Wiki Proposals

Wiki Proposals are changes the community would like to implement for the Redding Wiki but are not be confused with the To Do list.

1. Redding Wiki Elections should be established by September 20th, then October 1st, November 1st, etc. Wiki Elections will be based on a meritocracy system where editors with the most edits, pages created, and uploaded files will receive the greatest influence. As to how to calculate the "merit" of an editor is in dispute.

Score System:

Edit: 1 point
Page: 10 points
File: 5 points

Current standings based on this system.

2. More original editing and page creation.

3. Advertising on Redding oriented forums and groups to invite Reddingites to contribute their personal knowledge about the city.

4. There have been frequent problems between business owners and customers as far as reviews go on the Davis Wiki. There are frequent vandalisms, arguments, reverts, and soon the business page is filled up with arguments as to what happened. I propose that all comments made to restaurants be no less than two setences and no more than four on any given incident or event experience. This will prevent comments like "It sucked!" but will also prevent long reviews that could amount to a book. Also, it would be pointless if someone made a review within four sentences and then made another review on the same incident. I also propose that after a certain amount of time like 3 months or 6 months that all comments on a restaurant be removed as they may no longer be current.

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2007-09-17 14:26:25   Anyone that's familiar with internet forum culture will immediately recognize the flaw in this system as it would place the "postwhores" in power as moderators/admins—something that most forum communities avoid. While I can appreciate your desire to find a quantifiable means of valuating the contributions of an "editor," this is by no means a desirable method. An individual's perceived level of credibility and moral integrity is purely subjective in nature (as the latter must be interpreted in its relevant social context and former is the reputation of the individual based on the nature of their contributions) and must be evaluated by the community who is familiar with the individual in question. Due to how new this wiki is and the nature of the Redding community itself, I find it highly unlikely for you to be able to identify a trustworthy resident of Redding to assume primary control over the wiki within the suggested timeline. So instead of making public your fits and tantrums and facing constant criticism and opposition, why don't you act the part of a truly neutral wiki admin and be the "better man?" You have to change before your peers' perception of you will change. If you accomplish this well enough, you may even be accepted as being this wiki's long-term, primary admin. —MasumiWatanabe

2007-09-17 14:31:54   I consider my administrative abilities permanent, but I do see the flaws with this plan. Perhaps the score on pages and files should be increased, but I hesitate to take full control of the wiki as some dictator. So, there needs to be some standard because not all editors are equal in ability or accomplishment. As for perceptions, the debates between me and the others will soon cease and the drama will end. —SteveOstrowski

2007-09-17 17:29:54   Further proof that proposal number number 1 would result in a volumocracy (or vomitocracy) rather than a meritocracy. —JasonAller

2007-09-17 17:38:33   I need an alternative to creating a meritocracy. —SteveOstrowski

2007-09-17 19:13:28   First, what are the elections for? Admin? Admins shouldn't be elected. It may be that there is no need for elections at all. —JasonAller

2007-09-17 23:51:14   Elections are for talk page consensus issues on pages and people, not administrators. —SteveOstrowski

2007-09-18 01:57:20   Proposal 2 is not specific enough, no one can vote up or down on it. —SteveOstrowski

2007-09-18 13:12:48   I think Steve, you can have your cake and make this site actually mean something. You need to get this link out to Shasta county folks so they can contribute as well. I'm trying to help get this start and make it seem Legit, but my knowledge is based upon a few drive throughs and a pit stop for gas, so most of the information I'm drawing on is based on the internet. —CarlosOverstreet

2007-09-19 15:31:19   For proposal 4 I think a better deletion period would be a year and a half. For long running establishments major change does not typically happen at a rapid pace. I don't think that 4 sentences as a maximum is a good idea, also. Some happenings might be worth more. —JoseBleckman

2007-09-20 07:50:50   Proposal 1 is counter productive. As a result of it staying in place I'm not going to be participating further with this wiki. The NPOV issue could be worked with, but stat based merit is too problematic to even bother trying further to fix. —JasonAller

2007-09-20 12:21:11   I personally disagree with proposal #1 and #4, the last of which is honestly backasswards. Why? well, because we can simply have a policy to delete fragments of comments, such that "it sucked" is not a valid claim, though "I think it sucked" is, just as this statement "I think this policy sucks" is. In regards to the first, I wonder if one can be an administrator if they happen to edit enough? if so, when is the next election? —DavidPoole Ammendium, Just noting, that Chris McKenzie of Davis, proposed a similar system of merit.