Forum:Account Age for the Wikian

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Account Age for the Wikian
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 March 2019 by JaydenKieran.

Yes, another Wikian discussion.

One of the current guidelines for the title is: "Nominees, nominators, and commenters should have a wiki account at least 2 weeks old". I propose we remove "nominees" and "nominators" from this guideline. In other words, an account which has been registered for one day should be able to nominate themselves for the Wikian title.

It is true that if a nomination is made within a day it will most likely fail. But why should we restrict editing to a minimum of two weeks when they could tick all the other boxes in potentially a day? What differentiates a user who has done 200 edits in two weeks compared to 200 edits in one day? Recognition to other editors is not a requirement for the title: we should vote on people based on their contribution, not whether we know them or not. This is even stated in the guidelines: "Users should not oppose based on [...] how new the user is".

I think players should be able to go "Hey, we can get this title by editing to the wiki! Cool!" without thinking "Oh damn I have to wait two weeks minimum to be eligible to nominate myself? AND the nomination takes a full week too?!", and then they're turned off editing for the title. It's always been my opinion that if someone joins the wiki, edits solely for the title and never edits again, then the wiki has still benefitted in some way.

Ignoring the first batch of wikian nominations, 45 people have failed a nomination, with 10 of them (22.2%) being invalid because of the above rule. Of these 10, one, two of them would actually have passed had the guideline not existed (Elessar2 had done ~350 edits at the time of this nomination, and Skrome ~125). Of course, for the 8 others, they would have failed, but we should close their nomination based on RS:SNOW, not for some arbitrary age requirement that could really allow users to "grind" for the title if they so wished to.

HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 12:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


Support - As nominator. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 12:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 12:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

To expand, it requires a user to be in the community for at least 2 weeks before they can be nominated. To be told their discussion was closed because their account isn't old enough is a lot nicer than being told they're not good enough when they add a comma to an article and then create their wikian request. Though this thread was just made because Haidro thought it has been too long without any wikian drama and wanted to stir the pot, so I'm hesitant to get too far into this. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - I like the fact that the user should get integrated into the community at least a little bit. Talk to Kelsey 12:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Would that mean commenters would still need to be 2 weeks old? That would be a bit silly if nominees and nominators don't need to be 2 weeks old. Either all 3 parties need to be 2 weeks old at least or none of them. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 12:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Mostly I'm not sure what the big deal is with having to wait 2 weeks? It's not like that's a very long time. Also the 2 weeks also helps to dissuade those who only edit the wiki to get the title, which is not the idea at all. Plus it gives time to see if the person just did 1 project or if they are consistently helping, even if it's only minor edits like spell checks. I also agree with Kelsew that it's nice for them to be integrated into the community, although to be fair that happens a lot better if they're on the Discord. Mostly I just feel the title is in the spirit of the community of people that maintain the wiki and not a prize to be achieved. Of course this is all just my humble opinion, and I'm fairly new here. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2019

Comment - I would like to comment on the weight of this statement. Now I understand that all people should be treated as equals but in this instance Elessar2 may have a little more weight than the average editor. He is one of the people mentioned above who had a failed nomination due to account age. He has now had a successful nomination. he was not deterred and he (who has been personally affected by the rule) still is in support of the rule. As such Oppose jericowrahl (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - What Kelse and (first two sentences by) Elessar2 said. Fishing cape.png Kate the HuntressQuest.png 14:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Partial support - I agree with what is said above in regards to waiting two weeks, it's not a lengthy period of time. However, I wouldn't be against shortening the minimum account age to 1 week, it's still going to take two weeks from creation to approval, but at least it gives some insight into what the user can bring to the wiki over smashing out some edits in one day. If anything, I just see the account age requirement as an anti-spam tactic. As a side note, I would have been in the same boat as Elessar2 had it not been for contributing to the Violet is Blue guide just because I was awake when it released. Guthix symbol.png 4madnessTalk 15:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - jayden 15:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Question - Other than conjecture, is there anything to suggest the two week requirement is off putting to potential nominees? The two week requirement for 'voting' is designed to stop someone sock-puppeting to falsely inflate votes, although I don't think that's ever actually occurred on the wiki for anything. cqm talk 18:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

General support - Though I really don't think this is a big issue. I'm not sure what the purpose of the rule was, but if it was to prevent sockpuppet canvassing then I don't really think it's necessary since we already have policies against sockpuppet canvassing and this doesn't really stop that anyways. If the purpose is to try to get them integrated into the community then the two weeks is a misguided rule since an hour on Discord is probably more effective than waiting two weeks for an account to age. --LiquidTalk 19:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - per Kelsey. dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think 2 weeks will necessarily integrate the nominee, a lot of ppl edit without interaction and I don't even know they exist until someone nominates them. But I agree with Elessar on "(...)the 2 weeks also helps to dissuade those who only edit the wiki to get the title." as I've seen this happen. I don't like that we sometimes have to deny people their title when they clearly deserve it before the 2 weeks, but if they deserve it on the 2nd day and want to edit for the sake of helping instead of just having the title, they should have no problem waiting another week and a half to get it. Meeeeerds msg 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutral: Actually idm. Meeeeerds msg 16:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose – I’m not convinced that there is any real reason to change the rules. With your example: the two editors who would have passed title nominations but for the two week old account rule passed their second nominations, made as soon their accounts were two weeks old, with overwhelming support. None of the other 8 editors would have had a successful nomination in any case. If we didn't have the 2 week rule there wouldn't really have been any difference in outcomes: two people would have had the title 2 weeks earlier, 8 people would have been rejected for the reason of not having made significant contributions (which is a less pleasant way to be rejected in my opinion).

I'm also incredibly sceptical that having to wait 2 weeks deters anyone from wanting to edit and get the title. As Elessar says, two weeks is not a long time and it’s more than the vast majority of people take to have made a significant enough contribution edit-wise to qualify for getting the title. If someone is going above and beyond the bare minimum of what they need to do to get the title (with large amounts of editing in a short amount of time), then I don't think they're concerned about obtaining the title as soon as/with as little effort as possible and the two week rule shouldn’t be an issue to them.

I'm much more concerned about the few people we have given the title to who have gone on to be people who really ought not to have been awarded it. There's always the risk that we're going to have this issue when we have the title be easily obtainable, as the community's consensus has been to do, but I feel like the two week rule does help a little with this problem. Having someone around for two weeks before their being eligible to get the title gives other editors chance to see if there's any issues with them. Of course it's not fool-proof – some nominees edit without really getting involved in the community, and if someone really wants to abuse the title they're not going to advertise that fact – but I'd rather have a little bit of a precautionary measure in place than nothing at all.

Also I see no legitimate reason why someone who’s just joined the wiki should be commenting on title discussions. Someone who's just started editing wouldn't really be able to tell if a nominee's contributions are helpful or significant. As Cqm said, although we’ve never really had it happen, people could also sockpuppet/encourage friends to join to comment on title discussions when those accounts/people don't really have any business being involved in the discussions. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 22:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Partial support - Two weeks seems a little arbitrary (as per Liquid) - Rawny (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose - iN008talk 17:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Kelsey. Hazelmere's signet ring.pngRobbotRSOrlando Smith's hat.png 20:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Kelsey. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 10:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Kelsey. However, I do think that a possible shortening of the time might help, from 2 weeks to 1 week maybe, but I don't think it should be removed entirely. Meganerd3000

Comments & response -

Integration into the community.

The title was never solely about being a community member. I find it extremely hypocritical that you say people need to be integrated in the community yet Juan's title thread failed because his only requirement was his community interaction (when it even says on RS:WIKIAN that "interaction with the community on the wiki forums or in the clan" is a method of contribution to the wiki).

Being told they're not of age vs outright failing them

A valid point, but most users who nominate themselves on the first day clearly know they've put in no effort so I don't see why they shouldn't be told face to face that they don't deserve it.

Two weeks isn't a long time

If you actually want people to be integrated into the community and want to gain some level of trust, then two weeks is a short period. I don't think there's a big difference in two weeks vs one day, especially if you're talking to them on a personal level (eg: Discord). First impressions are a big deal...
One week would be an okay compromise.

Off-putting to potential nominees

I mainly got this impression off people asking me in game how I obtained the title. Most of them were put off because "they were too scared to edit" or because of the two-week period.

Commenting on titles (mainly to Salix/Isobel)

I don't agree that users under two weeks of age should be commenting on Wikian threads. The 2 week requirement would persist for that.

"I'm opposing because it's Haidro and it's another Wikian thread"

I initially brought this discussion up on Discord in #meta-discussion, and was told to make a thread. If you're opposing this thread because it's a "wikian thread", please just grow up and listen. I'm trying to raise some valid points here and if you oppose them then please state why instead of just saying "Oppose" because it's haidro again "stirring a pot" (like really? Do you think I just want to create these fights 24/7?). Ever since the title's come out I've always had the vision that it shouldn't be as exclusive as it seems right now, or as "hard to get". It's a red line of text in the end.
I've said this in Discord but I'm going to post it here (note: this does not have to be the thread to discuss this):
  • Getting the title should be an incentive to learn how to edit the wiki, breaking the barrier of being "too scared" or "not knowing what to do".
  • This barrier can be broken after 25-50 edits, it doesn't need to be anymore, nor does it need to be two weeks long
  • It's fine if they stop actively editing. If they're still playing RS and using the wiki, they'll know how to edit the Wiki in case they want to when they're browsing it while playing
    • And even if they don't edit anymore, we still benefit from their initial edits
  • It should not be a big deal. The more people ==> less "rare" the title is ==> less of a deal

HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 23:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Double indent because Haidro used a lot of indents) Juan got rejected because he ONLY did community contribution. IMO a mixture of both community integration/edits should be necessary. Talk to Kelsey 23:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think I just want to create these fights 24/7?
— Haidro
Literally yes I do. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 09:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that you're seeing bigger, more general issues that we have with getting new people to edit and trying to address them all by altering the title requirements. We've had discussions, like the surveys on Reddit, where people have talked about why they don't edit the wiki and I would sum up the main reasons as:
  • They aren't aware of how wikis work/that anyone can wikis
  • They aren't aware that we need/want more editors
  • They don't know what needs to be worked on
  • They don't know how to edit or are put off by editing seeming too complicated/having to conform with high quality standards
  • They don't want to mess things up/the wiki community seems unwelcoming
  • They don't want to give up their time to do editing when there's no reward involved
The title is only one of the things that we do to help with these issues and in my opinion it only really addresses the reason of people not wanting to edit unless they have some reward for doing so. The title does also somewhat raise awareness that people can edit and that we do want them to. You say the title should "remove the barriers" of people being too scared/not knowing what to do but I don't see how realistically it removes those obstacles. My problem with the arguments you make about changing the requirements is that altering the title requirements doesn’t remove these barriers at all: whether we give out the title to someone at 25-50 edits or at something higher or if the nominee has to have a two week old account or not, people still don't know how start to edit.
My opinion is that we need to go beyond the title to tackle the reasons why people don't edit, rather than trying to make the title solve all of these issues. We have editing guides, and we're introducing the editing incentive programme soon (hopefully). These address some other reasons why people don’t edit: lack of knowledge on how to edit and not knowing what work needs to be done.
You've repeatedly implied that there's a perception of the title being hard to get/it being exclusive and I'm confused about where you’ve got such a strong concern about this from and why you think that this is caused by the requirements that we have. If there is this perception, then I think it's much more likely that this is due to people not being aware that the title is being given out freely/what the requirements are to obtain it, rather than them knowing what the requirements are and believing that they are set too high. Even if miraculously everyone was aware of our page about the title process, that page doesn't make it clear what our expectation is for a user's contributions to be deemed significant. I expect many people believe that the community's expectation would be much higher than what we typically expect. This is certainly the impression I get for the number of people who are surprised to be considered ready for a nomination.
I actually think changing the title as you suggest would be harmful. If the title's purpose in the bigger picture of attracting new editors is as a shiny reward to encourage people who wouldn't bother to edit without gaining a reward; not many RuneScape player want to make an effort to get something that's too easily obtainable. I think the requirements that we have established now are a good balance between the title being a big enough deal that people want it, without it being so difficult to obtain that they won't bother. The current status quo with the title will work nicely alongside the editing incentives programme. The programme having more focused targets and editing help which are easily accessible to any editor, and the title as a reward for a higher/more general level of editing work. Most people within the wiki community seem happy enough with the standards we have – though perhaps I am wrong and this is a good time to address that. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 20:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Response to Isobel - Well said. Fishing cape.png Kate the HuntressQuest.png 04:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to change the account age requirement for title nominees and nominators at this time. People are welcome to create further discussions if they'd like to discuss other aspects of the title. jayden 14:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)