Self Moderation of the On-Topic Forum

All I do is visit the forums. I rarely ever get on the main wiki anymore. Cutting the forums wouldn't be fun and would probably hurt the site as a whole.

If self modding is required to stay afloat, then I guess it will have to do.

Wikipedia never has, never will have forums at all, and yet still gets by just fine and has a thriving community - people actively work together through discussion pages, project pages, that sort of thing. There's no reason that this site couldn't do likewise if the forums became too much of a liability. Certainly, that would be far more useful for the mission and cheaper in terms of overhead for the mods. I'm not saying I want things to come to that, but we should be realistic about the forums.

You're right that Wikipedia does not need forums (though it can't hurt). That's because the immense resource base embedded within the wiki is enough. Everything from policy pages to discussions about editors, arbitration go in Wiki pages. And these aren't just for trope potholes and short drop-by comments. They're full-length paragraphs that normally belong in the forums.

Can we have all of that in TV Tropes? It means everything we have in the forums, we get to keep, but do it in the Wiki. But I think we're used to having a message board supplementing a site, as with many other sites. It keeps a distinction between the site (valuable for information) and the board (used for interaction). We prefer it that way.

Also,

• Wikipedia has a much greater human resource base; 95 staff. It's strenuous to redirect all discussion to the wiki and monitor it without sufficient staff.
• It has a consensus-based community base that can work many things out by itself, much like the self-moderation we should have on OTC.
• It also has the advanced wiki formatting that can fully accommodate for discussions normally held in message boards.
• And it has achieved global status, so visitors are endless. It's not the same.

edited 19th Nov '11 11:33:18 AM by abstractematics

There is a surprisingly low correlation between frequent posts in the forums and regular edits to the wiki. Whether or not people want to admit it, for many of the most prolific posters, editing the wiki is an afterthought. To a certain extent, some sections of the forum have become self-sustaining communities of wiki readership that do not contribute to the upkeep of the wiki in any meaningful way. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, maintaining some sections of the forum is in fact a net loss to the wiki, in the sense that cutting them would save the wiki a noticeable amount of money while having a negligible affect on wiki edits even if everyone who used that section quit the site in protest. Such sections are tolerated so long as they do not require manpower that would be better spent improving the wiki.

That's only looking at the wiki. There is an intrinsic value of having a place for the community, and I don't think there's a problem with the state of the forums so big that we have to close the forums down, any more than what occurs with the actual wiki. As you said, the wiki and the forums are separate, and we should care for both, as other sites do.

OTC falls under this, too. Sure it gets heated, but it still runs, right? There's no breakdown in the section because of it. We just need to respect one another as members and keep civility. The OTC behavior is considered a problem because we care about that problem. We should care, of course, but it's not that bad.

Draining resources away from the wiki only applies to people who manage it. Having people come to the forums instead of the wiki isn't necessarily a resource drain. If people came attracted to the forums in the first place, they wouldn't be here if the forums weren't here, so there's no net loss to the wiki for them to stay on the forums. If we do have resources needed on the wiki drained by the forums, we could consider having some forum-specific mods, but I don't think that's the case right now.

edited 19th Nov '11 12:44:53 PM by abstractematics

There is a distinction between being a part of the TV Tropes community and being part of a community that happens to be hosted by TV Tropes. I suppose it needs to be said again, so: the forums lose money (unlike the wiki). If people come only for the forums, it is in fact a loss for TV Tropes, since the collective impact of such people forces TV Tropes to spend more money on hosting to support them for almost no benefit. When some part of the forum community interacts little with the wiki or with any other part of the forum community, we as a website are paying to host their private party. Giving some people from that community mod powers does stop manpower from being diverted to that community, but it doesn't decrease the financial burden any. The idea here is that if a portion of the forums reaches the point where that sort of thing is required just to keep that part of the community living up to TV Tropes standards, that forum section has outlived its usefulness.

So what do you suggest? That we shutdown this wiki software-based board, and migrate the forums to vBulletin, IPB, Zetaboards, etc? Possibly with an affiliated but separated staff, in case the wiki staff can't manage it all?

Like I said, there's an intrinsic value to having a community here. We want it because we like it, simple as that, not necessarily due to any ties to the wiki. Otherwise, why would any site have a discussion board?

I don't get the financial part, since the same ads used to support other parts of the site are shown on the forums also.

I'm not suggesting that we shut down the entire forum, no. Aside from the wiki upkeep matters it helps deal with, it also provides a place for the wiki community to hang out. Without a connection to the wiki community, it's just the wiki paying for a bunch of people to talk about stuff.

Yes, ads show up on both the forum and the wiki. However, the amount of add revenue generated by having the ads on the forum (as opposed to making the forum ad-less and only having ads on the wiki) is significantly less than the cost to host the forum. You see the same ads because they are served up by the same provider, but the ad placement and cost are negotiated separately.

For me personally, editing has become an entirely unpleasant experience when its processes became a sham of quasi-democracy. I'll fix some grammar mistakes once in a while, or make a page for something no one seems to have heard about, but real input has lost its meaning when everything you add is put to a fucking vote. In this sense, the forum, for me, is totally counterproductive to the wiki experience. I appreciate the need for it, and the benefits it confers, and the fact that many people do not feel the same, but that's my $0.02.

In my experience, being on the forums generally leads to having a whole bunch of pages on the wiki proper due to potholes and stuff. For example, right now, I have 2 forum pages open right now, and 7 wiki pages open, mostly due to clicking on potholes.

@kash: Unless you were adding an image, changing a definition, or contributing to Complete Monster, you shouldn't have run into that problem.

@inane: Then you're not coming only for the forums now, are you?

My experience is the same as Naneys, as soon as someone potholes something, I go take a look

Iron: Check, check, and check.

I liked the discussion page format better, since it usually meant that people editing that particular page had a close understanding of its history. Forum threads inspire drive-by editing and vaguely educated input.

edited 21st Nov '11 1:26:42 PM by kashchei

Unfortunately for you, you'll get no sympathy from me with regards to definitions and CM. Definitions—not descriptions, mind—are not the sort of thing one person should be able to change on their own, and Complete Monster has been a mess for years despite cleanup attempts because people kept insisting on shoehorning in their most/least favorite villains on flimsy grounds.

I don't really count myself unfortunate not to have your sympathy, so it's all good.

edited 21st Nov '11 3:41:18 PM by kashchei

Did the OTC thread on keeping OTC topics on topic just get off topic? How meta.

Well, this topic has become "The state of the forum" address.

I have a question, what exactly does "Don't be a dick" mean for the moderators because some of feel it means: "Don't call out people who have obviously bad/wrong beliefs and don't call out rape/paedo apologists"

In that context, it means don't attack someone personally for their beliefs. We've been over this repeatedly, but I'll say it again.

<Person expresses upsetting or controversial opinion>

Wrong: You sick fuck, I can't believe you would say that. I hope someone murders you.

Better: I see no need to dignify that blatantly [racist/misogynistic/homophobic] post with a response. Please take it somewhere else.

Best: Press the Holler button.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:28:17 AM by Fighteer

Okay cool, Thank you for clearing it up

You're welcome. Here are some more Wrongs:

"Oh, look, it's [Troper] the racist. How's it going, racist?"

"In before [Troper] sees the thread and starts making racist comments."

In short, anything that makes the troper the focus of the conversation rather than the subject itself.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:39:24 AM by Fighteer

What about making a genuine attempt to argue against the racist, and explain why they are wrong for believing what they do without insulting them further, even if the person you're replying to is blatantly breaking the rules? (Granted, I kinda doubt that happens very often)

It's ad hominem to attack the troper instead of the argument.

But if you can properly explain your anti-racist argument each time you confront the opposing argument, and it's relevant to the topic each time, then well, that's discussing.

As long as it's relevant to the topic. In some cases it could be thumped as a derail, especially in OTC, like if someone wants to start talking about how "[minority] are morally inferior" or something in a poverty thread. I would just holler it and let it be nukeded.

@Fighteer's explanations:

Which leads me to a thought...might there be a thread for these kind of questions (maybe in FA Os) where people could ask about specific scenarios so that they can know what the mods would consider "dickish" or "good" responses to them? I don't know how this might work (natter, derails and "not-a-mod-but" posts would be a problem) but just throwing it out there for consideration.