Team Fortress Wiki talk:Discussion/Wiki Cap

Distribution Model

In response to the 'Nominate and Approve' model discussed on the project page:

• With the previous Wiki Cap distribution method, the key flaw that the staff seem to agree upon was the fact it was automated, dependant upon whatever data the wiki had easy access to. However, the idea of collecting candidates into one ongoing list is not inherently flawed on its own; how about setting up a private PasteBin (or other remotely-hosted) list of candidates, possibly with a regularly-changed password, that any of the Wiki higher-ups could add candidates to? After you establish an initial list template and first set of nominees, any new candidate submissions would be added to the bottom of the list, keeping the old nominees near the top and in regular consideration. As long as a good template is agreed upon, this would hopefully solve some of the issues inherent in the previously-used method, while retaining a familiar and dependable data format. Mainman ^{(Talk ▪ Contribs.)} 15:51, 17 July 2011 (PDT)
• I figure I'd throw in my two cents since (heh) someone asked for opinions in the IRC. As far as the previous system is concerned, I'm glad it was removed. It encouraged a 'stats' type system where people weren't making quality edits anymore, and were more concerned about being on a list. For the new method, I would support the nomination and voting method. Anyone can nominate anyone else, and votes are publicly seen under each persons name. The votes being publicly available are important, as they can help a user know what he is doing wrong, and what to improve. And of course there is bound to be a good handful of votes of people for themselves, and other things like that, and the solution to this, I think, is easy. Simply post a noticeable banner/section at the top of the page, outlining basic rules like "Voting for yourself is allowed, but not desirable" And other such guidelines, as well as tips for users to spot other good users out there. As far as the lazy-ness goes, I don't think it's a problem. Plenty of people still these days go wack-o over wikicaps. And the last important thing to do would be to make users very aware of the new process once/if it's enacted, and have a noticeable, permanent, link on the mainpage, or sidebar linking to the wikicap articles. I just don't think that a small link somewhere stuffed into the mainpage will draw that many users in. Well that's my opinion, I'd hope that you guys take it into consideration, that is, if anyone even sees this :/. MogDog66 15:20, 17 July 2011 (PDT)
• I think IRC logs must be visible, "but only mods / admins should be allowed to join when there is discussion going on" (In the words of seb26) -- Cappy ^talk 22:24, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

Visibility

On the subject of visibility (i.e. transparency), I would like to re-emphasise that the Wiki is a community project. That was the rationale behind its creation, the way in which it has been, and still is, advertised to the playerbase, and the way in which it is regarded by the community at large. Transparency is of critical importance for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the ability to ensure that the community can have confidence in the Wiki's leadership. This is important to consider, as certain allegations have been made in past that accuse the Staff of impropriety (such as the alleged awarding of Wiki Caps to friends, etc) and will no doubt be made again in the future. Regardless of the accuracy of such allegations, the best defence against such rhetoric in the past has been "check the logs". If the process of awarding Wiki Caps becomes opaque to the community and the process happens behind closed doors, what will the Staff's official answer be to any such allegations? How can the process be defended if it is not transparent? How can the community have confidence in a system that they cannot participate in, and have no visibility into? The former is not necessarily a problem because members of the community would not necessarily be aware of the contributions of individuals, but the latter? A lack visibility into the process would only add credence to those detractors that claim that the Wiki is run by a "secretive cabal", and that is the sort of view that, if adopted by more than a vocal minority, could have a deleterious impact upon the reputation of the Wiki and its Staff. Considering the excitable nature of communities such as the Steam Fora, such a dramatic policy change will certainly be inflammatory when introduced, and questions *will* be asked and (probably erroneous) assumptions made.

It is a change like this that has the potential to have a significant, negative impact upon the public's perception of the Wiki, which would be a serious setback for a community site. Altering the process and making it private sends a strong message to the community at large and, even if the policy change were explained and outlined in depth, it is probable that it would still be misinterpreted. Rather than being seen as a practical change for convenience and in order to improve the Cap distribution system, the change could be seen (most likely by a vocal minority) to have been implemented for nefarious reasons. The problem is that such minorities can be quite loud, and even if they are merely "trolling", there will always be people that take them seriously, and such tales inevitably spread to the community and even to those that do not utilise the Steam Fora. As a public Wiki, the opinion of the community is of vital importance and this should be taken into consideration. The Wiki is not a private enterprise after all, and is a community resource (albeit one officially recognised by Valve). As such, I would contend that the Wiki actually has an obligation to be transparent, even if the community is not directly involved in the Wiki Cap distribution process. Indeed, the very fact that they do not means that full transparency is the one of the best ways to ensure that the system is equitable and above reproach. Just a little food for thought. --- Esquilax 16:35, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Have to say I agree with all the points Esky mentioned here. The wiki is transparent by nature, and closing doors will only cause problems. It's obvious you guys wish to avoid the "friends of the admins" appearance, yet if you close doors, how will anyone know anyway? For all they know you can still be inviting non admins. The wiki is a transparent place where all users can exchange and view the flow of information, regardless of said information's topic, or whom is discussing it. And as for excuse that making the process visible would hurt the wiki's image anyway, as some people get heated in the discussion, I don't think that's anyone's fault other than whoever got heated. I don't understand why an entire staff should have to compromise to hide the 'entire discussion, just because a couple of people can't be calm. As far as I'm concerned, those who cannot control themselves and be civil should be talked to, and asked to calm down. After all, if we have angry staff, that's bad for the image anyway, open discussion or not. Excuse me for being a bit blunt, all the wiki staff are nice people, and everyone has their faults, I just find it necessary to express all my opinions in a discussion I find to be very important. MogDog66 13:48, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

Closing the doors of the wiki cap discussions, and discussions in general puts out a very strong message that the views of the community are not regarded or considered. Even the opinions of those of us who have been around for a while and are known to all of the moderators and admins seem to have been cast aside, as even on the discussion on the wiki cap talk page was restricted to "staff only." Those of us who also had opinions were told, "go over here and slap down an opinion on this other page if you really have to say something." We are talking about an item which is rewarded to those of us who go out of our way to better the wiki and help the community. To close out the community in anything goes against the whole point. Is it valid to say that anyone's opinion is more valuable than anyone else's? -- GenCoolio (talk | contribs) 20:29, 22 July 2011 (PDT)