Forum:Minimum edit count guideline for The Wikian

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Minimum edit count guideline for The Wikian
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 November 2017 by Liquidhelium.

We need to determine a consensus on what level of editing we expect from people requesting The Wikian title, in terms of edit count. There isn't agreement on this currently and its coming across in nominations, which is not fair on the nominees. Establishing a consensus on this would make the nominations run a lot smoother; both for people making the requests and for those who are closing them.

I propose that we go with a guideline of 150-200 constructive edits for users to be considered to have edited enough to make/pass a request for the title. For transparency this would be added to RuneScape:The Wikian, however the same premise of people being able to be nominated earlier if they have made a smaller number of very high quality edits would apply as it does now. I feel that`150-200 edits is a reasonable expectation for new editors to be able to obtain. I'm aware that new editors don't always see that many things that need editing; but with us coping less effectively with new updates and lots of projects and maintenance outstanding there really are things that new people can help with. 150-200 edit count is in line with what most of the people who have received the title so far have had.

If we start to give out the title to people with minimal editing experience I feel like it really devalues the gesture of giving them the title. Receiving the title is a lot less like being being recognised and appreciated by the community when its something being handed out en masse to anyone who shows a small interest in helping out here. I don't feel like receiving the title in such a way is going to give any encourage for people to keep editing after obtaining it. I also think that the title becomes a lot less effective if we're aiming to give an incentive to people who wouldn't normally edit without the chance of receiving some reward for editing. RuneScape players on the whole do not care about having titles that are freely available. Finally, I feel like it's important to note that people using the title are seen by many players in-game to be representatives of the wiki. If we are granting the title to people with limited editing experience it is not really possible for us to establish whether they are suitable to do that or not. We still have no to remove the title if we are mistaken about this.

I really hope we don't go in the direction of giving out the title with trivial expectations. It would be massively disappointing to see us waste the opportunity of having the title by doing this. However if that really is the consensus of the community then I think the other title requirements should be adjusted accordingly:

  • Reduce the minimum account age for participation from 2 weeks to 1 week.
  • Stop taking concerns about poor behaviour into consideration. We cannot properly determine this for people who have had minimal involvement in the community. The only people this really disadvantages is established editors which is unfair: if we are willing to AGF with new editors then I don't see why this should be brought up with experienced editors.
  • With minimal requirements I don't see the necessity of having a nomination process like the one we have now (there really isn't that much to discuss). Perhaps going back to batch nominations or some other automated, edit count threshold nomination system would be more practical. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 13:40, October 26, 2017 (UTC)


Comment - Keep the process as it is now, add guideline of 150-200 constructive edits. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 13:40, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Support 200 content namespace edits requirement (content namespaces being Main, Transcript, etc rather than Talk, Exchange, and along those lines) - There are a few reasons we should make an edit count a requirement:

  • While the title is not meant to be exclusive, it also shouldn't be given out willy-nilly.
    • The fact that we have to give the title out manually takes people's playing time away from things they enjoy doing to hunt down players in-game to provide the title.
    • Having a guideline that users should have contributed to the wiki in some way is entirely subjective, and opens a whole new can of worms on nominations.
      • Because of how subjective that is, we treat users differently to each other even if they have made the same effort but have varying edit counts. Having consensus for an edit count requirement should help stop this.
    • The title represents us and our community. It is not easy to be a judge of character when somebody hasn't done that many edits, yet are nominated because of good contributions.
  • The title is an incentive, but an incentive that should be earned, not just given away. We want to encourage people to stay on the wiki, we don't want them to do a drive-by for the title and then leave again, as can be seen with some editors.

And honestly, our current system of giving out the title is pretty bad. We give out permissions to users that reach an edit count threshold without really giving a thought to what they have done or having some sort of nomination process, so I don't know why obtaining an in-game title seems to be more difficult than getting rollback or custodian rights. I'd suggest that users can request the title on a page similar to the RFP one and they will be given it if they have reached the edit count threshold. No bullshit, no nomination, no being scrutinised for a week just for the sake of a cosmetic. jayden 14:08, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification here regarding the last part of my comment - I'm not saying we shouldn't make sure they represent our community, I just don't think we need such a long-winded process. This will take some effort to get right and I think we need to actually properly consider how we want to get this right. jayden 14:10, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Support as a soft-requirement/guideline - Support, but I do think the edit count should be a "soft requirement" - that is to say, you are not required to have that many edits before being nominated (or self nominating), but the nominator should be required to explain WHY a nominee with a low edit count should be considered. Basically, keep the nomination/voting type system in place, but if a nominee has a low edit count and no explanation is given, then other users may oppose simply for that reason. As it is currently, I personally (and this is just my own opinion) don't feel comfortable opposing someone due to low edit count only because we don't technically have that as a guideline/requirement; HOWEVER, I also don't post supporting that nominee either. By making nominator explain a low edit count, I would be more likely to support based on nominators reasoning, or conversely I would feel comfortable opposing a nomination based on edit count below threshold where no effort was made to explain why the nominee is still deserving. Therefore, I would be more willing to "cast my vote" as it were, rather than just obtaining because I don't enough information to make a decision.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 22:23, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Pause nominations? Would it be worth putting an official "hold" on new nominations while this is being sorted? As I look currently there are several already in progress, and the outcome of this discussion could effect how people voice their support/opposition of future nominations.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 22:27, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Support edit req / Oppose reducing time - I do feel there should be a minimum edit count but at the same time the quality of such edits should always be taken into consideration. "Constructive" as Isobel mentioned. It's fairly simple to get a high edit count quickly by doing extremely minor fixes (such as correcting a misspelled word in an article). I know first hand because when I first started editing the wiki, that's basically all I did. While minor fixes like this are welcomed and clearly helpful, doing 100 or even 200 edits of this nature doesn't warrant the Wikian title in my opinion. I feel the title should be reserved for individuals who have made a significant contribution to the wiki. They should be edits that take a little more time and effort. I recently changed my "vote" on a nominee after initially opposing because of a low edit count after others pointed out that their edits were quite significant. So in closing, Yes, I do support a minimum edit count of significant constructive contributions. Quantity AND quality should be required for the title. Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 22:52, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Mixed - I feel as if edit count can just easily be boosted if someone wanted to. An editor with 50 edits of fully thought out articles/edits would be a lot better than someone that nitpicks every grammar issue. Both are needed, but I feel as if its a lot less effort/thought into some grammar fixes.. I believe a Wikian should also have a ton of in-game knowledge, and you don't need any of that if you are just fixing small grammatical errors. I believe the minimum account age should be a lot longer than 1 week though, as some people might see that as an opportunity to drive-by, edit some things and leave. After about a month or so, you should be familiar enough with wiki that it wont be as hard to mess around with the editor compared to someone who got the title in one week, which would result in more people staying even after the title. Wikians also represent the wiki community, and their attitude should be considered for the title. I don't think it is unfair because you hold weight wearing the title and it shouldn't be just given to anyone. Manhattan2 (talk) 23:04, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

On account age... I would also be in support of extending minimum account age. While the title is supposed to be (as I understand) used as a way to encourage new people to edit, giving it as a "signing bonus" to those with a new account and low edit count seems to me to encourage people to do the bare minimum to get the title, rather than encouraging people to actively and consistently contribute. Just my thoughts. The only thing I don't agree with Manhattan2 above on is the idea that a Wikian needs a ton of in game knowledge. A casual player with intermediate knowledge of a certain aspect of the game (for example, a casual skiller that barely does pvm) that makes significant contributions to the Wiki in their one area of knowledge is just as valuable, if not moreso, than someone with a vast amount of advanced knowledge (say a maxed player with knowledge of skills/combat/quests/lore/etc) that just isn't interested in the "XP waste of editing" frequently.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 04:23, October 27, 2017 (UTC)

Comments: - "If we start to give out the title to people with minimal editing experience I feel like it really devalues the gesture of giving them the title." The title shouldn't have any value anyway. The reason people think it has any sort of value is because people show it off (eg having it in in flairs on reddit).

"Receiving the title is a lot less like being being recognised and appreciated by the community when its something being handed out en masse to anyone who shows a small interest in helping out here." - Again, why must we make the title exclusive? What's wrong with handing it out en masse? We are still recognising people's efforts by nominating them for it. I'd like to think seeing a bunch of people support you for doing good contributions is better than having a title.

"I don't feel like receiving the title in such a way is going to give any encourage for people to keep editing after obtaining it." I think everyone knows my stance on this - I don't care if people edit for a week, get the title, then leave. If they only edited for the title, then that's one week's worth of contributions we wouldn't have gotten in the first place. If a user didn't like editing but only did it for the title, then please do leave after getting the title, as long as your edits were actually decent. Wiki-ing is a hobby, and it's not for everyone.

"RuneScape players on the whole do not care about having titles that are freely available." Eh... This is ambiguous and I don't think we'll ever know the true answer to this. Personally, I enjoy obtaining as many titles as I can get (completionist mindset).

"Finally, I feel like it's important to note that people using the title are seen by many players in-game to be representatives of the wiki." Ok, this I actually agree with. I think this is a problem with the title as a whole though, and not with our nomination process. I'm not willing to increase the restrictions on obtaining the title just so we can be represented better in game.

In summary, I don't think there's a problem with the process of awarding the title. I think the issue lies with the community - how people with the title are treating the title, and how people are without the title are receiving the title (eg: "It's too exclusive"). I'm not sure if consensus will ever be reached on specific requirements because the subject is just so touchy. However, if you want my opinion, I say do reduce it from 2 to 1 weeks, and perhaps do abolish the nomination process. And remember, it's just a title. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 23:50, October 27, 2017 (UTC)

  • "why must we make the title exclusive? What's wrong with handing it out en masse?" The title is not exclusive, as anyone able to play runescape is able to edit the wiki, it is the willingness of people to go the extra mile for helping anyone who reads their edits. What's wrong with setting standards?
  • "wiki-ing is a hobby, and it's not for everyone" Exactly, it is not for everyone. The title shouldn't be rewarded to someone who doesn't give a hoot the wiki after the title.
  • "Personally, I enjoy obtaining as many titles as I can get" and while I have no issue with this, I think you are forgetting the fact that a lot of the titles in-game require harsher tasks. Editing the wiki is not hard and anyone who actually cares about the things they write on wiki have a chance of getting the title.
  • "I think this is a problem with the title as a whole though, and not with our nomination process. I'm not willing to increase the restrictions on obtaining the title just so we can be represented better in game" Wikians are the only community on runescape with a title granted to them from j-mods, god forbid we wouldn't want someone who has the wikian title flaming people whenever they can 67 kc vitalismanhattan'Ironman btw 01:12, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - "The title shouldn't have any value anyway. The reason people think it has any sort of value is because people show it off (eg having it in in flairs on reddit)." I disagree with this strongly. I think it should have significant value. In my opinion, the entire purpose of the title is to recognise and award an individual for putting significant time and effort into the wiki.
Having a completionist mindset myself, I too would like to have all of the titles that exist. However, there are some titles that are rarely seen in game because they are either discontinued or are not easily obtained. I feel the Wikian title is in that category. It's a "rare" title that can only be obtained through significant dedication and effort. My opinion is it should stay that way and not be handed out en masse. Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 01:24, October 28, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Why would we not want the title to have value? Are you saying that it should mean nothing when someone is given it? Also, any meaning that the title has now does not come from people showing off that they have it. I think the whole reason that people do show it off is because they are proud to have gained it. Hopefully for most people that is because they feel proud to have been recognising as a valuable contributor to what is the most helpful/comprehensive RuneScape fansite out there. That is the "value" that I don't want to see us undermine by giving out to just anybody, rather than people who have actually made significant contributions.
As others have pointed out 150-200 edits is really not a requirement that adds any sort of exclusivity to gaining the title. It's something that anybody can achieve if they want to. I'm happy for us to give out the title to as many people as we can who are who show that level of dedication to editing. I've really not seen that many people who are unhappy that the title is "too exclusive" - and the people I have seen with that opinion appear to think it because they don't know how we give out the title. Perhaps the solution here is to be more open about the fact that we are continually giving out the title and what we expect from nominees. That is something that I think the proposed edit count guideline would help with: it gives people something to aim for that they can see themselves making progress towards. I can see why people don't want there to be an edit count requirement but I think it is something that will improve the process. Quality of edits should always remain a point to be discussed in nominations. I also think that having a range of 150-200 would help here: people making lots of small edits can be nominated towards the higher end, while those making large high quality contributions can be nominated sooner.
I know it's unrealistic to expect that every who gains the title will continue to edit; there will always be those people who do the bare minimum required because they simply want the title. But why is it unreasonable to try and encourage people to become regular editors as much as possible? More regular editors are what the wiki needs and the title is something we can use to try and achieve that. And if they don't stick around at least we've maximised the amount of contributions that they made beforehand. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 13:16, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Support adding a 150 edit requirement; oppose reducing the minimum account age from 2 weeks to 1 week. --Iiii I I I 01:57, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Comment/question - It's not that I am for or against any threshold of edits. I thought the original criteria was to encourage editing? Personally, I didn't really consider the raw quantity of edits. I generally weighted it. Userspace = 0. Main edits (spelling, punctuation, undoing changes) < picture/file < discussion contribution < new article. With a rule of "do more than a few edits, but not necessarilly a lot". That said, I could understand someone looking at my comment going "well then how can you feel that X number of edits + Y number of other edits is worth anything, when *blah blah blah into the minutiae*?" and tbh, I can't give a good answer. Others found editors who didn't have the title but really did something, I looked over their edit quantity and gave a thumbs up or down accordingly (or just didn't other to post a "support".) I am hesitant to support any arbitrary numbers for edits since you do have a quality vs quantity argument . Also, you don't want to just set some low number since some people, will ofc, aim to do a min amount of work. --Deltaslug (talk) 04:20, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Comments and soft oppose: I see a lot of discussion on this topic falls into one of two categories. People either feel like the title needs to be harder to obtain as a "right of passage" to quality edits, or as incentive to bring people into the community and increase the quantity of editors. The real question comes down to what goal the community wants from distributing the title. If you're trying to improve the quality of current editors, make it more exclusive. If you're trying to improve our editing coverage, however, make the title available to anyone showing an interest in being a part of this community. My belief is that there is no pride in having the wikian title if you are not also proud to be a part of the wiki. It is with that belief that I say the title should go to members under the following conditions: when they have contributed enough to feel proud of their accomplishments here, when the community can acknowledge their participation in editing and discussions, and when they are proud enough to inspire recruitment of new editors when asked about their title. --Chicagolight (talk) 05:29, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Support per Jayden --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 15:17, October 31, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think adding any sort of guideline (hard or not) would be productive for the title discussions (which, frankly, I think have been going really well recently). The fact that we have mixed voting and dissent on some of the discussions is not a sign that anything is broken or needs to be fixed.

I'm generally not a fan of imposing unnecessary restrictions on processes that are already based on consensus. If you think that 150+ edits should be a baseline for getting the title, then reflect that in your title nomination votes. If you don't, ditto. I personally don't think that giving the title to someone with 50 good edits is hurting anyone, but I wouldn't want to enshrine my point of view in the policy, any more than I'd want to enshrine the opposite view (which is what this proposal is aiming for). Jayden stresses that our current system is subjective, as if that's a bad thing -- but why? Subjectivity allows the consensus-driven process to take its course.

I think a soft guideline, practically, would have the same effect as a hard requirement, because I can't actually envision a scenario where someone with < 150 edits actually passes with that guideline in place. Can you?

I feel like the additional suggestions at the end of the proposal are a bit of a strawman and shouldn't be seriously discussed. ʞooɔ 02:38, November 1, 2017 (UTC)

Support per Cook 1wDmkih.png  Manpaint of the RPU (t)(c) 14:50, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Cook's point that a process based on consensus is not fundamentally flawed. I'm a firm believer that if you disagree with the reasoning behind an oppose, or even a support, then you should be willing to challenge it not change the rules to pander to that reasoning. In time, the weaker arguments will fall away and the hard requirements suggested here will prove unnecessary. cqm 22:19, 4 Nov 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

Oppose - on the general principle of wikis not being bureaucracies, I don't see a need to establish this as a rule. The title requires a discussion before it can be granted - if you want to set a standard, you are free to do so with your own vote. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:35, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - I think establishing a set of requirements to be met would discourage people from editing further than those amount of edits. Also, some people might have 50 transparency edits which can arguably take up more than 150 mainspace edits which could spark exceptions being made and then ruining the who minimum edit count proposal. I think what we have currently works well and why change something that doesn't need changing? --Talk to Kelsey 22:44, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment... - There are very good points made by those in support and those who oppose. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I do think it should be made clear on the page regarding nominations that individuals should feel free to express their opinions in support or opposition for their own reasons. For example as I mentioned above, there have been cases where I have abstained from "voting" at all because I didn't really know the nominee, but where I felt that they didn't have enough edit count and would have opposed had I voted at all. However, I was under the impression that since a minimum edit count is not a guideline, I didn't have the "right" to oppose for that reason. So, basically, all I am suggesting is that we add some statement to the nomination process page that would state basically "anyone can voice their support or opposition for any reason they feel is legitimate". Because after reading this discussion, I really don't think making a hard guideline/rule for minimum edit count is necessary; those who "support" this guideline should feel free (and have the right) to oppose nominees based on edit count reasoning, and those who "oppose" this guideline have the right (and should feel free) to support nominees based on their own reasoning as well.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 15:37, November 6, 2017 (UTC)

RS:CONSENSUS bad_fetustalk 18:26, November 6, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - It is clear that the community has many differing opinions on the nature of the Wikian title requirements. Thus, there is no consensus. Users should express their opinion on the individual nominations. I would encourage everyone to comment on all the title nominations. --LiquidTalk 02:38, November 7, 2017 (UTC)