Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion/Wiki Cap

Bringing back this to life, we need to decide how to proceed on Wiki Cap distribution in the future.

A reminder of some now-established points:

• Using a list and a scoring system is broken, leads to unproductively competitive behavior from users, and to over-reliance on it from staff
• While distribution on a weekly basis seemed like a good idea to regulate the number of total Wiki Caps in existence, it had the side-effect of the community having the false expectation for it to happen without fail every week, and proved to be too slow at times, causing frustration
• The English and Russian parts of the Wiki being complete, there has been an issue of people creating work for themselves in order to get more edits
• The combination of these things turned the Wiki Cap into a standalone reason to edit, rather than a reward for doing so
• The Wiki Cap guidelines need to be rewritten

Here are some solutions that have come up in order to address those issues:

• Using a list and a scoring system is broken, leads to unproductively competitive behavior from users, and to over-reliance on it from staff
  •  Done: Delete the Wiki Cap candidates list, and stop using the Wiki Cap scoring script entirely
• While distribution on a weekly basis seemed like a good idea to regulate the number of total Wiki Caps in existence, it had the side-effect of the community having the false expectation for it to happen without fail every week, and proved to be too slow at times, causing frustration
  •  Done: Dispel the notion that drops will happen every week; we did that by not giving anything on June 26th
  • The frequency to give it may be irregular now. However, getting everyone together in order to decide on distribution requires a generally-agreed-upon moment when people are there, which may vary over time in order to keep it irregular
  • Volume/rarity concerns should be disregarded; even if all editors with over 500 edits or so got a Wiki Cap, it would still be considered a rare item
• The English and Russian parts of the Wiki being complete, there has been an issue of people creating work for themselves in order to get more edits
  •  Done The deletion of the list should help this, as edit count matters less now, and is less visible
• The combination of these things turned the Wiki Cap into a standalone reason to edit, rather than a reward for doing so
  • This needs to be more emphasized into the Wiki Cap guidelines
  • Rewarding users based on other things than editing (e.g. outstanding community contribution, à la Shugo (item icons), Michael (highlander team), or Benjamoose (promo material, graphics, general awesomeness))
  • This should make the "bias towards IRC members" more widely accepted, since IRC is a great way to get involved in more community-related matters other than pure editing. However, it should never be completely mandatory to use it
• The Wiki Cap guidelines need to be rewritten
  • This can only be done when all of the above is settled

The method most people were leaning towards as of the last discussion was to do it on a nominate-and-approve basis:

• Staff members (or maybe regular contributions?) can nominate people and explain the reasons behind the nomination
• The rest of the staff reviews the nomination and approves, or declines, explaining their decision in case of a "no".

Multiple questions arise:

• When and where does this discussion happen?
• Can regular contributors see it?
  • If yes, can they also nominate others?
• Does an approval require unanimity? Does it require a threshold of "yes"'s? Does a nomination expire if nobody says anything?

Last point: Robin said, in the email in which he talked about wiki cap distribution, that we may run any changes past by him. This is such a change, so his opinion should be taken into account before making any decision final. — Wind 11:43, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

"Can regular contributors see it?"

I'd say no, because things might get a bit ugly. "Only because of you I haven't got a Cap yet!" "Why does Moderator X hate me, I've done nothing against him?" --CruelCow ^(talk) 11:54, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

I agree up to a certain point. Allowing any and every user into the discussion would create chaos. However, the staff doling out Wiki Caps as they see fit makes us look a little "high and mighty" which I think is an image that should be avoided. We may be official, but it's still the community wiki so the community should be involved somehow. I think a good middle ground would be to allow the trusted editors group into the nomination and discussion portion before the staff votes on giving one away. I know that might be a little hokey from a technical standpoint since I'm not sure we can properly protect a page to allow this, but I think if it can be done it's the best way. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 12:30, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

The problem with that is that the "Trusted editors" are the ones who are most likely to be getting the cap, so they're the ones who would be peeved the most -- Firestorm 12:32, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

Several points (I dunno how to do this)

A nominate and approve method is good, but I have some thoughts about it.

• The issue of transparency is important, I think people would be immensely frustrated not to get one for several weeks/months and not know why they don't qualify and what others are doing better than them. I think non-staff should be allowed to sit in on the discussions but I'm undecided as to whether they can have an influence. They should be allowed to nominate editors though, because although there are many of us, some editors go about their work quietly and unnoticed.
• If someone is turned down for a wiki cap, how long is the period before they can be nominated again?
• Unanimity is probably a requirement; a unanimous vote is a sign that the editor truly deserves one.
• The discussion should take place in the staff channel, probably renamed because the name is kind of intimidating. There really isn't any other medium we can use for this kind of discussion. —Moussekateer·talk 12:08, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

Dis

I think any 'system' that doesn't involve some regular time schedule is going to become to difficult to maintain. One of the good things about the Sunday thing we had going earlier was that everyone knew to be in the channel around that time so everyone got a say – now if it's just going to be on the fly then I think there's even more for people to complain about. It'll also mean that more people will go completely unnoticed. A new regular meeting time needs to be made so everyone is involved.

Another thing I think is that again any system should be as simple and as non-bureaucratic as possible, i.e. no enforcing restrictions on nominations, no voting thresholds or whatever; when there is a consensus there is a consensus and that should be that. seb26 16:41, 3 July 2011 (PDT)