their votes. We do this for staff votes and for Member of the Month votes and pretty much everything else: status articles should be no different.

    In the spirit of consensus-building, I would ask that you refrain from voting on this thread until we have cleared up any confusion and reach a revised agreement (if necessary). At that point, it will be appropriate to cast votes as a numeric record of the decision. Thanks.

    Voting-support Support
     
    Voting-neutral Neutral
     
    Voting-oppose Oppose
     
    Voting-support Support {{VoteSupport}}
    Voting-neutral Neutral {{VoteNeutral}}
    Voting-oppose Oppose {{VoteOppose}}
    Voting-comment Comment {{VoteComment}}
      Loading editor
    • I completely support this reform. the circle is quite inactive these days.

        Loading editor
    • As a member who read the moot log a few days after it occurred, I initially felt that the "Circle" idea was one that would save time, and as Atvelonis has said, it did. I joined it because I wanted to get active in the community.

      Of course, the meetings weren't the best coordinated. For the most part, it relied on at least three members being in chat at once, which was fine in 2016, but since then, chat was inconsistent, and tended to be barren. I ended up just voting on the nomination pages myself in an attempt to try to spark something, but that was unsuccessful.

      That being said, I think that with slack, a coordinated meeting is much easier; all we have to do is ask one another for a time, and then join chat. The method can still work, and a simple agreement to do exactly that would fix this.

      Of course, not all circle members have to be part of the staff. The above might not be the easiest for this, so I recognize that flaw with the system as well. In addition, many people can't be on at the same time every time, which makes meetings harder. This caused sessions even in the beginning to be pushed off until later. General disregard on all of our parts didn't help, either.

      Seeing both sides, I am not staunchly on either; the circle is both effective and not, and a substantial promise to put that task not on the back-burner, but as a priority, would make the process smoother than a simple vote; however, the system, as it is now, is flawed, and it may be best to do away with it. Consider my vote for the latter, but only barely. I can support either side, to be honest.

      Regardless of what happens, I suggest that the page be at least archived, rather than straight-up deleted and forgotten, in case we wish to return to that system in the future (which isn't a bad idea, if we decide to go at it with a different angle). Each group of users is different, after all, and for all we know, a bunch of 11-year olds will show up and vote, despite not really knowing anything about policy. Ideally, that won't happen, but you never know.

        Loading editor
    • I do see the merit in having a discussion about each nomination, and I think I would prefer it over simply casting a vote. I wasn't active at the time, but I imagine the Circle would decide this over a chat, making responses much faster. We are already coordinated enough to hold regular monthly moots in the chat here in the wiki, so if interest over the idea picks up again, I can see the Circle becoming active again.

      Having just the active users be part of the Circle will only be a repeat of the first attempt at this, but I would prefer it if we didn't completely go back to the old system. A structure resembling the moot, where everyone can attend and discussion is possible would be ideal.

        Loading editor
    • The issue here is partially that reviewing article status nominations properly takes a while longer than something like a moot decision. Lore articles in particular require a lot of effort to scour through, checking all the references for accuracy. One of the reasons the Circle failed was because the only time the group was ever on Chat at the same time was the moot, and by the time the planned moot decisions were finished, no one felt like voting on status article nominations.

      I agree that encouraging consensus through discussion would be a better system than only using votes. A pure voting system sort of discourages nuanced ideas. Perhaps we could return to votes using the project pages—a more fitting medium for longer discussions—but with the stipulation that there is no immediate vote on anything. Instead, we would talk about the merits of each article first and the ways they each need to be improved. Once we have reached a conclusion there, we would vote on it to solidify the ordeal.

        Loading editor
    • I think the reform should be done. You can't leave the job up to 5 people who may even be inactive most of the time.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote: I agree that encouraging consensus through discussion would be a better system than only using votes. A pure voting system sort of discourages nuanced ideas. Perhaps we could return to votes using the project pages—a more fitting medium for longer discussions—but with the stipulation that there is no immediate vote on anything. Instead, we would talk about the merits of each article first and the ways they each need to be improved. Once we have reached a conclusion there, we would vote on it to solidify the ordeal.

      So basically we are talking about establishing a consensus track minor. I can agree with that idea, although I still feel like we might not get the participation we are looking for. Anything beats the current system as it is now though. Most of the members of the Circle aren't active and funding new people will be another long discussion by itself.

        Loading editor
    • So, it worked. Now, in current situation, going back to the original method works better. I see no problem here, it's better to adapt than to retain the current method because... right, because what? If it stops us from effectively selecting articles, then it's not good.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, so seeing as there has been no more discussion here for a few days, I move to vote on the final proposal:

      In order to accelerate the status article nomination process, I propose that we return to the pre-2016 system of a community vote for each nominated article, with the stipulation that said votes must be preceded by a community discussion/consensus on the nomination page in order to work out any issues with the article before the final vote.

      Please indicate your support, neutrality, or opposition to this proposal in a new comment using {{VoteSupport}}, {{VoteNeutral}}, or {{VoteOppose}}.

      Voting-support Support – I believe that adopting this proposal will result in a greater number of high-quality pages being granted Comprehensive, Good, and Featured Article status, and will benefit readers and the wiki as a whole.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      It would work this way
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      It is definitely preferred from what we have now, and since there have not been any better suggestions, I support this.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Given the current situation, I think that this would be the best solution.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      For reasons that I mentioned above, I am ok with either option; however, getting rid of the Circle might be the best course of action, so I am certainly not opposing the proposition to get rid of it.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      it will work in the current situation, it will improve the wiki, so yes.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      – As the Circle is inactive recently, and since I personally believe in the decision of the many over the few, I cast my vote in support of this change.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Agree.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I will always support a cause, be it good or bad. (I just have nothing more to say except agreed)
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Wiki needs to move on from outdated systems.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      What can I say, I like democracy, the more people that can vote, the better.
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.