Subject: Would you mind qualifying that a touch?
Author:
Posted on: 2011-08-21 00:16:00 UTC
As it sits, it sorta looks like you're accusing VM of making passive-aggressive attacks. I'm totally with you on it being wrong, but you might want to qualify who you're addressing.
There's been a lot of conversation floating around on, and about, the Wiki lately. I'd like to take the opportunity to clear up a few points. Obviously, we can't fault newcomers for not understanding everything about editing the Wiki before they talk to us, but it would be nice if everyone who was editing could agree to some basic rules of consideration. If you've a comment, or something to add, or something to argue, please discuss. I'd like to have an open-ended talk about this; we're an informal community without a lot of Serious Rules, we should at least have discussions when we need to.
Firstly: Please, please don't edit someone else's specific page without their consent. For example, editing the page on Makes-Things to fix a minor spelling or grammar error is fine-- Makes-Things is, more or less, a character available to all the PPC. Editing the page on Agent Laburnum, or the page on Agent Dann, on the other hand, is most definitely not okay; those characters are owned by their respective authors, and no edits should be done to the main body of the text, even link-making or grammar-fixing, without their consent.
Secondly: Redlinking. Don't do it. If you notice that Lord of the Rings doesn't link to The Silmarillion, by all means link it. If you decide that there should be a link on the Fellowship article to the Anduin... first check that there is, in fact, a non-stub article for the Anduin. If there is no article for the Anduin, please don't try to link to it.
Thirdly: Everything does not have to be linked to everything. We are not TV Tropes, and we are not existentialists with staple guns. People are perfectly capable of typing "Sunflower Official" into the search bar; they do not need every single instance of his name to be blue and underlined.
I'm sure these aren't the only issues that have come up, so please, discuss away! I'd like to get as many opinions going here as we can.
We do not make passive-aggressive attacks against sue authors. Period. But we especially do not do it in a public place like TV Tropes. I am in the process of reverting the edits with said insults, but they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Also, if you do go and do something like that? Don't then put a link to the wiki on the TV Tropes page. That's just inviting trolls and flames.
As it sits, it sorta looks like you're accusing VM of making passive-aggressive attacks. I'm totally with you on it being wrong, but you might want to qualify who you're addressing.
Whoops. Sorry. No. Someone, I believe it was Luigifan but I'd need to go back and check, had made said attacks on the TV Tropes page, and I decided it would be a good idea to put this here, in addition to notes left with my reverts of the edits.
The way I see it, the Wiki we have is not so much a encyclopedic wiki as our hub and record for what's been in PPC canon, and what has not... and most of the various canons the PPC has been to, and the various fanfic trends that have been noticed in each. It's supposed to be a resource and a collection of all things PPC.
And following the PPC spirit, if something isn't FUNNY or USEFUL/MEANINGFUL/PRACTICAL (Caps lock for emphasis, not shouting), it probably shouldn't appear in too high a dose there.
When I link things on a page, I link things that I think are meaningful to that page, or things that may have a second meaning that DOES have a page on the wiki. Some of these links might be for fun, but they all are links that a person can use to find out more information about a PPC concept... or can follow to see the punchline of a PPC-spirited joke.
As for editing specific agent pages, the last time I did that, Nesh and I were on an official Wiki-cleanup and archival run, one to put all PPC characters in an index and link their appearances for easy access to more minor characters... or to find out which characters had been made preemptively and never got appearances at all. And even then, the content of the pages was not heavily edited. The way I see it, fixing an obvious spelling error (no ypurs on our wiki, for example) is fine, but linking all of these things the writers of the article didn't intend... what purpose does it serve? Is it funny or useful? As in, substantially more useful Not... really.
Our wiki is not wikipedia or TvTropes. It is an archive of the PPC, and like all PPC materials should follow the spirit of the PPC: one of practicality and light-heartedness. Edits that don't really serve either purpose may just be excessive.
The best solution to an error on an agent page, I think, is to alert the writer of it and chat about it... but that's not really going to work very well because less people add and work on the wiki than have pages there. Too bad. I kind of secretly wish more people would write for the wiki and make cool articles that would add to the good thoughts there.
I think that is a pretty good explanation of the way our wiki works. It is more of a collection of everything PPC than a collection of everything in general.
Personally, I've always been fine with someone fixing format problem with a infobox, or a typo, comma, or some other small mistake on one of my pages. I'm not perfect, and I'm not always around to chat with about it. (Okay, so I am almost always on the chat for a few hours per day...) There have been several times when I've made a major edit that someone else has come through and picked up a couple of small errors like this. The point is that I quite welcome content nuetral edits.
On the other hand, if someone was suddenly mucking about with the actual content of my agent pages, I'd be annoyed. (You know, things like why does she have those missions numbered that way? Three and five are missing! I should fix that for her! or something that happened to Guvnor back in May where someone decided that the mini-Unas O'Neil hated his agent Thomas Greenwall, and changed his agent profile to reflect that.)
1/ What about users who don't edit the Wiki, or aren't even with the PPC any more? How are people to know that they're allowed to edit the page for, say, Ella Darcy, but not for Laburnum? I don't update any of my agents any more (because I'm lazy), so why shouldn't someone else do it if they want to? Not to mention the fear that's creeping into people over this sort of rule - I had someone say that I needed to link Lofty Skies from the Wiki. Really? Why do I need to? It's a wiki - the whole point is that anyone can edit it.
2/ 'check that there is, in fact, a non-stub article for the Anduin'. Stubs won't get expanded if no-one links to them. And sometimes a redlink is important - it says 'I know this needs a page, but I don't know enough to do it myself. Someone please fill in the gap!'. Again, it's a wiki - it's about everyone editing and expanding it.
3/ Did I see someone below claiming that a user was blocked from editing for this? Because that's ridiculous. No, every instance of Sunflower Official doesn't need to be linked - but it doesn't actually do any harm. We don't have a budget for blue links (do we?).
In conclusion, I think this is one heck of an overreaction, and I have no idea why people think it's necessary.
hS
I agree. The whole point of the wiki is that anyone can edit and expand it. Now, adding random stuff to agent pages that was never mentioned anywhere else is a Bad Thing. However, everyone should fix SPaG issues, no matter who "owns" the page content, since we (the PPC) are here to mock bad writing, and if our wiki is filled with wild ypurs and missing commas, then we're leaving ourselves open for the hypocrite card.
Me, I just get driven berserk by bad grammar. I also like trying to make wikis easier to navigate.
1) You're right, but I think the solution is to have a more clear set of... something, on the Wiki, not to have anything at all. The issue is with people who aren't with the PPC at all, haven't introduced themselves, or have been around for two or three days going on edit-binges, including editing pages for other people's characters.
(No, you don't need to link anything from the Wiki. That's kind of ridiculous. I don't edit the thing either, I was just responding to various concerns.)
2) You're right. I very nearly said 'if the article is a stub, help expand it,' but maybe I just don't know how Wikis work. I do know that we had a massive Blow-Up Thingie about redlinking a while back, and Neshomeh and Aster made a whole bunch of excellent points about the thing, which I don't remember at all, because I actually don't pay all that much attention to the Wiki.
3) Someone was given a temporary block (one day, IIRC), because for a few days running now, he has been going on hour-long editing binges, the first of which occurred before he actually introduced himself on the Board-- several people were getting upset at seeing their pages edited without consent, and though most of the edits were links, some edited content. Also, it seemed to be the only way to get through to him, since repeated requests to his talk page are ignored, and reverting his edits with a summary to the point of "Can we talk about this?" either get misunderstood or ignored.
It doesn't do harm to link to the Sunflower Official, but it's annoying as a very annoying thing to be going through a page and half the text is in blue. It was pointed out on the chat that the assumption is that people using the wiki have at least a passing familiarity with the PPC, and don't need every step of the way mapped out in blue.
You're right. It probably is an overreaction. But I don't think it's over by much, we probably needed to talk about the Wiki anyway, and quite frankly, I think it's important that we discuss stuff like this before it turns into a cold war of edits and reverts. With things going on as they were, I just had the feeling we were going in that direction. Like I said, I'm not trying to be rule-happy. The whole point is that we don't have a lot of hard-and-fast rules, as a community, so when things do go wrong, it's important to be able to talk about them.
...I swear, that post wasn't meant to sound like it was coming from atop a soapbox. Apparently, I wax prosaic in the early morning.
If I did, I mean. I wasn't, regardless - I know full well you wouldn't say things without good reason.
hS
Thanks. It's fine; I do get defensive sometimes, it's not on you.
(You don't sound like you're on a soapboax. At least, not to me.)
I'm joining the bandwagon in that I absolutely do not want anyone editing my or my agents' pages - I routinely look at the the history log just to check that - but hS has a fair point about newbies not knowing what pages are unofficially 'off limits'. Perhaps we could make a (short) page somwhere that can act as a notification of sorts, or maybe a see-only-when-trying-to-edit notice saying "the content of this page is not to be edited except by [insert name here]" - or something like that. My suggestion's also a bit heavy-handed, but there must be a way to post a list in an easy-to-find place that will tell people what should be left alone.
I also think that it's quite fair to block a user from editing for a short time if they're not paying attention to (or, in fairness, just haven't noticed) messages from others asking them to stop, particularly if said person is very new to the community and especially if said person hasn't even introduced themselves yet. This is a community and communication is essential. That said, it seems to have been an innocent misunderstanding, and in the end, no harm done.
Well, perhaps we could put something on the Wiki's main page that says, 'Before editing a page, please read this guideline to page editing', and the guideline can explain that some users don't want others editing their pages, with a conveniently placed list of people who will let others edit their pages and a list of people who don't want others editing their pages, and the links to the pages too.
... to just put a header on the relevant pages stating that "This page should only be edited by [name]". I'm assuming we're all fairly honourable people here...
hS
It might well be possible, but if we had an explanation on the Wiki somewhere in easy reach, it might prevent a flood of posts from new users in the future on discussion pages and here on the Board asking why only certain people can edit certain pages.
I was thinking about putting a note on each of the pages themselves, aside from creating clutter on what should be an article mostly there for viewing, it'd be too easily overlooked by someone who just wants to alter one section.
I think AV has the best idea above - direct people to the editing guidelines and then put a list there. I also think said list should be a bullet list somewhere along the lines of "[Page/article name] - content editing by [name] only". Thoughts? I very likely won't be the one implementing it, so I don't want to take over.
I have to admit I got quite cross a while back when someone started altering my Agents' pages without asking, and I know I'm not the only one. And I got called out for redlinking myself way back.
These seem like a decent set of rules to me.
This is completely irrelevant, but I'd just like to say that I really, really want the phrase 'existentialists with staple guns' to become either the name of a band or the name of some kind of crime-fighting team.
Sorry. I'll just go now.
So, I was trying to clean up the Dementor page, when I noticed that I've been blocked from editing... what's this about? I don't really see where I've crossed the line, so to speak...