API tools faq
paste
LordKelvin

Untitled

LordKelvin
Jun 23rd, 2014
316
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 8.52 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. [2014-06-01 19:58:41] <Lagg> LordKelvin: They're trying hard to twist my words
  2. [2014-06-01 19:59:13] <LordKelvin> at this point, i think the best thing we can do is discuss this between staff again
  3. [2014-06-01 19:59:48] * Armisael has joined #tfwiki-staff
  4. [2014-06-01 20:00:34] <Armisael> LordKelvin, staff discussions are percieved as being incredibly unfair by the rest of the community
  5. [2014-06-01 20:01:11] <Armisael> irc discussions aren't even supposed to be binding on large-scal policy
  6. [2014-06-01 20:02:14] <Lagg> So pretty much the same whiny entitled bullshit is occurring that prompted the removal in the first place. at least it's in a pretty public channel this time instead of random "uhuhuhu muh snowflake" comments.
  7. [2014-06-01 20:02:31] <Lagg> I'm no longer guilty about removing the notable pages either
  8. [2014-06-01 20:02:40] <Lagg> and here I thought these were done by good people
  9. [2014-06-01 20:03:52] <Lagg> I say "Yeah, I am sincerely hurt by having to do this." and they try just so very hard to turn it into "MUAHAHAH I KEEL YOUR WEBSITE"
  10. [2014-06-01 20:05:49] <LordKelvin> Lagg: would you be open to the staff taking a second look at this issue?
  11. [2014-06-01 20:06:22] <Lagg> Why do you need my input, you all agreed to it. If you want to give into the same pressure that caused the site pages to get so infested in the first place that's your perogative
  12. [2014-06-01 20:06:58] <Lagg> These people are doing exactly what the entitled pissants did. I thought they were better than that too.
  13. [2014-06-01 20:07:53] <Lagg> If you want to devote your time and sweat to a section of the site created to please people like this, then be ready to take all that comes with that responsibility.
  14. [2014-06-01 20:07:55] <LordKelvin> regardless, i think it deserves another look now that we have seen the effects more clearly
  15. [2014-06-01 20:08:11] <Lagg> What they're doing in the main channel, you'll see more and worse of.
  16. [2014-06-01 20:08:24] <LordKelvin> yes, i am willing to take the time to do that, at the very least it's what i'm supposed to be doing
  17. [2014-06-01 20:08:31] <Lagg> and this time I'm not going to deal with it. It's going to be on you guys to clean and maintain
  18. [2014-06-01 20:08:41] <LordKelvin> that's all i'm asking for here
  19. [2014-06-01 20:10:04] <Lagg> I don't understand why you don't just focus on something better like actual documentation instead of trying to please people by letting them have their adverts
  20. [2014-06-01 20:10:56] <LordKelvin> because i feel that if we let this issue remain as it currently is, it will continue to bite at us and distract us from other work, which is just as bad as it was before
  21. [2014-06-01 20:11:18] <LordKelvin> frankly, i think we need to take a second look, not revert the decision
  22. [2014-06-01 20:11:20] <Lagg> Here's what you do: Look at the policy, refine it if you don't like it how it is. Then otherwise merely link people to it.
  23. [2014-06-01 20:11:53] <Lagg> People are trying to assume that this is some kind of perfect democracy, as if such a thing can or has ever existed. And you're allowing it
  24. [2014-06-01 20:12:12] <Lagg> They think that this wiki is their sandbox and their sandbox only and that only their part of it matters
  25. [2014-06-01 20:12:17] <Armisael> there'
  26. [2014-06-01 20:12:30] <Lagg> Instead of seeing it as an encyclopedia with useful documentation as it should be
  27. [2014-06-01 20:12:32] <Armisael> is there any democracy to this decision? it isn't like we elect staff
  28. [2014-06-01 20:12:37] <LordKelvin> that's kind of the point of a "community" though, the users decide thing
  29. [2014-06-01 20:12:40] <LordKelvin> s
  30. [2014-06-01 20:13:17] <Lagg> Yes, when overwhelming bias isn't a concern like there is in a situation where their free ad platform will get removed
  31. [2014-06-01 20:13:31] <Lagg> We exist to moderate, that's the entire point of staff
  32. [2014-06-01 20:14:43] <Lagg> You don't exist to condone and facilitate a free-for-all in a project trying to maintain a standard of robustness and accuracy, you're there to moderate activity and make sure it stays in that course
  33. [2014-06-01 20:22:30] <LordKelvin> Moussekateer, WindPower, RJackson: things need discussing, if/when you have time
  34. [2014-06-01 21:08:33] <WindPower> hai, I am back from weekendlong trip and I have no idea what happen(ed?)
  35. [2014-06-01 21:10:43] <Armisael> there was an argument about the community sites policy on the main channel
  36. [2014-06-01 21:23:06] <LordKelvin> WindPower: i wanted to take a second look at the wiki policy to remove all community sites, c main channel
  37.  
  38. [2014-06-02 01:03:07] <Moussekateer> LordKelvin: For what it's worth I didn't, and still don't, agree with wiping out community sites from the wiki entirely
  39. [2014-06-02 01:04:49] <Moussekateer> And as I said before, such a decision shouldn't have been made without user input. I really don't think it's an issue where our opinions are the only important ones
  40. [2014-06-02 01:05:11] <Moussekateer> It's too late/early to read through that gigantic wall of text now
  41. [2014-06-02 01:09:06] <Moussekateer> From what I skimmed I can see a lot of unhappy users, and if there's a lot of unhappy users we're not doing our jobs(lul) right
  42.  
  43. [2014-06-02 14:25:49] <RJackson> Reading through again, the original core point was removing the community pages harmed the communities because it cut off a source of traffic
  44. [2014-06-02 14:26:24] <RJackson> which was one of the intentions of removing the pages - we're not supposed to be an advertisement board for community sites.
  45. [2014-06-02 14:27:00] <RJackson> The other intention was for it to be an clear cut no-exceptions way of handling the "What's notable?" probelm - the answer now being nothing.
  46. [2014-06-02 14:27:21] <RJackson> We have tried many times in the past to answer that question, and every discussion has gone stale or not been conclusive enough
  47. [2014-06-02 14:28:09] <RJackson> which has led to the recurring issues of certain communities getting pissy when we don't think they're notable, and so they begin to demand notability guidelines which we cannot produce
  48. [2014-06-02 14:28:16] <RJackson> so we try to produce them, fail, cycle continues
  49. [2014-06-02 14:31:03] <RJackson> Usually our process for rolling out "large-scale" changes to the Wiki is a proposition to the community, and then action taken.
  50. [2014-06-02 14:31:33] <RJackson> This time, to avoid the recurring problem of discussions going stale, it was decided to take the action first, and then let people post their comments
  51. [2014-06-02 14:31:44] <RJackson> hence this discussion entry: http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Team_Fortress_Wiki:Discussion#New_policy_for_deletion_of_community_sites
  52. [2014-06-02 14:31:56] <RJackson> which has had hardly any input.
  53. [2014-06-02 14:32:41] <RJackson> The IRC discussion raised yesterday was two (maybe three, I'm not sure who wareya is) leaders of other community sites, affected by our actions, came to raise their complaints
  54. [2014-06-02 14:32:55] <RJackson> it's worth bearing in mind their inherent biases
  55. [2014-06-02 14:34:16] <RJackson> Tl;dr: I'm content with how the community sites exodus was handled, and I feel like the discussion page was an adequate attempt to invite the community to note their comments on-record
  56. [2014-06-02 14:36:01] <RJackson> ... and that discussion page still is a good place for people to throw their comments,
  57. [2014-06-02 14:37:21] <RJackson> I'd like to think we're open to reversing the decision to delete all of the sites, but to do so the community at-large would have to demonstrate that they want and can maintian those pages
  58. [2014-06-02 14:37:53] <RJackson> the first stage of doing so would be getting involved with the drafting of notability guidelines, and pushing that until it's complete
  59. [2014-06-02 14:40:03] <RJackson> Something common with the discussion yesterday, and the various discussions with "wiki outsiders" in the past, is that they simply ask us staff to [publish some notability guidelines]
  60. [2014-06-02 14:40:16] <RJackson> which shows the inherent disconnect and lack of understanding they have with regards to how the wiki operates
  61.  
  62. [2014-06-02 18:25:40] <Athernar> I like that RJackson was honest / "brave" enough to face up to the crux of the issue - being "muh site traffic".
  63. [2014-06-02 18:27:04] <Athernar> If the Wiki was driving a site "significant" traffic, then I would question the notability of that site. As they must be getting some pretty minor traffic for Wiki referrals to be "significant".
  64. [2014-06-02 18:32:11] <Athernar> I just hope the issue remains a discussion of merit, rather than a simpering attempt to "please everyone" with useless "muh democracy" voting.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!