Forum:Discord collaboration: Archaeology
Hey everyone! It's me Shauny, I created the Archaeology Discord server to be the all in one place on Discord to gather all information related to the recent Archaeology release.
The server was created a month ago in response to Jagex's slackness to creating a hub for Archaeology information, the server has since ballooned in size to 13,300 members at the time of writing, since the release on Monday we've been working directly with Jmods to gather responses, write a ton of guides across the skill and collaborate with contributors across the board.
Based on Forum:Discord collaboration, guides and links, I'd like to request that the wiki affiliate with the Archaeology server. Based on discussions with some Wiki Staff our Discord staff want to start getting more involved in adding information across the Wiki pages. Additionally I believe a lot of the initial pages written about the mysteries have already been transcribed on to the Wiki from our server which has allowed these pages to be filled out more and we'd love to build upon that by looking to add these directly ourselves alongside the Wiki.
For inviting we'd like to use the following unique link: https://discord.gg/SMKrvDg
Thank you for reading!19:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm a little upset because I eer more towards Discord servers contributing before getting affiliated, but it seems to me here that you guys are only wanting to edit *after* being affiliated, which doesn't really sit right with me.20:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Kelsey, fair points, I don't think I made it clear enough in my original post the staff have been initially contributing, Max and Friendly have been adding to the Wiki stuff regarding Archaeology already and while I haven't been adding stuff myself personally I've been going back and forth with Cook and others when it came to stuff like the Ancient Invent Calc, totally fair point though!
20:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hey thanks for the response, would you mind linking me their contributions for curiosity's sake?
20:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- The admins of the server include Son, Friendliness, Saint Cannon, Shaunypwns. Other people in the Discord who have contributed to the wiki include Lcb, J36miles and Sword0. Merds and Elessar are also in some sort of staff/contributor role in the server. ʞooɔ 20:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Based on those contributions, my opinion goes unchanged 21:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- The admins of the server include Son, Friendliness, Saint Cannon, Shaunypwns. Other people in the Discord who have contributed to the wiki include Lcb, J36miles and Sword0. Merds and Elessar are also in some sort of staff/contributor role in the server. ʞooɔ 20:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hey thanks for the response, would you mind linking me their contributions for curiosity's sake?
Comment - Hello, could I get some expansion more on what specific pages would be looked into for affiliation (and why exactly they should get it)? It's not really clear to me atm which pages (looking at the mysteries) contain info (and how much) directly sourced from the Arch Discord (and if it's been edited on by the Arch Discord guys, or some of us). What are your guys' specific plans for if the affiliation goes through?
I do also agree with Kelsey's points made (regarding wanting credit before editing), and looking through the contributions nothing stands out to me as info that should require affiliation right now. I'm not opposed to this idea in principle, would just like some further clarification as someone who hasn't been super involved with Arch stuff (but has seen this topic brought up in multiple discussions).22:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - The purpose of discord collaborations is to get more users editing the wiki and improve the quality of the information on the wiki and this would do that. I disagree with the point about "wanting credit before editing", in my opinion the way to get them to edit is to have them get credit for their edits as they make them. Not have them make edits with the possibility of them getting credit (that's not going to get anyone to want to collaborate). The way I see it, if this thread passes, then as they make significant edits to pages they get credit for those pages. I also know that members of the server staff more familiar with the wiki were giving other members of the staff a crash course in wiki editing earlier today which demonstrates an intent to edit more.
I would also not underestimate the amount of archaeology information on the wiki that came from the Archaeology discord server, I imagine a large portion of the information not scrapped from the caches came from that server.22:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Question - I thought the purpose of the Discord collaboration stuff was essentially like an "Adopt a Wiki Page/Subject" thing where experts in the area kept articles up to date with niche information. I don't see how Archaeology articles would need niche insight to keep them updated; they seem to be more of a one-and-done kind of article.22:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- +1 to this (struggled to put this feeling into words in my own comment) 22:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, if we only do partnerships with pages that need regular maintaining, realistically what pages on the wiki does this apply too other than pvm guides? Seems to me if that's the line we draw we might as well get rid of all the partnership stuff and just leave the pvme one as a one off. - 09:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I think it's (obviously) of positive value to have the Archaeology people contributing to the wiki. I also think it's of positive value for the game if the wiki, as a major conduit for the community, to link to the Discord in some capacity and direct people to the right places. That's independent of any quid pro quo or other motivations for having the link. However it seems to me that the approach and text we used for PvM Encyclopedia ("This page is maintained in part by a collaboration with the Archaeology Discord server") is not the right approach, since it's unlikely to be particularly true in most cases, would ruffle some feathers here given the other contributions to the articles, and is also probably not what the Archaeology discord folks actually want. So the question to Shauny is, what would be a more reasonable thing to say there? What concretely do you want to get out of the affiliation? ʞooɔ 01:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- You're right in this Cook I'm absolutely not going into this with the same affiliation approach/visibility that PvME have, for me it's about having and linking people to the right places, the Discord server in essence has a ton of information on it and I want to use the knowledge we've gathered from our contributors to convert that to the Wiki, I'm thinking training guides, the "top" methods, comprehensive guides for mysteries, relics, etc. To me the Wiki is the absolute pinnacle of community in RS, and if we can contribute in anyway we can by directly making the pages better for everyone then we all win. 19:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Question - Would it be possible to have a limited partnership (think a joint venture), where we agree to have a temporary partnership for period of time (like 1 month), during which time period we would put a temporary affiliation link to the discord on the main Archaeology page and the discord individuals would contribute to the wiki, after which we mutually agree that the link will be removed? If the discord server is still going strong at that point, we could then have them partner as an affiliate for a page like Archaeology/Strategies, subject to another discord partnership vote (separate from this one).
Rationale: I think that the Archaeology discord does have a fair number of users and active contributors and serves as an great source of information that hasn't yet made it's way into the wiki. On the other hand, I don't want to see a discord collaboration link plastered across on every piece of Archaeology content from Fiery brimstone to Dragon mattock, because that just reeks of RS:OWN. We've got a couple of OSWF tasks associated with Archaeology now, which I feel is a more standard method for getting tedious or monotonous information into the wiki. Is there a type of specialized Archaeology meta-knowledge would the discord server be bringing? I'd like more clarification as to what specifically the discord wants before editing the wiki.
Additionally, I also question the longevity of the discord server; the skill is about 5 days old and has a significant amount of activity and discussion, but will the server continue to be as active in six months? Our existing partnerships are with established discord servers that have a history and a reputation of being knowledgeable experts. I'm not saying that the discord server won't turn into that; however, I think it might be a bit premature to treat it as such.
Current stance: Oppose proposal as is, see above alternative proposal, also a request for more information.02:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thorough comment! I'm not opposed to the trial approach to be honest, looking at your point about where you see the server in six months time I think it'll very much still be thriving I recall Jagex mentioning they have plans post-Arch and stuff like the Pylon events happening in-game will continue to keep the server busy for a very long time, especially as we finesse all the parts of Archaeology themselves. 19:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments - I think people need to keep in mind that a reason to do this is to get as much information as possible on the wiki in a timely manner. Obviously so far there isn't information that we couldn't eventually get and add to the wiki, but how long will that take? Look at the number of pages already on the wiki that are lacking information easy enough to get, just no one has bothered getting it and adding it to the pages. Also keep in mind that oswf tasks are better for repetitive tasks with easily measurable metrics. It's hard to do a task that's something like "add information to X pages" it's very subjective and hard to quantify. Additionally I imagine as people train archaeology more, better/faster training methods will be discovered/invented, I imagine the Archaeology discord would work to keep the training guide pages up too date with the latest methods, rates etc.09:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Question - Why do the members of the Arch Discord need Affiliation/Collaboration links in order to edit on the Wiki? They are free to reach out and ask any editor for help if they need it, not to mention the fact that it is run/owned by Shauny, a RfA applicant; surely he would be able to help them with editing? Why did Shauny not try to push for the information to be on the wiki in the first place instead of creating a competitive resource? Why does the average Arch Discord member/writer want Affiliation/Collaboration in exchange for the information/effort? What do they actually gain?21:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
What do they actually gain?
- They'll gain some recognition and maybe a few new members to their Discord to help grow their community in the same way that they could help grow ours. It's trivial to remove partnered Discord links if the community in question goes rogue and does something stupid. Learning wikitext can be a little daunting for some people, and if a partner link is all we need to help get them over that hurdle then I don't see any issue with it. -Towelcat (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - While it took some discussion, unfortunately within the Meta channel of our Discord and not on the thread - to which I apologize for my part in doing so instead of keeping it on here for ease of reference, I support per the idea of Forum:Discord_collaboration,_guides_and_links and the extent of information that is presumably available within the Discord, I think that it would be a benefit, objectively. Legaia 2 Pla ᴛ · ʟ · ᴄ 21:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - This is going to be a pretty flippant comment, but I didn't see anyone complaining about the PvM Encyclopedia partnership. I saw some people here say that the Archaeology articles are more of a "once and done" job, but I don't think there's any difference between that and the boss strategy guides? It's not like the bosses are regularly updated. The only thing I can see that may need to be changed are equipment setups based on new items being released (and new Invention perks etc). We both benefit from cross-collaboration. As long as people aren't claiming ownership over articles, what's the problem? It's a small link at the top of a page in return for people editing pages on our wiki. jayden 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also, this is on the presumption of this not being plastered on every single Archaeology related article, and instead being limited to Archaeology and other main pages (unless we use a smaller link than PvME). jayden 21:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Didn't PvM Encyclopedia add a lot of information before being made affiliate? Looking through the contributions from the Archaeology server, it doesn't seem paralleled. Also the PvM pages had been needing revamping for a LONG time, whereas in comparison, Archaeology pages are being updated with up to date information constantly. As for bosses not being updated, new bosses get released/reworked constantly, and I think it's fair to say PvM Encyclopedia would update the relevant pages. As for Archaeology, after the, lack of a better word, batch 2 it becomes defunct. 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Soft Oppose - I'm not really convinced of the usefulness of this partnership. PvM Encyclopedia, the only other precedent right now, seems like a fundamentally different matter. In that case, there was a large amount of sophisticated information, like mechanics, strategies, etc., that the average wiki editor was either unable (because they didn't know the information) or unwilling to add to our pages, and we were well-known for these deficiencies. Users couldn't trust if the equipment recs on our pages were updated or not, and having that kind of distrust among your users is very bad. Even when information was added, new methods to kill bosses faster would be discovered, or better gear would be released, and the pages would become obsolete again. (IIRC) players would turn to that server, and not to us, for the information. Thus, there was a niche spot filled by that discord that was useful to both parties: newbies learned about their server, where they could get advanced training, and our guides were finally updated. However, that situation doesn't seem to appear here. Archaeology doesn't require any specialized knowledge to be efficient at, and it doesn't seem to have any sophisticated mechanics at play that could help optimize experience. It seems like a regular gathering/processing skill with just fun and interesting rewards.
Archaeology training will always consist of "get X artefacts and buy the materials to restore them until level Y for maximum efficiency" or "X spot is good to AFK train at until level Y, because it gives all the materials you need for the artefacts you'll excavate there." There won't be any groundbreaking new discoveries or releases that will require the upkeep of many pages by a set group of experts. Unlike bossing, there is no void to fill. Further, Archaeology is so new, we don't even know what help we need. The only unknowns right now (that I can think of) are mysteries, but those are mini-quests and don't require a learning process to complete, unlike high-level PvM. The discord admins might collect the solutions, but they would get it from the same sources we would: reddit, twitch streams, word of mouth, etc. So far, nothing qualifies them as experts in this field, more so than anyone else attuned to the community.
I'm also concerned about the relevance of the server since it's so new at this moment. Shauny's a great community manager, and I have no doubt that he will remain committed to the server and do his best to make sure it remains popular, but I'm not so sure that people's attention won't fade once the hype is over. The DSF server remains popular because, to use TMS, you effectively need a large team to world-hop and find it (and as far as I'm aware, that seems to be the only popular use left for it). Arch's closest similarity, the Khard-et pylons, can be checked by any single individual with much greater ease. If the server was more established in the community, I'd feel differently, but I'd hate to link to a server that won't be updated with new information when developments happen (though I do realize that a successful proposal would help guarantee future members, and this makes a bit of a catch-22).
I understand that a big pull of this is new editors, but I'm not so convinced that we'll get any long-term retention out of this, at least enough to outweigh the negatives. How will this lead to more users editing other pages of the wiki? If only the server admins will edit (and edit the somewhat-few pages left that we are missing), are they interested in sticking around for other stuff? I'm concerned of a precedent that will be set where any time some large update is released, people will form expert groups and say "we'll add our knowledge to the wiki if you advertise our server on the highest volume pages." We're not a directory for servers and I don't want to see a bunch of our biggest pages start having discords ads at the top simply because we weren't the first group of players to find out the information.
I'd hate to seem ungrateful for the edits that the server admins have already added, or for how much Shauny has helped the wiki, but I just can't see the merits of the proposal. If Archaeology becomes a different beast in the future, and the average wiki editor is unable is keep up with the releases, such that we require a team of specialists to maintain those pages, you'd have my support, but that hasn't come to pass yet. To me, this proposal differs from what we decided the criteria for an affiliated discord must have. In sum, this is a lot longer than I meant to write, but: (1) Archaeology requires no expert knowledge we don't already have the capacity for; (2) Arch is so new, who even knows what, if any, long-term help we need yet; (3) this discord is so new we can't yet predict its staying power; (4) slippery slope; (5) I don't see a clear benefit. ɳex undique 05:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, why do you see linking to the Discord as something negative that we need to weigh against? Is the main concern that it will get outdated, or that we'll lose community and traffic to it, or that we'd be endorsing something we don't control? Or is it just a general apprehension to pointing people towards non-wiki things? ʞooɔ 07:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned we'll lose traffic and I'm not very concerned with endorsing something we don't control (especially since I trust the person behind it), but I don't want to start a pattern of telling people to go to non-wiki sources for things that don't require it. AFAIK, learning high-level PvM as a noob definitely requires the help of resources like PvME, so it's in our best interests, as a resource for players, to partner with such services. If there were other similar situations, I would be fine linking to them if need be. I just don't think this rises to the level of that (yet), and I don't want to set a precedent of linking to outside servers for less sophisticated topics. ɳex undique 17:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- To respond to your concerns: (1) Just because no expert knowledge is required (in your opinion, less than a week after the skill's release) doesn't mean we can't welcome energetic and knowledgeable people onto the wiki to improve our pages. (2) I would argue that with new skills, the short term interest is so high that we want to improve our guides to be excellent right now, while the hype and interest is at its peak. Whatever the skill or partnership has become a year down the road we can address then, but there's a reason why we like to aggressively cover new content as quickly as we can. (3) While it doesn't necesssarily correlate to "staying power", you need to realize that the Archaeology server is one of the largest RuneScape-related Discord servers out there right now. It has more members than the PvME Discord, more members than the Deep Sea Fishing Discord, and even more members than our beloved wiki Discord. Of course, that can be attributed to hype around the release of the skill, but I think it's a mistake to think of the Arch Discord as some small group that isn't established in the community. Rather, it is currently the most relevant Discord server with one of the largest amounts of community members in it. (4) Whatever your concern here is, I'm not convinced it outweighs the direct benefits the wiki stands to gain by partnering with the Discord. Our partnership with PvME has not led down some slippery slope of boss pages being monopolized by various Discords, so I don't know why you'd be worried about some slippery slope here. Also, keep in mind that the wiki has to manually approve every Discord partnership, so there's inherent safety nets that can help prevent any negative "slippery slope" outcomes. (5) The clear benefit is twofold: improving the wiki's guides with high-quality content and bringing in new editors. Even though you might not be convinced that the wiki pages need improving, I'm sure the experts on the topic can make some improvements. Secondly, getting people to make that first edit to the wiki has directly led to significant long-term involvement on the wiki even beyond the initial project. That's the entire basis of RS:OSWF, which has led to a number of long-term quality editors on both wikis. Also, I would expect that getting the admins of one of the largest RuneScape Discords involved in editing the wiki would lead to a number of other people in the Discord to show interest in editing the wiki as well. An announcement of the wiki partnership within the Arch Discord would reach thousands of potential new editors, and admin-led projects within the Discord would have significant visibility and opportunities to get involved. In general, I think you might be thinking of this in a bit of a pessimistic way. In my eyes, the worst case scenario just ends with us stopping the collab a year or so from now due to the Arch Discord server being irrelevant at that time (seems unlikely, due to its current size, along with Jagex's plans to continually support the skill) or the guides being low quality (which also seems unlikely, based on the success and quality of other third-party collab guides). On the other hand, the best case sees the wiki forging a partnership with a large, motivated community of potential editors, and quickly improving our guides to the highest quality we expect of the wiki. I look forward to your response and am totally down if you have any questions about my perspective ;) BigDiesel2m (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Right now, there's no reason to think that Arch requires any expert knowledge. I don't think it's an opinion, it seems like an objective look at it, since it has just been a week. If that changes, and the members of that discord become the community's go-to source for that expert knowledge, then I think we should definitely revisit this topic and I would likely support. But partnering with a discord now because there may be unknown expert knowledge required in the future seems rash to me. It's not like an M&A transaction; they're not going to someone else if we don't take their deal. Also, not partnering with them doesn't deter any motivated editors.
- (2) brings me back to my other point, that I'm not sure what expert knowledge they're going to provide us on training that we don't already have, can't logically figure out, or just doesn't exist yet. I also don't like setting the precedent of provisional partnerships. If we consent to partnering with a discord server, it shouldn't be on a probational basis, it should be until a significant enough problem arises that a thread is made to sever that relationship. I don't think the discord would want that either since it would be unfair to them.
- (3) members of a discord doesn't necessarily correlate to staying power. I think high discord membership, if anything, is a sign of trust in that server. It was started by a celebrated member of the community, of course people joined, but that doesn't mean that they'll stay and actively participate. Our discord has 3500 members, and I don't know how many of them participate in/check out our server, but I'd wager it's a pretty small percentage, even when measuring it on a semi-regular basis. Regardless, they're so new, we really can't tell what it'll be like, in any aspect, in even a few months. There's no need to rush.
- (4) PvME is apples compared to these oranges. PvME (AFAIK) offers a clear service specically suited to that discord. They teach bossing to new players in-game, which is why a discord channel is better suited to their needs than writing down information on a wiki. This discord does not do something similar. They don't meet you in-game and give you a tutorial, they just have non-sophisticated information available. And regrading the slippery slope, Arch discord is headed by rational people, but who's to say that other servers down the line will be just as rational? Anachronia was a large update to RS, and it probably took us some time to make all the pages. If a simialr update was released and some new server came along and said they'd add what they know, but only if we advertise them like we did for Arch, that creates a bad situation.
- (5) rests on the assumption that the Arch discord contains unparalleled experts on Archaeology, which I just don't see. It's a brand new skill, so there are no experts yet, if that will even be a thing. Some skills just don't require expert knowledge, like Divination, Fletching, Mining, etc. The only knowledge we would want to gain are training guides, but they may very well be as straightforward as Divination's is (and we also don't know what the quality will be yet. Will it be useful for lower-levelled players or only skew to the most efficient playstyles? If we had an example of one, we would better know). To your second point, I have a big problem of incentivizing new editors by agreeing to advertise their projects. OSWF offers a one-time monetary reward, and in exchange we get information just as useful as anything any other editor would have added, and nobody checking the wiki even knows that that info was incentivized. If we instead had users asking for attribution or shout-outs, I don't think any of us would be happy. Yes, getting some of the large admins interested in editing the wiki would certainly be beneficial, but I'm not going to support a proposal to affiliate a discord on the off-chance that they get their friends who have un-related discords interested too. This proposal should live or die on the merits of the Arch discord and the benefits that its members will bring, not on any tangential benefits we may or may not receive in the future. I agree I'm probably being pessimistic, but I also think I'm looking at it objectively. Thanks for your perspective as well. I appreciate you responding with such a thorough comment. ɳex undique 17:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Questions - Archaeology is a skill and thus spans lots and lots of pages, from materials to mysteries to mechanics. As such there seem to be some unanswered questions here:
- What subset of the archaeology pages would members of this server be looking to update?
- Depending on the answer to the above, are they aware of the relevant content policies, e.g. referencing, style guide, images, etc?
- Are they asking for a link to the discord server on every page one of their members edits?
- What information does the wiki lack that they are proposing to add?
- As I understand it, the main targets for the collaboration would be on the Archaeology and Archaeology training pages, though there'd likely (and hopefully) be spillover benefits beyond just the two pages. On those two pages, there would be a small but noticeable indicator of the partnership, either of similar size to the one on Nex: Angel of Death/Strategies or smaller. As for referencing, style guide, images and whatnot, I think there are enough experienced wiki editors mixed into the group to keep that on track, and I would expect them to pick up the proper formatting quite quickly with a bit of guidance. At worst, the formatting of the edits might be a bit rocky to start off (like you'd expect from any new-ish editors), but the quality of the information would be relatively high (which you wouldn't necessarily expect from new-ish editors). At best, Shauny and other reasonably experienced editors in their midst will get them rolling on the formatting and keep people up to speed on the wiki policies. For any more clarifications you'll need to ask the proposers, but I figured I could hopefully give some info based on what I've heard. ;) BigDiesel2m (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- since it doesn't matter what I think, just ignore my input when closing. thanks チェン (話し合う) 22:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Opposing per Nex, Mitchell, and Kelsey. With how broad the topic is and how non-comparative it is to our existing partnerships, I would compare this to advertising youtuber/streamer discords on the main page in the hope more people from those servers will edit.18:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment - There's a lot of clarifying being done outside of this thread. Can we get Shauny to summarize what the nature of his request for affiliation is based on these clarifications within the thread, and potentially put it at the top in the proposal for visibility? I'm summarizing my understanding below, but would appreciate confirmation from Shauny/another Discord representative, given that almost all of the current comments are from experienced Wikians discussing with each other.
- The Archaeology Discord becomes an affiliate per Forum:Discord_collaboration,_guides_and_links
- Affiliate link(s) is limited to the pages Archaeology and Archaeology training, with other pages associated with Archaeology not having individual affiliate links
- Shauny has already identified 5 power users/admins that are not Shauny/Merds (who are already heavily involved in the wiki) who are willing to take point contributing/encouraging contributions to the Wiki from the Discord's side
- The current proposal is for a partnership per Forum:Discord_collaboration,_guides_and_links, and removing the affiliation would require a separate Yew Grove thread per Forum:Discord_collaboration,_guides_and_links. AKA this proposal request from the Discord is not currently for a temporary affiliation.
As an aside, I think it would be nice to hear from some of the users that Shauny identified in this thread. Not sure if this is something that someone associated with the Archaeology discord server would be willing to help facilitate.18:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - Might as well go for broke here. This post is partially going to be about clearing up particulars and misinformation about the proposal, and partially about giving some long-term context for why we should care about any of this.
To go way back in time, I'd encourage people to read some of the fansite affiliation proposal threads from years past. Here's a post from one in 2009, which I think is fairly illustrative of the worldview back then:
|“||What would we, the Runescpe Wiki, get from this ordeal? We have far surpassed the rest. We let the people provide the information, resulting in us having the absolute best. Hell, we're more accurate then the Official Manual, written by the people who made the game. Any good suggestion must have an intent of benefitting the Wiki, and this would give us the short end of the stick.||”|
This person kinda sounds like a greedy asshole, right? It doesn't make the wiki look good, it creates an unnecessary separation between us and other communities, and it makes people not want to work with us. I think anyone can read that thread now and realize how bad it would look to outside observers. What's less obvious, but still true, is that the way we're responding to this thread, to an open offer of collaboration, actually has a similar effect. It doesn't make the wiki look good, it creates an unnecessary separation between us and other communities, and it makes people not want to work with us.
The subtle point I'm trying to make here is that by treating external community interactions as a one-dimensional, quid-pro-quo, "what is the wiki getting from this" type of transaction, and asking shitty questions like "Why did Shauny not try to push for the information to be on the wiki in the first place instead of creating a competitive resource?", we're actually incurring a greater community cost than even the most pessimistic interpretations of the negatives of this proposal.
Now, as for why we actually care about Discord communities in particular: there's been a massive movement of RuneScape users in the last two years towards big, centralized Discord servers. These servers are places where people discuss things, interact with JMods, share information/guides, and work together on community multiplier things like DSF, portables and price checks. This is, frankly, the biggest shift in RuneScape community media since the wiki started dominating traditional fansites in 2010-13, and while there are about half as many users of RuneScape Discord servers as there are readers of the wiki, that gap is narrowing overall.
We cannot continue to ignore this indefinitely. We really have two options:
- Keep doing what we've been doing since 2009, keep the incessant need to win every single trade, and do our best to out-compete them as the dominant source of information for everything. This will probably continue to mostly work, but we're already seeing problem areas: for OSRS, we were well on our way to getting our ass kicked on Twisted League strategy by a couple Discord servers until Diesel's Herculean (frankly unsustainable) one-man-show to make something better on the wiki. We also started to see it on Archaeology pre-release, where the wiki's information was often in second or third place behind the Discord and Reddit compendiums. This was not an issue a year ago, but it will be a big issue a year from now if we keep going this way.
- Change our mindset, adapt a little bit, and welcome them into our big tent. The potential benefits are staggering:
- more relevant information on our articles, including pre-release info and (at times) niche/expert guides
- converting some of these Discord power users into wiki editors (it's happened before, it can happen again)
- getting them to use the wiki as a storage medium (hosting guides on Discord is insane, but they don't have an alternative right now)
- having solid relationships when we need feedback or data from specific communities (e.g. having the PvME guys help debug the perk calculator, and all the drop logs/skilling data the UIM guys have provided)
- having centralized places to communicate with the overall community when we need to call in favors and shout very loudly (AKA the same reason Reddit was so essential to the fork being successful).
Hell, if we wanted, eventually we could even have a bot like #reddit-rs that tracks everything wiki-related happening in broader Discord. But none of this happens if we continue to have this tense relationship characterized by our apparent moral superiority. We are going to need to have this reckoning eventually, and it seems like the moment is here.
And what do these Discord folks want in return? As far as I can tell, they mostly just don't want to feel like we're taking advantage of them. They want to feel moderately, or even slightly, valued. Frankly, the most common thing that's been requested is just a link in our "affiliates" Discord channel (which of course, we don't have). Is that going to actually be useful to them? Probably not really, or not as much as they think. But they value it, and it costs us jack shit. If we continue to bait them with the carrot of "maybe, just maybe if you jump high enough, we'll link to your server", all it does is engender distrust and frustration, with long-term consequences. Even the negative repsonse to this thread caused all sorts of problems over a year later as I attempted to get the RuneScape Discord world on board with working with the wiki.
There's also the question of Discord links in mainspace articles. While I'm sympathetic to the argument that this could turn into a slippery slope where we over-do it and start whoring ourselves out for the possibility of a few edits (and there are certainly cases where this is NOT something we want to even consider)...it seems to me that having a link to the Archaeology discord is a slightly positive, and at-worst neutral, thing to have on a couple pages. Unlike, say, PvME, this isn't because we think they have more "expert knowledge" or tribal information about the content, but because they excel at community aspects (discussion, trading/price checks, pylon status, deposit boxes) that are relevant and useful to users, but the wiki is not equipped to support. We're not doing this to give "credit" to the server for writing content, which I think is why the comparisons to the existing PvME collaboration don't really work, and why the actual phrasing and type of affiliation needs to be thought through slightly more. We'd have the links because it's a moderately positive and useful thing for the wiki, as the main conduit of people and information, to help direct people to the right place for things the wiki can't support. I know it takes a bit of an adjustment to look at it outside the antiquated attitude of "no Friends Chats allowed on articles" (which we're already slowly taking an axe to), but what is the actual downside here? I'm really not seeing it.
In closing, we're going to need to find a way to coexist with the Discord communities eventually. Welcoming them with open arms unlocks a ton of long-term benefit in exchange for something they want which is slightly positive for us too. Keeping with the same old attitude is going to set us back another year. Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. ʞooɔ 19:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - This is a good benefit to the Wiki and our readers with minimal-to-no cost to us. We should engage more with discords as they are increasingly important to the RS community.21:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - As per Cook and Gaz: I think this type of partnership is necessary to help the wiki grow. On a more personal note, the discord has surpassed the wiki for me in terms of up to date information right now...I would think we want that information to come here so that we can offer the best overall experience. Parrc (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - As per Cook and Gaz; I think that, while it may not be as easily measurable as the PVME contributions, is a net positive for us, for a frankly negligent cost at that. If the criteria for a partnership is that they maintain a specific set of pages, we might as well remove that system entirely and just call it is a "partnership with PVME". I think that it is strange that people accuse the discord of purposely withholding information/don't edit in a "carrot on a stick" manner with on the other hand others propose we do exactly that to them. Srylius (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - As per Cook, Gaz and Jaden.11:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I did answer on Discord, but worth adding here, this would be both Wiki Editors and Arch Discord people, the Arch Discord people have already been contributing as well. 16:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Support - This partnership has the potential to help the wiki by improving its coverage of the new skill in a timely manner, grow the wiki's editorbase by reaching out to a large population of motivated potential editors, and help the RuneScape community as a whole by linking wiki readers up with other people who are equally excited about the new content. In the long run, I think the benefits of engendering ourselves with the overall RuneScape Discord community also far outweigh any potential hiccups with this specific partnership, if they ever arise. I'm excited to see how this collaboration pans out, and equally excited for any future collaborations this one could inspire! BigDiesel2m (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Thought I'd add clarification to all of this since all the discussions that have taken place plus I talk too much in #meta-discussion
- To reiterate based on what I've seen, I see the collab focusing on all bits of Archaeology with the primary focus on Archaeology_training#Methods_of_training_(1-120) as well as each respective Debris page. I feel like it's unneeded to push for a Discord header on each Arch page as that I feel is too much, I'd only look for it to be on the main, training and mystery pages.
- The collab is based on Arch Discord people updating pages where possible in tandem with Wiki as I reiterated above, our biggest edit so far is a full training guide on Archaeology with little bits and bobs of editing here thre and in-between.
If I can think of anything else I'll throw it in here but wanted to clarify these specific bits.09:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose For me what makes the difference between this and PVME is: does a discord link at the top of the page add sufficient value to the reader? For PVM, it makes sense: you can join teams, ask detailed questions or discuss topics in more detail - all things that a wiki format does poorly. Archaeology lacks this complexity; it's like most other skills where the best strategy is (almost always) to do the highest levelled thing you can do, plus some miniquests.
When the archaeology related pages are fleshed out (if they aren't already) I see little reason why a reader would want to seek out an archaeology discord anymore than they would want a hunter or construction discord. I don't mean to be ungrateful for all the edits their members have done, but wanting to put a banner at the top of the page reeks of RS:Own to me and (more importantly) belittles the efforts of non-affiliated editors. I don't need my name above the article, why do they?
If this is more about being friends with other communities, that is a sentiment I agree with but I would rather see that done in other ways - e.g. a Friends of the RS Wiki section in the sidebar.
Closed - there is consensus to collaborate with the Archaeology server. While some users have concerns of possible implications relating to RS:OWN and not seeing a benefit for the wiki in entering a partnership, the majority of commenters are hopeful that a partnership will encourage members of the server to help out with editing the wiki and point players to likeminded others who they can skill with. At this stage there is consensus for the affiliation link to be placed on Archaeology and Archaeology training. The original proposal did not suggest how this would be implemented but discussion from Cook has suggested that alternative text be used rather than that which has been used for our previous collaboration with PvME, this is something that I expect can be worked out through informal discussion. 21:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)