Board Thread:Wiki Improvement/@comment-4748628-20150525013604/@comment-4029377-20150526150432

Phlegmatic-Yosuke wrote: Jaredthefox92 wrote: Phlegmatic-Yosuke wrote: Jaredthefox92 wrote: Gamedezyner wrote:

Shadow-Flare wrote: the idea's there but, as jared basically said, it seems far to easy to abuse it I actually trust the community we have here to not vote off things that aren't absurd or ridiculous. Everyone seems pretty defensive of creativity and I doubt they would all attack a sue-ish character just for that. I'm going to be blunt as well. From what I've seen by this community I would have to disagree with you, the Sonic fandom, as well as other fandoms are known for a sort of "social clique" mentality. While I do believe there are some old and ridiculous articles, (hotdog the hedgehog? Really?) I believe this is basically allowing admins who don't like someone else work for one reason or another to force it to a popular vote in which many admins will win basically by peer pressure. I agree with Smash that perhaps there should be that you either go after inactive articles or ask perhaps state what is wrong in the "quality" of said article so that the user may have time to mend the error. Stating specifically what the actual problem is, (and this has to be a majority problem, not just one the admin made up or has a pet peeve over) would perhaps give the author time to mend said article to where it is validated.

To basically call this or that article "crap" and force others to agree with you is bias, there should be a notification of what is wrong with the article and a grace period for the user to fix said article.Like Smash said it's the job of the admins to help people better their articles instead of enforcing a sort of admin sponsored "elitism" within the community. Yes there are some lazily made articles on this site that must be attend to, but keep in mind people might not have the time to update them in one sitting. Admins should serve the people, not the other way around. First of all, if someone makes a character like Hot Dog the Hedgehog ON PURPOSE, it would exempt if they have mentioned it to be a joke character. He was created specifically for entertainment value and nothing else.

You do raise a valid point about bias and such, I will give you that, but consider that if you have time to make an article that is less than three sentences and never complete it, why make that article? People should make their characters when they can devote the time and effort to do such.

It is not elitism, it is just his way of thinking. Honestly, the page is just a two-way conversation along with lists galore, and we don't even allow that anymore. That page should have been taken down in the first place for violating the rules.

EDIT: To further add on to my point, you should have more trust in all of the users of this Wikia. The majority are able to grasp common sense and act accordingly to situations, and are able to use evidence, wisdom, and their consciousness instead of running in and automatically saying "NO, IT'S BAD, BAN IT, EUGH".

Honestly, why are you complaining about this? Are you worried that your pages are going to be deleted or something? I'm pretty sure joke characters would still have to follow the same standards as these "crap" characters as well.

I agree upon the sentence length, I'm talking about in terms of defining "quality" other than them just making less than the standard amount of sentences. It's more about the fact that the admins can basically pick and choose what they consider proper or inferior quality without a proper guide or standards to define said terms.

Um, sorry but that is what we call elitism, having a group of admins delete articles simply due to not fitting in with the status quo, even when they're following the per-determined set of rules is what I would call bias. Sorry, but not only the Sonic fandom, but fandoms in general tend to fall into the social clique like communities. Like I said above this adminstration has shown to have corrupt admins in power before.

What page or you referring to? I was simply stating this Hot Dog character as an example.

"To further add on to my point, you should have more trust in all of the users of this Wikia"   Says who? I'm sorry but in my past experience when dealing with various members of this wikia, especially those who usually stay in the chat room and with the admins trust is one thing I simply cannot afford to place upon them. Anyone who says "trust me, I'm in charge" obviously is untrustworthy. There is nothing in the rules that state I have to trust the current administration, simply that I follow the pre-set standards and policies that I've already have seen.

''The majority are able to grasp common sense and act accordingly to situations, and are able to use evidence, wisdom, and their consciousness instead of running in and automatically saying "NO, IT'S BAD, BAN IT, EUGH". ''You would be incorrect here, I have seen many instances of the majority being manipulated by the popular minority not only upon this wikia, but upon other fandom wikias, and fandom chat-rooms as well. While I do agree there are some people who do seek to simply restore order to this wikia I still feel validated in my belief this can end badly for many on this wikia.

No, I've just seen this happen many a time on other wikis, chat rooms, and forums. When the minority in power asks you to give away your rights simply because they want you to "trust them" then there is an issue. I understand that there are some very badly made articles on here, however just using what the popular vote,(one that is fully susceptible to peer pressure I might add), combined with the authority of an admin who seeks to make their personal opinions on an article dictate it's fate is very close to the type of social clique elitism that not only plagues the Sonic fandom, but just about every other fandom on the internet as well. However I'm not here to start an argument, I'm simply standing up for the common members of this site.

Finally, like I stated above, I'm not against a sort of step up in how articles are created in terms of actual effort. What I am against is non-transparent "quality control" definitions in which an admin who simply might not like a user or article can use their influential peer pressure to manipulate others in the "popular" minority into voting to delete articles that in fact, with a little updating could become acceptable articles. I do agree that there are many articles that need to be fixed, and that there are some that are just plain shoddily made, however it is the current proposal for the current approach to these articles that is concerning. That "Hot Dog character" was using that as an example, Jared. Pardon me.

Sir, you know those admins and some of the users doing? We are trying to IMPROVE the Wikia, so we can attract more attention and get rid of controversy. Kagi advised that admins give valid reasons for why the pages should be deleted, instead of just going in and saying "I want this page deleted". We're talking in a Skype group on what's wrong with the thing and how can we fix it because of your valid and solid reasons why this is a bad idea.

You would be surprised how many people here have a high amount of competence and are completely honest on what they say, do, feel, etc.. You say that someone who says "Trust me, I'm in charge" is untrustworthy from the get-go, but Jared, nobody ever said that. You only don't trust the adminstators and chat moderators (especially the chat mods) because they have proved you wrong so many times over such trivial bilge repeatedly.

Again, Kagi's suggestion is actually a very good idea for this case. If an admin (least likely) gives a incompetent reason for deleting a page, then yes, that could go bad from there. So far, the current admins have not been doing bad at all. You cannot judge other people's judgement on how they treated you in the past. You have to think outside of the box.

[Turns to Game.] Still, we should probably not do this at our current time.

Don't get me wrong, I would like this more than anything. The problem is that it's horribly timed. Skull, Smash, Akri, and the other admins (hopefully) are trying to focus on making the Wikia more appealing to people. Right now, we don't have many people who are coming on the Wikia, and that's because we don't look good. Me and Jared's debate might set people off, and make them not want to come, so I apologize on behalf of me and Jared.

Right now, I recommend taking down the thread and saving this project for another day. The other admins are focusing on another task and they do not want to be stacked with work because you were quick to make a thread to add to the rules. This proves Jared's point on how the admins shouldn't be trusted, y'know.

Yes, I was simply using it as an example.

''We are trying to IMPROVE the Wikia, so we can attract more attention and get rid of controversy. ''Some admins might be, but not all of them. Like  I said before those with absolute power can easily be corrupted absolutly.

''"We're talking in a Skype group on what's wrong with the thing and how can we fix it because of your valid and solid reasons why this is a bad idea." ''So you'd rather talk behind closed doors than discuss it amongst the people publicly? That is yet another bad sign in my book. Also Game didn't give any specific perimeters as to what is "quality", she merely stated that some articles are "crap", and posted one that is a crossover. However I am in agreement that the admins must define their terms as to why said article should be deleted, that way the creator has time to mend it.

"You would be surprised how many people here have a high amount of competence and are completely honest on what they say, do, feel, etc.." Im pretty sure the past conficts being carried over to my Deviantart account speaks volumes for the nature of people.However I'm not going to bring up old issues unless I 'm forced to. This is a civil disagreement about my voting choice for a policy, and I want to simply keep it as that.

That is basically what they're saying in a nutshell.

"You only don't trust the adminstators and chat moderators (especially the chat mods) because they have proved you wrong so many times over such trivial bilge repeatedly." And way to bring up personal buisness about myself in a disagreement over my vote. First off they have acted rather poorly in the past and when their white knights and themselves came to my DA page I have stoped them every time, second why must you bring up my past issues in a disagreement over my voting choice now hm?