| Welcome Guest | Login |
Index
| Recent Threads
| Register
| Search
| Help
| 
| View Unanswered Threads
|
 |
Forums » List all forums » Forum: YPPedia Community » Thread: [YPPedia] Revamping the pirate articles policy (Voting finished, policies adapted) |
|
Thread Status: Normal Total posts in this thread: 60
|
[Add To My Favorites] [Watch this Thread] [Post new Thread] |
| Author |
|
|
Sagacious
Joined: Mar 6, 2006 Posts: 3548 Status: Offline |
I'm sorry - BOTH policy changes got adopted? With 27% opposition on one of them? WHAT? ---------------------------------------- Malachite & Midnight |
||
|
|
ponytailguy
Joined: Aug 20, 2005 Posts: 8913 Status: Offline |
Let me repeat something I've been mentioning to the other administrators. The YPPedia =! wikipedia, and anyone who expects it to be identical is never going to be satisfied. ---------------------------------------- Caturday everyday! How would you fix Midnight? |
||
|
|
TheRack
Joined: Jan 5, 2005 Posts: 4517 Status: Offline |
Can somebody please move this to parley... I am finding it very hard to bite my tounge on how the first proposition past, firstly in terms of it being no where near 75% and secondly passing both proposals at exactly the same time, when they have major ramifications on each other. I am going to say this though because I do feel it is important. For the first time in its exsistance, I no longer feel that the wiki is the communitys, it feels like a place for the admins run by the admins. But before I say anything else (I can taste blood I am biting that hard) I am going to ask something Tips and Tricks. Given that it is now it is clearly writen that "All pirates are allowed articles" and there is no scope whatsoever to delete pages due to lack of content... what is to stop me creating a page for every single one of my pirates on every single ocean... Not to mention a page for every single member of my crew and flag, reguardless of if they are a worthy forum identity or a greeny who we jobbed once 5 months ago and they never logged on since? ----------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
lorkiria
Joined: Dec 3, 2003 Posts: 1637 Status: Offline |
I echo PTG's sentiments about Wikipedia, but if you need further Wikipedia precedent fuel for thought, you can take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus - Guppy ---------------------------------------- "There is no salvation in becoming adapted to a world which is crazy." - Henry Miller |
||
|
|
ponytailguy
Joined: Aug 20, 2005 Posts: 8913 Status: Offline |
Hmm? One very important rule of every wiki is good faith, and one very important element of good faith is not "gaming the system"... taking a rule to an extreme to prove a point at the expense of the wiki and community. Nobody denies that this new policy will result in dozens and hundreds of new and probably useless pages... that's a pill that even it's hardest-core supporters will have to or already have swallowed. So sinisterly adding dozens of useless pages, just because you want to prove something, would be gaming the system. ---------------------------------------- Caturday everyday! How would you fix Midnight? ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by ponytailguy at Jun 13, 2006 6:46:47 AM] |
||
|
|
Sagacious
Joined: Mar 6, 2006 Posts: 3548 Status: Offline |
Urm I think you don't follow. When it is said that a result 'near 75% support' is likely to go through - why in the seven seas is a proposal with 63% support and 27% oppose implemented?
You try to make an open, public vote - and then pull a stunt like this :-/ ---------------------------------------- Malachite & Midnight ---------------------------------------- [Edit 2 times, last edit by Sagacious at Jun 13, 2006 7:31:24 AM] |
|||
|
|
blue_jacket
Joined: May 1, 2004 Posts: 886 Status: Offline |
Sagacious, I'm not ecstatic that the first proposition passed, either, but I recognize that the current votes clearly constitute a consensus because a) On a wiki, pure numbers and percentages aren't the only factor considered when determining a consensus. We looked at how strong or weak the oppose and support votes were, and at their comments. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if some users voted twice with two accounts, which explains why we truly valued those votes with comments attached. b) Without the neutral votes, the first proposal has nearly 70% approval. Even with the neutral votes, the proposal has nearly a two-thirds majority. Consider this: the first motion had enough support to be either a successful US Senate cloture motion or a successful papal election. ---------------------------------------- -Yaten YPPedia administrator. Mostly retired. |
||
|
|
Sagacious
Joined: Mar 6, 2006 Posts: 3548 Status: Offline |
Well I disagree. Some of the support comments were made by users who have probably never even pondered on the wiki before - but thought they'd try and go with the flow after seeing this thread. The lack of 'foundation' for some of votes annoys me. And, a neutral is not approval - and therefore cannot be counted towards support. The fact other ideas such as a Pirate: namespace were blatantly ignored irks me further. ---------------------------------------- Malachite & Midnight ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sagacious at Jun 13, 2006 9:41:17 AM] |
||
|
|
Feegle
Joined: Jun 9, 2004 Posts: 674 Status: Offline |
Welcome to democracy. I'm sorry, Sagacious, but you really can't have it both ways. If you want a vote to determine policy, then you have to let all potential users - that is, everyone who bothers to - have a say. If you want to let the wiki admins determine policy, then you can't complain about the policies they draft. Which do you prefer? Neutral is probably considered an abstention. It wasn't counted as support, as I understand it, that 70% number came from "if we ignore the neutrals and only count yes and no votes, then 70% of the votes were yes." That's how it works in Roberts Rules of Order, and if you count no-shows on election day, it's how it works in democracy too. (56% voter turnout on the last US Presidential election, and 50% of people (roughly) voted for Bush. That means that 28% of people elected President Bush, but no one uses that number - they don't count the no-shows.) That's all I have to say, and it's mostly about your concerns with the voting process. Your other concerns are legitimate. ---------------------------------------- - Feegs Senior Officer of the Ransack Marauders, Midnight Ocean Disciple of Artemis ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Feegle at Jun 13, 2006 10:06:25 AM] |
|||
|
|
Barrister
Joined: Dec 2, 2003 Posts: 1795 Status: Offline |
If a page lacks encyclopedic content, "<X> is a cool dude." then it may still be proposed for deletion. The basic rules of page content have not been suspended. If you have something to write about each and every member of your flag, then the new policies allow you to do just that. A warning, however: If you create dozens of pages with *no* content whatsoever, you will almost certainly be in violation of our policy against scribbling. I suggest you read that before creating the pages. Finally, I will not be participating in any wiki conversation in Parley, regardless of who starts it. My personal view is that the sole purpose of moving the conversation there is to hurl insults and invective. I'd prefer to have a civilized and rational discussion here in Tips & Tricks. ---------------------------------------- Barrister - YPPedia Administrator - Looterati |
|||
|
|
Sagacious
Joined: Mar 6, 2006 Posts: 3548 Status: Offline |
Following a lengthy PM from Piplicus - I'm withdrawing all my posts and opinions from this thread and holding a netural view on everything. Thank him when you have 5 min. ---------------------------------------- Malachite & Midnight |
||
|
|
Dylan
Joined: Jul 21, 2003 Posts: 7456 Status: Offline |
What is it about the word 'near' that you don't understand? D. ---------------------------------------- http://tinyurl.com/delft2010 register mates! ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Dylan at Jun 13, 2006 10:07:25 AM] |
|||
|
|
Sagacious
Joined: Mar 6, 2006 Posts: 3548 Status: Offline |
Subnote - How near to 75% should be allowed? I'd say 10% either way - but that still makes 63% under and therefore not a successful proposal.... ---------------------------------------- Malachite & Midnight ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sagacious at Jun 13, 2006 10:10:32 AM] |
||
|
|
Zava
Joined: Feb 11, 2005 Posts: 714 Status: Offline |
I admit that I was also surprised to see that the first proposal passed. The way the percentages and totals were presented lead me to believe that it would require 75% supporting votes, rather then 75% after the neutrals were dropped out. ---------------------------------------- --- Zava |
||
|
|
ponytailguy
Joined: Aug 20, 2005 Posts: 8913 Status: Offline |
We're ignoring neutral votes, because they aren't actually votes. To take the Election metaphor further, if you just shove your ballot into the box without marking it, even if you scribble a short essay on the back about how democracy sucks and you have deep-seated and valid reasons for refusing to vote... your vote still isn't counted. If you ignore neutrals, you have 70% in favour, 30% opposed. a 40% margin is signifigant enough, IMO, even if it's not "the magic number" of 75% overall. ---------------------------------------- Caturday everyday! How would you fix Midnight? |
||
|
|
Dylan
Joined: Jul 21, 2003 Posts: 7456 Status: Offline |
I had a look at the neutral comments, and it seemed to me that many of them were certainly not in opposition to the new policy. If presented with the choice to support/oppose, I'm sure that 3 of the 13 would help reach your 'near enough' of 65%. The strongest majority I've heard of as a hard requirement in my lifetime is 2 in 3 supporting (the liberum veto didn't do Poland much good, either). Anyway, 5 of the 13 would probably help us reach the 66.7% mark. Dylan ---------------------------------------- http://tinyurl.com/delft2010 register mates! |
||
|
|
Sagacious
Joined: Mar 6, 2006 Posts: 3548 Status: Offline |
If you make neutral an option, you count neutral votes. If they aren't actual votes - why allow them in the first place? Neutral was also included in the running totals and percentages - that means they were being included somehow. Edit: How freaky is the fact mine and Dylan's posts were dead on the same time.... ---------------------------------------- Malachite & Midnight ---------------------------------------- [Edit 2 times, last edit by Sagacious at Jun 13, 2006 10:43:47 AM] |
||
|
|
imwamphyr
Joined: Aug 29, 2004 Posts: 7637 Status: Offline |
I had nearly the same conversation 2 days ago with somebody else. What would you propose instead? Would you propose that the lower numbers win just because there are so many and ignore the higher number? Would you propose the vote never go through until one faction, negative or positive, received 75%? Decisions have to be made, you can't simply say the vote waits until you get 75%, because you may never have either side get 75%. You certainly can't say the smaller number wins just because it is so great a number. What exactly do you suggest? Muroni Just hates folks complaining they don't like how something was handled when they can't think of a single more logical solution. No solution at all is not a solution, in case you're wondering. ---------------------------------------- Selling my Grunion Collection! 174 ships, 164 sloops, ALL GRUNIONS! |
||
|
|
DuoX
|
Then I think this needs to be clarified for the future, because I, and others were looking at the totals, and my first impression was, the first proposal's percentages were "massaged" a bit into passage. If you want a yay or nay vote, then present a yay or nay vote. But, to allow neutral votes, and then disregard them in the end, really is not cool. Alot of people voted oppose and support, but also presented some valid neutral minded comments. Much like Dylan pointed out, some of the neutral voting could have been considered support. I think, had it been a straight yea/nay vote, it might have turned out a bit differently perhaps. I also think, based on the subject matter, they should have really been presented seperately. I think this vote process was a bit booched, and perhaps should be reconsidered, and possibly held again, in a more organized, and clearly stated fashion. Make it straight yea/nay, and present them seperately. These proposals seem to be kneejerk and reactionary to the HWFO in the forums, and I think that might be the underlying cause of this. Just my $0.02 ---------------------------------------- Igniknot Monarch Armed Cocktail Party. -- |
|||
|
|
ponytailguy
Joined: Aug 20, 2005 Posts: 8913 Status: Offline |
---------------------------------------- Caturday everyday! How would you fix Midnight? ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by ponytailguy at Jun 13, 2006 11:10:43 AM] |
|||
|
|
juventus1
Joined: Jul 1, 2005 Posts: 1430 Status: Offline |
Barrister wrote:
Hasn't the second proposal also been passed? The one that says the admins don't delete pages because of scant information or not enough "filler"? Note that I don't think that the admins shouldn't delete pages, quite the opposite. If pages are deleted because they have no encyclepedic value or human interest, that is fine with me, as long as their is a set standard for what is scribbling and what isn't, and that standard is easily accessible and viewable for all members of the wiki. EDIT: Changed "Barrister:" to "Barrister wrote:" to make it seem less like an issue and more like a quote. ---------------------------------------- Desmagicus "Be the change you want to see in the world." -Mahatmas Gandhi ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by juventus1 at Jun 13, 2006 11:14:47 AM] |
|||
|
|
Barrister
Joined: Dec 2, 2003 Posts: 1795 Status: Offline |
This was YPPedia's first large-scale vote. I'll readily agree that it wasn't perfect, and I'm sure we'll make some adjustments for next time. That being said, I think it's pretty clear what the community voted for. We will not be re-doing this vote.
Yes, the second proposal passed. However, "scant information" still requires some encyclopedic content. Scribbling is not the same thing. A page that contains only "asdfajsflafhsla" on it is not encyclopedic. ---------------------------------------- Barrister - YPPedia Administrator - Looterati ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Barrister at Jun 13, 2006 11:15:41 AM] |
|||||
|
|
ponytailguy
Joined: Aug 20, 2005 Posts: 8913 Status: Offline |
You're only halfway right, Desmagicus. The scribbling provision doesn't affect articles that have some measure of legitimate content. The scant provision (now repealed) concerned itself with the amount of legitimate content. To put it another way, this is scribbling:
---------------------------------------- Caturday everyday! How would you fix Midnight? ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by ponytailguy at Jun 13, 2006 11:14:15 AM] |
|||||
|
|
Sagacious
Joined: Mar 6, 2006 Posts: 3548 Status: Offline |
/me sighs I think the fact several neutral votes mentioned the fact they'd be happy for one or the other proposal going through, not both...just says something... ---------------------------------------- Malachite & Midnight |
||
|
|
ponytailguy
Joined: Aug 20, 2005 Posts: 8913 Status: Offline |
I think the fact that, even before excluding the Neutrals, the first proposal passed by a 35-40% margin says much more. Even if you want to dispute how Neutrals are counted, the community has endorsed the policy. We'll do better next time, but since we live in the present, any way you want to cut it, the first proposal has indisputeable community support. 60% of the vote might not be a supermajority, but it's 35-40% ahead of anything else. The proposal has passed. ---------------------------------------- Caturday everyday! How would you fix Midnight? ---------------------------------------- [Edit 2 times, last edit by ponytailguy at Jun 13, 2006 11:20:42 AM] |
||
|
|
atteSmythe
Joined: Jul 28, 2003 Posts: 8052 Status: Offline |
It might be retained, but it would be quickly edited to
At the least. ----------------------------------------
|
|||||||||
|
|
imwamphyr
Joined: Aug 29, 2004 Posts: 7637 Status: Offline |
---------------------------------------- Selling my Grunion Collection! 174 ships, 164 sloops, ALL GRUNIONS! |
|||
|
|
TheRack
Joined: Jan 5, 2005 Posts: 4517 Status: Offline |
Ok, firstly, let me clear up a few unfair assumptions that appear to have been made. I have zero, nor ever had any intention of creating a squillion and one pages along the lines of "Blah is a da bestest pirate" (Which I consider to be Vandalism, not Scribbling if it were to be intentional) I was thinking of creating pages either along the lines of Atte's template or using something along the lines of the following cut down template for pirates I don't know enough about...
And no, I have not tested that, so if the formatting is wrong, also make the appropriate changes but you get the picture. Further, I have zero intention of acting to prove a point, nor acting in such a way that intentionally damages the value of the wiki (or indeed act intentionally in such a way to "game" the system) In regards to this, I also have absolutely no intention of reducing this to a slanging match, insults or making it personal. I suggest parley, because in my opinion, (rightly or wrongly) I feel that Parley is the place where disagreements and open debates are to be had. Secondly I still don't feel that this topic meets the criteria of "Tips and Tricks" and having debate here about such an issue is not in the spirit of the forum (to the point I simply don't feel right debating here) In terms of me creating a million and one pages for all of my alts, Yes, that is HWFO, and although I will not be following through with that, I still strongly contend that I am perfectly entitled to do so (And will back anyone who actually does this with the best of intention, and despite it being annoying I will fully support their right to do so, and will be disappointed if the pages were to be deleted against policy. I do however intend to create pages for every single member of my crew (and ideally flag) officer and above simply from the point of view of marking down a bit of history, and with no Malicious intent. In terms of the value of these pages? Well, I am interested to read biographys about those in my crew my flag and allies. The voters have decreed that these pages have value to the greater community. (Only thing that will stop me throwing the pages up over the weekend is the time frames involved and the fact that filling the wiki with biographys is something that is low on my list of prioritys) Moving right along to Consensus and Good Faith. These are 2 things that are extremely important. Yes it is not a simple yes/no majority rules thing, it is about people acting and trying to come to a good and sound decision that most of us can agree upon (leaving room for a little agree to disagree by those who disagree) In this case, I (and everyone else) so far as I can tell, acted in good faith on this process. Now consensus is a very gray term something that is extremely difficult to define. As such, it was mentioned Because rushing things is a part of what created this spirited conflict/debate, I'll say that the voting period will remain open until it seems like there isn't much voting going on and a consensus has been reached (generally defined as around 75% support or oppose). and both were considered to be entirely separate issues. We also had the little vote percentages placed up there for all to see. Now, whilst it appears to have happened unintentionally, I (and others) feel that we have been heavily misled as to how things work. We had faith in how things were being run, and yet the ground rules were seemingly changed at the last moment. It makes a massive statement when people take part in such a thing and act in Good Faith, and the voting process gets changed. Further, comparison to other methods of elections and voting and whatnot is unfair. Regardless of if the right decision is made or not, a fundamental of a sound voting process is not only working out what's required for a pass, but for all participants to have a sound understanding of how the system works. Besides, we are not in a position where we have time frames and things like that to work to, we are not looking to pass a piece of important legislation, we implemented a voting process as a tool to help establish what we mostly agree upon to be the right decision. Whilst I'm not advocating things to be left up in the air permanently, We have the luxury of all the time in the world to come up with a sound decision. Finally, there is the issue of closing both resolutions at the same time. It is a foolish thing to do to close both resolutions at exactly the same time. Now obviously (unless somebody has a better way) something had to be closed first. Now I don't think it is in dispute that the second resolution had reached a consensus. So, given the major ramifications each resolution has on the other, would it not have been smarter to declare the second resolution passed, and then let people continue to discuss the first, with the added knowledge of what the full implications may be? (And indeed, had things been done somewhere along these lines and still both passed, whilst I would feel it was a bad decision, I would have no qualms in backing it as a community agreement) In closing, in an environment where nothing is ever set in stone, it is OK to step back and re-review things if needed and it is OK to concede that we have not done things perfectly, I still hold a small hope that the admin group have a change of heart on this one and consider the issue not to be finally closed, despite the very strong statement by Barrister "We will not be re-doing this vote." Edit - Ran this puppy through the spell checker and gave it a re-read, because grammer and spelling wise it was shocking in some parts, even by my standards ----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by TheRack at Jun 14, 2006 4:39:52 AM] |
|||||
|
|
Lizthegrey
Developer (retired) Joined: Jul 22, 2004 Posts: 6911 Status: Offline |
The Pirate: namespace idea was not ignored - it's something that's still being considered behind-the-scenes, but would require a bunch of work on our end to set up. |
||
|
|
Sagacious
Joined: Mar 6, 2006 Posts: 3548 Status: Offline |
Oh - my apologies. I didn't realise it had been taken aboard. Would be a good thing to have though. ---------------------------------------- Malachite & Midnight |
||
|
|
[Show Printable Version of Thread] [Post new Thread] |
Powered by mvnForum
mvnForum copyright © 2002-2006 by MyVietnam.net