User talk:Hagnat/wiki renaissance

urban dead current status - my two cents

Urban Dead is dead. I am sorry to say that, but it is. Its been dead for the past two or more years. Kevan no longer is updating the game beyond tweaking with already existing event tools. And the Urban Dead Wiki is also dieing in the process.

We, as UD players, have two options: We either let it die naturally, or we try to make out something out of it. I wish the first scenario to never happen. My two cents for the second scenario: we start using the wiki for stuff that is not only related to the game. Zombie related stuff. We make the urban dead wiki a zombie centric wiki. We keep track of all episodes of the Walking Dead, we discuss about the new Dead Rising 3 game, we keep track of every comic, book, movie, game, event, etc that happens to be related to zombies.

This way we start to draw people who DONT know UrbanDead into our community -- even start playing the game --, which will make Kevan starts paying attention to it again -- new players means more money spent/earned, it will draw its attention eventually -- and perhaps new game updates might come around. This way we can bring a third or fourth zombie renaissance into urban dead, ol` dinosaurs might come back from the undead - xoid, ron, zar, sonny, i have my eyes on you guys -, and perhaps we even manage to keep ourselves listed in randal's map of the internet --hagnat 04:49, 13 June 2013 (BST)

Sounds like a good idea... but if you want to draw in more people, this place really needs a civility clause, because the douchinesss is what keeps people off the wiki, regardless of the content.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:12, 13 June 2013 (BST)

I don't know about using UDWiki, but I like the idea of a zombie wiki. Oddly enough, the only largish zombie wiki I found (the so-called Zombiepedia) is rather lackluster. I'd be happy to contribute to a zombie wiki if someone started that project. ~ _{17:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)}

I'd be interested in helping out, if something gets off the ground. I'd prefer expanding this wiki, since I'm already invested here. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:38, 13 June 2013 (BST)

Related to a civility policy and making things more attractive for others, something that's been on my mind is that the current policies are utterly unapproachable for newcomers. I feel as if we should almost just wipe the slate clean of all existing policies and case law, then replace them with a few plainly-worded principles that are clear in intent and purpose but left open to interpretation. Similarly, stop with the one-size-fits-all consequences for vandalism, and instead make the consequences be proportional to the "crime". Finally, make an effort to bring in more sysops from a wider swath of the community, that way individuals don't have as much power and more interests are represented (currently, the wiki-law stuff makes it hard for good people to become sysops unless they submerge themselves in wiki-law too). I think stuff like this would upset the wiki community, but be better for the overall community, since it'd help bring an end to wiki-lawyering and the like, which is a major turnoff here. —Aichon— 23:02, 13 June 2013 (BST)

So, we dump the ol` "sysops are not moderators" and give the mods power to use their common sense while handling 'vandals' ? i remember how i had to punish users for small mistakes, and how often i got myself punished for trivial matters of 'misconduct'. It was the thing that drove the Drama Llama to their highest levels.

I have tried several times to give more power to the regular user. In my opinion, there shouldn`t be any reasons barring stabilished users into becoming sysops -- with power to user the ban hammer and the eraser of pages -- while just a few remained as bureaucrats whose job was to rule in arbitration cases and to warn users which might abuse their newly granted powers. Its a display that you respect and trust those who contribute to the wiki the most --hagnat 02:09, 14 June 2013 (BST)

The idea of more power to more regular users is exactly what I'm talking about. As for moderators and llamas, I'm thinking that the sysops should become less about policing and more about encouraging. That's true even today without any changes to the rules. Where possible, we should try to encourage people and instruct them, rather than decide if they did something wrong and choose to escalate or not. More or less, set an example as model users more than as wiki overlords by relying heavily on soft warnings instead of escalations. But when someone is clearly intent on harming the wiki or others in it, the wiki would be better off if sysops were capable of responding more forcefully more quickly, rather than having to go through the escalation process with someone who might be gaming it for personal enjoyment. Of course, I'd still make permabans difficult to push through, since there's a finality to them. And even if it does create more drama, at least it wouldn't be stagnate. —Aichon— 02:55, 14 June 2013 (BST)

there is no even need for soft warnings, just guidance. A lot of problems in the wiki could've been solved in the past if only we talked more and accused less. Our current guidelines are focused a lot on punishment, because it was needed in a time where this community was young and large. We already have an old and established community, maybe it really is time to scrap all that and simply *trust* these users with more power and responsability. --hagnat 03:07, 14 June 2013 (BST)

Sorry, but no. I couldn't disagree more. You can talk all you like, but all to often you will come to a point where two parties will not agree or compromise, either through legitimate differences of opinion, or through bloody mindedness. This is teh internets after all.
For all that we may hate the need for policy documents, and the effort it takes to understand them fully, they do work exceedingly well here. This community has run itself, pretty much without the intervention of an overlord (dictatorial owner/unelected admin), for years, keeping the wiki on topic and functional. Close to 100% of what people do here is not affected by policy or the sysops.
To misquote Winny, "wikilaw is the worst form of governance except all the others that have been tried". To sum up my thoughts on it... it works, don't fuck with it.
I do like the idea of creating a wider based, zombie knowledgebase, type sub-section of the wiki though. It has real potential to spark up both the wiki and the game -- boxy 02:59, 15 June 2013 (BST)

Bullet points

• Don't have policies. If we're wanting to get away from the bureaucratic poop and the hundreds of militant rules, we should be able to fit a few principles/rules on one page.
  • The talk page should be enough to propose changes.
• A/PM shouldn't be called promotions. How about requests for psysops.
• A/VB shouldn't be called vandal banning. Call it something else.
  • Don't have escalations/de-escalations. At least don't have a rigid ladder.
• Have one page for deletions. Don't have criteria. Have a few "what things are deleted" examples. Something like that.
• Have a separate namespace of non-UDWiki, zombie-themed content.
• Update the main page. We should have something to make ourselves look alive.
• Make suggestions simpler.
• Don't have votes about serious things.
• What hagnat said.

Bullet point one is the key one, no? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:22, 14 June 2013 (BST)

I'd just dump suggestions entirely, or else rework it as a simple system where you can discuss, modify, and then archive them, rather than having voting and whatnot. And with refocusing on additional content, I think we should talk to Kevan first, before trying to do anything, but I wouldn't mind seeing the main page modified a bit. Maybe make better use of namespaces as well if we can get Kevan on board, that way they can more accurately reflect what stuff is about and so that we don't crowd the namespace with "Umbrella" pages if we add general zombie stuff. :P —Aichon— 03:39, 14 June 2013 (BST)

My 2 cents- I concur with Aichon about the zombie-themed content- shouldn't be blended in with the gameplay relevant stuff due to risk of confusion. The idea is great though, it would be a fantastic way to keep wiki residents busy. Civility policy can't hurt, as long as it doesn't allow room for frivolous trips to Arbie's. Admin and suggestions pages do need to be trimmed down and the warning escalation deal is a good idea- bit unwieldy as it is right now with that insane vandal data page. Sysops system works pretty well as it is, so why fix what ain't broke. Huge mixed bag, if you're gonna ever propose this official policy, might want split up every bullet point as its own suggestion and bring them up one by one.--RadicalWhig 01:44, 16 June 2013 (BST)

for someone with a radical username, u are rather conservative :)

some of the ideas that have been put in here does not require policy at all... could be accomplished by any well intentioned user. --hagnat 03:20, 17 June 2013 (BST)

the fine arts

1. zombie in popular cultura
   1. movies
   2. novels
   3. video games

---

Would you mind this being pushed forward? I'm thinking of asking Kevan if he is fine with it, and if he could create a dedicated namespace for it, if so. I really like the idea -- boxy 09:57, 27 July 2013 (BST)

What would we call the namespace? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:40, 27 July 2013 (BST)

Namespace Number 112? Any ideas?
BTW... perhaps we should look into making a User:A Helpful Little Gnome namespace, while we're at it -- boxy 11:45, 28 July 2013 (BST)

All I can think of is Media: or some sort of abbreviation like PC: (pop culture) or Z: (zombie)? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:04, 28 July 2013 (BST)

Ummm, MediaZ? ZombieCulture? (bit long...) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:26, 31 July 2013 (BST)

bump

that june 2013 was a terrible time for me to start a new project, and i completely forgot about this. What you guys think we give this another try ? --hagnat 15:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)