![]()
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?
![]()
![]()
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 FeynmanMore 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!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:
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 FeynmanEspecially 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^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 FeynmanOpps 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!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.
@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?![]()
![]()
2-3 edits per second are a lot to screen for moderators and/or curators.
About ![]()
, 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?
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![]()
![]()
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
and ![]()
: 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![]()
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".
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 FeynmanI 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?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
Hm, I think the definition used on Wiki Curator is fine enough.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.![]()
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.
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

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