Forum:Editor Review feature?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Editor Review feature?
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 June 2009 by Gaz Lloyd.

Editors sometimes want to know what other editors think of them and to receive constructive criticism. However, on RSWiki, there really is no proper system for that. Therefore, people often take this request to unsuitable fronts, such as on RfAs, on the forums, and with the occasional "Do you hate me?" userpage polls.

Therefore, I propose that we add an "editor review" project page, similar to the one on Wikipedia. This will be voluntary only; users can only nominate themselves for an editor review. There they can get useful feedback on their editing and behavior, if they so desire.

What do you guys think? Butterman62 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Often users want to know what they're doing wrong and want to know the areas of improvment they can't spot out themselves. This wiki needs a little constructive critism. If users find their flaws and repair them, theres a better user. With better users, theres a better wiki. With a better wiki, everyone is happy. --— Enigma 21:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How many users will review for each person? ~MuzTalk 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be open-ended, like RfAs, only the user can stop at any time. Butterman62 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - You know what? I was thinking about adding this to the forums here also (the idea, not a review), but you beat me to it. I support due to this allowing users to be able to get a review of the good things, bad things, or things they could improve on. Once it is done, they improve, making the wiki even better. ~MuzTalk 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good. Would hopefully cut down on the 'do you hate me' polls, I dislike those greatly. Is there any time limit to these reviews, or just until the editor decides to close it? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say no time limit, but if no one touches it for two weeks or something, archive it. Butterman62 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, two weeks with no discussion is about right. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I like this idea. Being somewhat new to RSW, I could use some constructive criticism. This would be a good tool of reference for all editors.  Panjy16 23:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I ws just thinking the other day, "How good of an editor am I? What should I improve upon?-Who should I ask? How should I ask it?" So, yeah, I support. 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I like this idea a lot. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  01:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per butterman. Great way to see how other editors see of you and what you can improve on.Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - And if users are not happy with the response they get from certain editors could this not start I flame war? I do Support it though, but perhaps this should be an input only thing, where the user being reviewed cannot respond back, to prevent any possible tensions.

Bonziiznob Talk

02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... it might be useful for an editor to reply back, though, because some contributors to a review might ask questions, and users on the spot might ask for specifics or for clarification. For example, if a criticism is "Go edit mainspace more", a specific request from the user could be "Where do you suggest I start?", or something like that. I think users would probably have to understand that it could be a harsh process (like an RfA). Also, they can withdraw at any time. Butterman62 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - This is just like an idea I was about to implement on a testing run the day before my 'crat nomination (which then sat on my hard drive forgotten until my computer was hit by a Trojan...) I'm glad someone else finally thought of it. Excellent idea Butterman--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

02:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I don't see why not, which is good enough of a reason to agree. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I've taken the liberty to create a draft of RuneScape:Editor Review/Archives found here. It's rather stubbish, but it gets the message through clearly, and it may not look so stubbish when you have 150 open reviews... --— Enigma 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dang, I created a draft in my sandbox as well. Can I merge the changes in? Butterman62 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead. And Nacho has a point there. Maybe we could have only 10 reviews at a time then have people sign a list for when a review is done they come next? --— Enigma 19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment - A great idea per most of the comments and Enigma hit on somthing I thought about immediatly. There should be a limit (10 ?) in place so that people really do look into the user instead of spamming the entire list with the same comment. Karis Talk to me 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Comment - It may lead to accidental on-purpose user flaming, as it is sorta a magnet for that. But if we can make it flamer-free then I support.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I put in the draft that RS:UTP must be followed. Butterman62 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make it not a target for unconstructive criticism that the user may find offensive and offend back and then we have a flame war. Not good.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If any flaming happens the user(s) can be warned or banned for violation of the UTP. Flaming may happen, there is no foolproof way to totally prevent it; however if it does happen then the perpetrators will not go unpunished. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - since only that user can nominate themselves I see no reason not to accept this. Andrew talk 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Can I add a 'what this is/is not' section to the draft? I have a few ideas about it swimming around already. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Butterman62 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There we go. I added invisible comments to most, to help my reasoning behind some of the points. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds like a good idea, gives users an idea of their standing within the community and if there is anything they should improve on. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 19:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I noted here, is advertising your ER to be allowed or frowned upon (like Rf's). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be allowed. It's not like an RfP, where you're canvassing for support, because you can't support/oppose an ER. Butterman62 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't be allowed. Also, maybe there should be a guideline to people reviewing these to try and include both positives and negatives. If someone is told they are completely amazing and perfect its just 1 sided and gives them nothing to work on. Karis Talk to me 07:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer - As my activity has recently decreased due to a new position at work I would love to hear from my fellow wikians on where my strength's are and my weaknesses and how I can maximize my time here for the community. If you begin a draft, I would appreciate being the user this is tested on.

Bonziiznob Talk

02:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Nice idea. However, I have to agree with Bonzi that the user should not be allowed to respond to comments. Only direct questions should be responded to. This is a review, not an interview/Q&A/discussion.

As far as I know, reviews are usually one-sided. If necessary, further discussions should be carried out at the talk page of the reviewee.   az talk   08:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like unanimous support... when will it be made? 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I started pasting at RuneScape:Editor Review/Archive just now; however, it's not open until this thing is closed with consensus determined.
As for the "only 10 users at a time" limit, I don't think that needs to be there (Wikipedia seems to do fine with more), and if we do, we should be lenient on that for the first two weeks, because everyone is going to want one now. Anyway, I'll wait for consensus to be determined. Butterman62 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of intent - This looks fairly successful to me. Unless there are any objections, I shall close this on Monday, June 15th, 2009. Bonziinob has nominated himself to be the draft/example review - would it be preferred to have an example, or just open RuneScape:Editor Review/Archive to all users? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Open to all users, I think there was only a need for an example while it was being discussed. I'd just open it to everyone. Karis Talk to me 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Is it opened yet? I would like to volunteer also to see how it works.=) Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Only two more days. :) Butterman62 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Open to all users immediately tomorrow - 'cuz I'm being really impatient... :P 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it is open today already. Just waiting for butterman to confirm he is ready I think. Or maybe Gaz.Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 02:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Waiting for Gaz to close this.
Again, let's not have the 10-user limit. Once this opens, I predict it will be flooded. Butterman62 (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Grrr, watchlist failed to email me about the changes to this page...

Anyway, closed - RuneScape:Editor Review/Archive is open for all users; a 10-review limit will not be set at the present; for further discussion, go to the talk page. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)