Forum:Protocol changes, rewards, and authourity

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Protocol changes, rewards, and authourity
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 6 July 2009 by Dtm142.

Protocol changes, rewards, and authourity

Beiefly being back, I have observed many things on wikipedia and other wikis (including the sub-wikis) of which I think will help the wiki greatly.

1. The Barnstar reward system, Users will be greatly motivated by rewards like this, I have seen it work very well on WikiPedia, so why can't we try it here?

2. Request for rollback, I believe that if one of out sub-wikis have this, why not the main wiki?

3. We should have a more flexible Promotion/Demotion RFA system, I believe that we need people with roles greater than those of breaucrats, like Janitors, Helpers... etc.

4. A User rights role either between admin-rollbacks, this has more active roles and is a good basis to make way towards adminship.

5. A more media-active wiki, this wiki should extend it's reach towards many other websites, like bebo, myspace, etc, we have a youtube channel but it's more like colo's own channel due to a lack of media input/links and the lack of euthiasm, it's also hard to locate many wiki members. I have set up a youtube group for the wiki before, but no one has joined, which shows a lack of communication between those of us who has accounts.

6. articles should me put into wikiprojects, like on wikipedia, which helps to organise and find things very rapidly, since many articles are not in the category they belong.

Please discuss politely, in the few days I'm on the wiki before retreating back to the wikibreak I would like to see if these ideas can work out or not Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 16:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great suff.
1. We sort of have our own Barnstar system in the works, which is called the stardust awards. Currently 4 users have the Template:Userbox/RSWiki Stardust on their userpage. Though, I have yet to see an actual reward yet.
2. What, like an RfA? If a user wants rollback, the way to get it now is to just ask a bureaucrat to give it to them. An RfR could work, but might be a bit over-the-top for something insignificant like that.
3. It can't really change much, its up to wikia central to sort out those kinds of things. Plus, the janitor group has been discontinued temporarily.
4. Again, its not up to us - wikia central controls the various user rights roles. Take it up there if you want it changed.
5. That's a great idea. It needs to be organised properly, so to do it a page could be created called RuneScape:External sites or RuneScape:Other sites etc. It could work very well. An 'official' YouTube channel would work very well, with videos of wikifests and other wiki-organised events. I'd be willing to help out if this goes forward anywhere. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I will only comment on #5. We are not a social network in the sense that facebook/myspace are. We are a runescape encyclopedia designed to give information about runescape. Users have the option for a user page and countless other personal pages. I know this has been discussed before that we are not a social networking site.‎Cooked chicken.pngAtlandy 18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Just because we would have an account on FB or MS, doesn't mean WE would be a social networking site. We could use it to announce events- W'Fests and such. And, while I'm talking about social networking, could someone please ask, on the sitenotice, whom the owner of "our" Twitter account is? http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Stardusts

Stardusts (or Barnstars) can be used to eventually replace the controversial "User of the Month" feature that we have. The Stardusts will be awarded based on specific contribution to the wiki, such as:

  • Editor's Stardust - general editing
  • Working Man's Stardust - labourious and repetitive tasks
  • Tireless Contributor Stardust - large contribution of work
  • Photographer's Stardust - images
  • Defender of the Wiki Stardust - vandalism
  • ..and so on.
  • See Wikipedia:Barnstars for a full list of Barnstars on Wikipedia. If necessary, we can change the names of the Barnstars to more RuneScape-y names.

Instead of picking an "User of the Month" just for the sake of it, anyone can award a stardust award to anyone, so long as they deserve it. No more voting, just give them a Stardust.

Consider this: We could really replace UoTM with this system. Users can be acknowledged for the work they've done, and we can avoid popularity contests. Nobody loses to another user just because they didn't get enough votes. We would be encouraging development of the wiki, without resorting to unnecessary conflicts.

Wikipedia knew the UoTM system was flawed, we should too.   az talk   10:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid people will go crazy just giving them out to friends. Then it won't really mean anything at all, tbh. =P Christine 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So they'd be like ninjastars or cookies on Uncyclopedia. Interesting. Why not use both these little awards and UotM, reserving UotM for big things? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


@Christine: We can set certain rules/conditions for each award. However, anyone (other than themselves) can give out these award, without going through the nomination/voting/consensus process.

@Andorin: We could. But we still need to pick a UOTM every month, and that's not really good. The "month" part doesn't mean anything; it's not like "Employee of the Month" where the award is given based on contributions for that month. Here, we're just giving it randomly to anyone who has contributed to the wiki. Clearly, the nomination and voting is not decided based on the particular month. The UoTM has lost its meaning, literally.

If we want to reserve UoTM for big things, we should call it something else, and not have it every month. Currently, we're just cycling through the active users who haven't been an UoTM, and awarding them. Sooner or later, we'll run out of users...   az talk   10:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen to see the UOTM going away, i prefer having barnstardusts and uoTms seperate. Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see UotM replaced with something similar to an RfA (can be given out at any time, requires a nomination and votes, as well as the user having done something very significant to back it up). -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 16:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

to ADK and C309:

i think that we should dig in more into wikipedia's barnstar system before falling into conclusions, we should learn more about how wikipedia's barnstar system is kept from systematic and adminstrative corruption. and also, i was thinking of a minor award called "wikitokens" as a smaller reward which can be accumulated for prizes...(hopefully it's not regarded as a case of RWT) Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 11:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the RuneScape Wiki should have a barnstar style system. On Wikipedia, it is largely a popularity contest. RFAs have even been decided based on how many barnstars a user has received/given out. I also don't want to see the RuneScape Wiki turning into a social networking site, and this is very similar to Halopedia's point system which has largely ruined the site. Dtm142 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Dtm.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 14:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. Oppose - Per Dtm.
  2. Neutral, leaning towards oppose.
  3. I plain don't get it.
  4. Slight oppose - That's rather unneccessary.
  5. Strong oppose - We've just been over this, This is Runescape Wiki, not a social networking site.
  6. Slight oppose - That seems like an unneccassary load of work. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mostly bad ideas.

  1. Barnstars: The Wikipedia community and the RuneScape wiki community are extremely different. I'll be blunt; this community is not mature enough to have Barnstars, as they are on Wikipedia, with the same effect. As soon as you start having to introduce rules for them (which you will, to avoid them being improperly used) they'll lose all meaning.
  2. People already request rollbacks. It's just a convenience feature, there's no reason to go through some system to have to get it.
  3. You know we don't make the foundations of this website, right? What abilities people can have are limited by what's programmed into the MediaWiki software. Users above Bureaucrat are getting into the realms of what only Wikia staff can do. Plus they're cross-wiki ranks, which we have no right to give out. Plus, what's the point?
  4. As said above, we can't "make" new rights. Also, what would be the point? Your justification is "this has more active roles..." If you want to take more active roles in a wiki, just go ahead and do it. You don't need permission.
  5. Bebo? Myspace? Towards what end? What would this achieve? Youtube is more realistic, as it could be used for something. But you've not actually suggested anything. People not joining doesn't indicate lack of communication; it indicates lack of purpose. What's it for?
  6. Wikiprojects could work. The only good idea.

In summary: For most of this, it can't be done and/or has no purpose. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 16:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe we've already had a Youtube channel owned by four wikians where we put videos of wikifests and 99 parties, but it was abolished for reasons that I won't say because it might cause the owners to be uncomfortable.  Tien  16:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
That's really unhelpful. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, one of the owners of the channel posted an extremely immature comment on some video. Anyone who saw the comment would think negatively of us, and it would give us a bad reputation... so we abolished the channel. We didn't try to figure out who did it because we hoped the culprit would learn from that mistake.  Tien  19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments can be disabled, or made to be approved before they can be viewed. But I don't see how negative comments give you a bad rep. Especially on YouTube. Everyone knows all comments on the Tube get bad comments, regardless of the topic. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[1] Here is the link to the thread, if you want to see it. Ooh, I forgot how bad that first comment was... I do suppose that we could get a trustworthy user (or a few) to make another Youtube channel.  Tien  19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hows about we make the stardusts given invisible to everyone but the giver and the receiver and don't let the receiver know who did it, this avoids the whole issue of popularity contests and people being pushed to give them out, whilst still having a contant personal reminder of how well people think you are doing. (possibly give them a lifetime of a couple of months) --Serenity1137 18:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How about we dont have stupid 3rd grade reputation system at all? Really people, stardust.... Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Will you stop flaming at younger editors TEbuddy --Serenity1137 06:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - I don't see the need to create popularity contests. If you want to complement someone, just tell them. You don't need a fancy system to do so.
  2. Oppose - Rollback is a tool that makes reverts, what, 2 seconds faster? I think we have enough trust in our bureaucrats to not have to make obtaining rollback rights an unnecessarily bureaucratic process (pun not intended).
  3. First part - huh? - Second part, oppose - helper and janitor groups are Wikia-wide and are only issued by Wikia central. In addition, the janitor group has been suspended, and unless you're a contractor or volunteer intern for Wikia, you won't become a helper.
  4. Oppose - First, what would this role do? It seems unnecessary. Second, we don't have the technical means at the moment to make anything like that; you'd have to talk to Wikia central or MediaWiki developers about that.
  5. Oppose - We are not based offsite, and we already have IRC.
  6. Support - I like this idea. For example, we could have WikiProject Woodcutting, where people who like editing articles about woodcutting could find interest, and so on.

Butterman62 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. Oppose - It wouldn't work so well on here.
  2. Oppose - There is no need for that, User's with rollback don't have any special power over user's that don't. It's pretty much a shortcut to the Undo button.
  3. Neutral - I'm not really sure about this.
  4. Oppose - per above.
  5. Support YT channel - If done right, us having a Youtube channel can be a good thing. Unfortunately, the incident that happened with the last one ruined the idea for many.
  6. Pending - Isn't that the same as categories?

Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Closed - This discussion is several months old, and was erroneously reopened yesterday. It is obvious that it won't reach consensus. Dtm142 16:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)