Board Thread:Wiki Improvement/@comment-4748628-20150525013604/@comment-5142578-20150530181925

I have a question regarding the original topic of this thread. When it was said to start putting "low-quality articles" under question for review and possible deletion, I think "low-quality" needs to be defined a bit better. Many people seem to take it as to mean "not very great quality in comparison to other articles written by more experienced users", and that has started up quite a fire-storm with people saying it infringes on rights and is way too controlling.

Here's my take on it: Low quality would be used to describe articles that were started, but then never finished or improved stictly out of laziness or lost of interest. In other words, articles that were done "half-@**" (pardon my potty mouth). Those kind of articles are in fact just taking up space and have no right on the wiki. When Game started this thread, I doubt he was talking about cleaning up clutter by removing inexperienced writers' hard work. I think he meant getting rid of articles that were just done lazily and with no dedication.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Furthermore, I think there is a problem in regards to too serious and not serious enough (or at all). I think BlackJackBlack hit the nail on the head with that one. On the one hand, I've seen this wiki become more of a political battleground than a center of creativity. On the other, I've seen people who are so liberal (for lack of a better word) that any hint of seriousness is taken as totalitarinism and controling, and then treated with hostility.

There needs to be a balance. On one hand, we'll discourage creativity for fear that a person's work will be removed due to not following strict guidlines. On the other end of the scale, anarchy will ensue, and we'll have all sorts of trouble following.

Hopefully this insight will be useful to somebody.