Forum:Remove requirements for commenting on Featured images/articles

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Remove requirements for commenting on Featured images/articles
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 12 February 2011 by Powers38.

Currently we have requirements to comment on RuneScape:Featured articles or RuneScape:Featured images. Because both of those use consensus, there is absolutely no need for them to have edit requirements; decisions are made by the strength of votes and not by the number of votes.

This is akin to placing an edit requirement on the Yew Grove, because all of these use consensus and not vote-counting to decide their outcome. I can see no harm whatsoever in allowing unregistered editors and those with less than 50 contributions to let their voices be heard. The pages are already unprotected meaning that this wouldn't change anything about possible vandalism. This entire voting requirement business runs counter to RuneScape:Status and opinion-weight, summed up with "it's not who made the point that matters; it's the point itself."

Just to clarify, I do not want voting requirements removed on RS:UOTM; that is entirely different because decisions are based solely on supporter count.

Discussion[edit source]

Support - ʞooɔ 11:40, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Why did we introduce those rules anyway? If a million random accounts pop up and all support per the same person, it's obviously sockpuppetry anyway. Real Mad 11:46, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Only because nobody's gonna bother sockpuppeting in a fimg. bad_fetustalk 12:53, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - per Chess LordDarkPhantom 12:55, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Question - Does this really matter, though? The only people I can recall who comment in FIMG's or FA's are veteran users who I know. I don't recall anyone even close to the border between qualified and unqualified commenting. --LiquidTalk 15:19, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

See here. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:34, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Nuff said sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:34, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - If they wanna, let 'em. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:19, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - Absolutely no reason. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:48, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - For the same reasons the requirements were put there in the first place. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:26, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

The reasons they were put there in the first place was because AotM used to be based only on vote-counting. When it was changed to a consensus system, no one thought to remove the voting requirements. What are your reasons? ʞooɔ 22:51, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support Neutral - Why not. Degen has pointed out there are many theoretical reasons for why not. However, I am not entirely convinced, hence neutral. 01:05, February 6, 2011 (UTC) 222 talk 22:28, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support (again) - After talking a bit with Cook, I've decided to support again, the chances of sockpuppetry are extremely low, mainly because there isn't any real reason to do so, unlike a forum thread or an RfA, also, since FA is consensus-based as is FI (to an extent) it further lessens any chance of sockpuppetry, the only theoretical way to sockpuppet here would be to split your arguments between accounts, but that brings us back to who would actually bother? 222 talk 09:51, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - One could argue that it's impossible to have a "better" reason for supporting one image and not another, as that kind of thing all comes down to personal taste. Following that premise, consensus is technically impossible to achieve. In the end, it appears that it FIMG is based more on votes than argument-quality, so I'm not entirely sure where I stand. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:48, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Still, what is the chance of sockpuppets swaying the outcome of a FIMG or FA thread? ʞooɔ 22:51, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
Over 9000. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:25, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Featured articles is not consensus based, it is vote based.

  • "Articles need at least seven supporters and a positive consensus to be featured. "

This was added because there was sock-puppeting at one time, and this took care of that problem. Considering the lack of people voting on Featured articles it would be all too easy for crap article to slip through if we opened the door to sock puppeteers again.--Degenret01 23:53, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

If sockpuppets intended to vote on these things, don't you think we would have seen more of them attempting to vote? What I said below also stands. We have decided before here that consensus makes sockpuppetry not a problem on things that use consensus. ʞooɔ 00:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
If the consensus is very clear, then I guess we can do away with this. Just gotta make sure we pay attention to the facts.--Degenret01 09:48, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Flawed premise This thread is attempting to enact a change based on the premise that Featured Articles are selected based solely on consensus. This is not the case There is a minimum number of votes needed to pass a Featured Article. All people above who have supported the change must be made aware that they supported based on incorrect information.--Degenret01 00:01, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

I never said they were based solely on consensus. They are in large part, though, and featured images have no supporter count needed to pass. Our administrators are smart enough to know when there is sockpuppetry, and they know how to deal with it. But that's not a reason to shut out people who only want to give their opinion. Also, just because something has 7 supporters that does not mean it will pass. ʞooɔ 00:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for featured articles - Given what Degen has said, removing the limit would open the door to sockpuppeting. --LiquidTalk 00:44, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

That's simply not true. ʞooɔ 00:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Even with featured articles, we still use some semblance of consensus. It almost seems like you think that 7 supporters is all that is needed to make an article featured. ʞooɔ 01:37, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, FA's have some component of vote counting in them. And, when there is vote counting involved in any form, there is potential for sockpuppet abuse. It's clear that seven supports will not make an article featured, but that is still a threshold that must be cleared, and hence provides an opening for sockpuppets. My position is simply that if vote counting plays any role, no matter how minor, then we have to have some restrictions to stop sockpuppeting. --LiquidTalk 03:34, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Do you honestly think that the closing administrator won't be able to see through sockpuppets? ʞooɔ 05:27, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Soft support I have a slight concern that some of our admins do more counting than weighing, but I feel if we keep checking each other this will not be an issue. It is just good form to do this anyhow. Hey admins, go randomly check another admins close or something.--Degenret01 11:25, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Requirements will be removed for commenting on Features images and articles. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 10:41, February 12, 2011 (UTC)