Board Thread:Wiki Improvement/@comment-27765057-20131017013322/@comment-27765057-20140102212118

Frost the Wolf wrote:

Kagimizu wrote: Or they could be enjoying the New Year holiday and thus have to delay the interview for a day. And as for knowing a wide variety of Users, I at least know a vast majority of the Usernames of the people on this wiki. Now whether or not those people actually deserve to be nominees for Featured User, that's a different matter entirely. Just being active on the wiki isn't enough, as I've said quite plainly before. I check on the wiki rather regularly, and I see almost no-one who makes much real and positive impact on the wiki. There are maybe... two or three people I could see as new Featured User nominees. Most others, I'd need quite a bit of convincing.

Oh, and I took note of something in the original post of this thing; I'm personally open to discussing different or new standards for Featured Users. An edit-based system just doesn't work on a wiki like this. An information-based one like SNN sure, but not on here. The problem is that without an editnumber requirement or a very cumbersome "vote for the nominees" system, said nominees have to be hand-picked. And when a wiki is stable, calm, and no-one is really making an active or noticeable moves for improving the wiki, not a lot of names really stand out to the person who has to pick. That means a small pool based on people said person knows have had a positive impact on the wiki, or having to ask for references or suggestions. And said suggestions can be subjective or opinionated.

Is the Featured User system flawed? Yes. Could I do my job better? Yes. Could we use a backup interview when something keeps me preoccupied or I fall behind? Yes. But the issue of more variety in the Featured User poll comes from the simple fact that as far as I can see, there are few Users that really stand out or go the extra mile. Users that haven't already been nominated, at least. That's the reason I cut down the number of nominees; said spots are very hard to fill right now.

P.S. Sorry for the spree of quick edits. It's 2am at the moment, so I'm more or less typing as I go along. I can't argue with this reasoning, which is a good thing. You also brought up good points regarding the reason for the limited nominees as well. Although you're against the idea of voting for nominees, what about this: what if several people said that such and such a user seemed qualified for a spot? Would it be possible to put the user up for review to see if he/she would be worth having as a nominee for the next user of the month (kind of like how articles can be put up for review)? How would such a review be conducted, though?