User:Grim s/Sandbox/Thingamajig

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Thought collection, introduction, etc

The systems we have in place on this wiki are, to put it as simply as possible, so thoroughly borken that theres no point trying to repair them. As such, this is just an attempt to come up with a viable different system to run the place by.

Obviously, the first step is to scrap the original system entirely. Some parts of it may be used for the creation of a new one, as there are some redeeming qualities in this system, but its far easier to just wipe the slate clean and start fresh, incorporating those beneficial traits right from the start instead of trying to build a new system on top of and around the debris of the old. It would just cause problems in the long term, which is a bad thing. When we build a new system, we do need to think of the long term.

The next question one has to ask oneself before they got to work is what they want from the system they are going to lay down. The following requirements are obvious:

First and foremost, the system must be fair, and treat all users equally, regardless of their opinions, regardless of their "powerful friends", regardless of how much of an arsehole they have been in the past, with the exception of maybe going lightly on newbies who dont know any better.

The next trait you require is simplicity. This isnt always going to be possible, but it pays to just be as simple as possible. Unfortunately, due to the scope of these reforms, short and simple will not go together.

The final of the most obvious things to consider is that such a system should deal with problems quickly and consistently. Problems that linger around without being solved are a breeding ground for trolls and drama. These should be dealt with ASAP.

The next thing one must do is examine the most obvious flaws in the current system.
I think by now most everyone has realised the obvious flaw in a democratic style of management. "Tyranny of the vocal majority" as it has been called. Or more accurately, rule of the clique. There are a number of different methods by which matters can be decided, and frankly, i think the best way is to return sysops to moderator status and have them make the call after the discussion based on the strengths of the arguments presented for or against a position. Its not the best system in existance, but asuch a thing works for wikipedia, we can make it work here.

Another obvious problem is the fact that once a sysop has been promoted, there is no way to forcably remove them. Such a thing would have been invaluable when dealing with problem sysops such as Hagnat who under the current system went about collecting misconduct marks like a 16th century hooker went about collecting STD's. A mechanism need to be put into place to remove such problem sysops, but it needs to be sturdy enough that it cant be abused by a ruling clique if one is ever established. This presents a problem, but not an unsolvable one.

Another problem i see with the system is, funnily enough, the executive veto power granted to kevan. He is not a member of our community. Yes, this is his wiki, but that does not entitle him to say how the community that has collected and formed on this platform should and should not run itself. If he wants a say, he should participate, like I and others from each successive wiki generation have urged him to do over the years. The veto should be removed in such a policy.

Yet another problem to deal with is Arbitration. Presently it is a blight on the wiki, being abused by trolls and by other individuals to persue petty vendettas against others. This really has to stop. The lack oflimitations on what can be done as well as who can arbitrate pretty much ensure its malicious use against newbies who are trolled into attending. There is a need for some form of binding conflict resolution, but the arbitration system we have just plain isnt it. Its a fucking nightmare, pure and simple.

The final, and most severe problem, as has been publicly noted in a recent policy discussion, is that while people are free to speak their mind, trolls are also given free reign to conduct campaigns of systematic harrassment across the wiki. This needs to be stopped, and the offending users need to be excised from the community. Fortunately only a very small handful of users fall into this category.

There are any number of ways to solve these problems. Im going to give it an attempt, which is a damned sight more than anyone else has.

Personal tools