TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Embarassing crap on the wiki

Go To

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#51: Mar 4th 2012 at 6:47:49 AM

[up][up] I've mentioned before that that isn't factually true within other topics. There's differentiation in different forms of fanservice.

But, the wiki is not suited to explore that, because of a perverse, Vocal Minority.

edited 4th Mar '12 6:48:38 AM by KingZeal

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#52: Mar 4th 2012 at 6:52:02 AM

[up][up] We have just added three more moderators (two, if you mind that Camacan's missing). Does this wiki grow so quickly that we have to add a new one every two months?

[up][up][up] This wiki's about storytelling. The reactions to it are just as important as the storytelling itself.

Concerning Fanservice, you might argue that the Fanservice is part of the storytelling but not of the plot, although that crosses over into trope philosphy that is not my expertise.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#53: Mar 4th 2012 at 6:59:03 AM

[up]Wikipedia has a staff of roughly eight hundred, the vast majority of whom are admins. We're not nearly as big as they are, of course, but I'm still not sure that fifteen people is enough for our purposes.

edited 4th Mar '12 6:59:23 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?
Raso Cure Candy Since: Jul, 2009
Cure Candy
#54: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:07:26 AM

More site mods (not forum) to go though edits would be good.

Interesting question... How many edits per day does the site get btw?

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#55: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:08:56 AM

I always thought that Wikipedia admins are more like moderators here - guess I was wrong.

I don't know if another expansion of the moderation staff is in order here. We should probably ask and wait for the staff's opinion about it. I've the distinct feeling that we are back to the situation that led to the Appeal to the Moderation thread - except on the wiki rather than the forums.

ETA:[up] 2-3 per second, from a look at New Edits.

edited 4th Mar '12 7:10:03 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#56: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:10:08 AM

Especially since the mods have to waste so much time chasing around the forum kindergarten.

I think what would work pretty well would be to have an army of empowered wiki curators who can't do forum moderation. It is a black hole of moderator time.

The hard part is identifying who they should be, and getting them to sign on.

BTW ... why aren't the good candidates doing it already?

edited 4th Mar '12 7:11:21 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#57: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:15:17 AM

^I guess it's because this thread is the first time that the whole "creepy" content issue has come up, so nobody who is competent to curator job is yet doing so.

About the curator thing...curators already exist, only that it's an informal job unlike moderation, which takes some formal tools and administrative approval. Do you say making it a form of sub-moderation?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Raso Cure Candy Since: Jul, 2009
Cure Candy
#58: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:15:44 AM

Opps wrong word meant curator not mod.

Maybe create a page for curators that lists all the day's edits and ones that have been read by a mod get a checkmark or drop off the list. Not an approval for the edit to go just a "has been read" type thing.

I usually try and check my watchlist once a day but...

edited 4th Mar '12 7:18:35 AM by Raso

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#59: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:16:16 AM

Again, a solid definition of what qualifies as "gushing", "creepiness", and "embarrassing crap" would be a good start.

As I said before, many people are still working from the days when TV Tropes was defined as "the silly side of silliness versus seriousness", so some things may come across as perfectly innocent fun. For example, most Self Demonstrating Articles are pretty much gushing in some form or another.

Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#60: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:16:29 AM

@Eddie: Official backing tends to result in more decisive action, I think. Basically, people aren't sure of what's approved and what isn't, which is half the reason why an increased moderator/curator presence would be helpful.

Also, if they aren't already, it would be nice for the wiki curators to be clearly identifiable, much like how mods posting in Ask the Tropers have that little 'moderator' thing under their names. Feel free to ignore this if that happens already, of course.

edited 4th Mar '12 7:20:22 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#61: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:17:48 AM

[up][up][up]2-3 edits per second are a lot to screen for moderators and/or curators.

About [up][up], yes, we need a solid definition for that. Rememember how in January there was an entire thread to define "dick" since it was challenged that The Troping Code was too vague?

[up]Increased moderator presence means another expansion of the current staff. Curators, I see it's not easy to see who's a curator and who is not.

edited 4th Mar '12 7:18:58 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#62: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:20:03 AM

What we need are people who can make up their own minds what is creepy and who is a dick, not more endless semantic tail chasing.

edited 4th Mar '12 7:24:05 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#63: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:22:47 AM

What we need are people who can make up there own minds what is creepy and who is a dick, not more endless semantic tail chasing.

They do make up their own minds. That's exactly why the wiki's content tends to be so uneven.

What's precedent ever done for us?
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#64: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:23:00 AM

[up][up][up] It was already proposed a few years (or maybe only one) to make Curator an official position, but it got derailed by other issues.

About[up] and [up][up]: I have a perfectly good idea what "dick" is. Not so much what "creepy" is. That means we have to pick people who know the latter.

edited 4th Mar '12 7:23:18 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#65: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:23:57 AM

Exactly. You can't expect people to enforce a policy when there is no policy.

FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#66: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:25:54 AM

Okay, let's say creepy is defined well enough that no one has any question what it means. Let's don't do it now, but say it gets done before appointing these curators. How do we pick curators?

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#67: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:26:54 AM

[up][up]I think the problem with "creepy" is that it is something you know that it is that when you see it. There are no clear standards, other than maybe when it is talking about breasts, genitals etc. with little or no storytelling relevance and excessive emphasis on "naughty".

[up]I think we have to first find a way to define curators. Moderators after all are defined by their tools and the like.

edited 4th Mar '12 7:28:00 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#68: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:27:02 AM

One way might be to ask for an essay on what is creepy. Two birds, one stone.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#69: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:27:46 AM

I have a perfectly good idea what "dick" is. Not so much what "creepy" is. That means we have to pick people who know the latter.

Or, at least, people whose opinion of the latter adheres with official policy. Basically, the purpose here is greater uniformity of content, so that we don't get into the situation where the site admin checks out a Youtube vid of a page made months earlier and goes 'OK, this is seriously fucking creepy'.

What's precedent ever done for us?
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#70: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:27:52 AM

It would have to be by index. Individual people who patrol a particular index, as well as a few others who patrol pages which are not indexed. For example, I make regular rounds of works/tropes that I like and use frequently. I watch Superboy in particular like a hawk.

edited 4th Mar '12 7:29:13 AM by KingZeal

FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#71: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:30:17 AM

You are dividing the work. How do we pick the workers?

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Komodin TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator from Windy Hill Zone Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
#72: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:32:19 AM

I think we have to first find a way to define curators. Moderators after all are defined by their tools and the like.

Hm, I think the definition used on Wiki Curator is fine enough.

Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#73: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:32:51 AM

[up][up]Only thing I can think of is by the admin tagging people who have shown themselves to understand the definition of "creepy" and volunteer to keep a given set of pages clean of it as such for these pages.

[up]Yes, for their work. Not for their tools. We need people who take on the job of looking after individual pages, as I do for the Septimus Heap ones. There are a plenty of these people, but not all pages have them.

edited 4th Mar '12 7:34:29 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#74: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:33:27 AM

Volunteers and nominations at first. I know that captainpat is usually very dependable at enforcing wiki policy on pages I frequent a lot.

The tropers themselves should be able to see if the same individuals are going above and beyond to curate a particular set of pages.

FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#75: Mar 4th 2012 at 7:43:13 AM

Might as well ask this. If the quality of the wiki is going to be the product of a select few, maybe it is time to admit that and restrict editing to the select few.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

Total posts: 1,731
Top