Editing the Userspace
Mi, 10/28/2015 - 19:11
As we all know, there are many pages in the Userspace. Sometimes content on these user pages interferes with the wiki project as a whole. In the past, I refused to edit the userspace out of respect for "pseudo-personal space," but more recently have delicately done so in order to help clean the wiki up - duplicate and/or low quality files and misuse of templates is simply cancerous. In light of several recent issues, it is time to establish a protocol for editing the userspace. After doing some digging, I've found that it's perfectly fine - within reason - according to wiki MoS, but having a solid protocol we can refer to in the Style Guide is something editors need, to both teach and refer to for justification. We have some support for this already (read the red text). But staff says it's up to us to reach a consensus on this protocol (read the red text).
Please provide feedback about The Potential Protocol here in the forums. If it looks good, say so. If you see a problem, say so.
We can track version changes in the page's history.
Basically, we are looking for crystal clear justifications for sticking our noses into the userspace (which we simply have to do sometimes, there's no question about that), and citing our reason for doing so. This is all out of respect for the individual in the face of the wiki as a merciless entity of knowledge. We don't like making people upset, even if they're upset over something that isn't technically theirs. These edits have to be done, and this is just "paper" we can wave around, instead of loosely citing wikipedia's standards haphazardly.
Do, 10/29/2015 - 10:56
#2
image files
It mostly looks pretty good. I'd like to discuss just one point: file usage, which is primarily images. There is no user space for files. Files must be uploaded to global space. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Therefore it is difficult to tell whether a given file is the "property" of a single user or the property of the community. You can inspect the pages that link to the file. What if no pages link to it? Then can we assume that no one cares about it? I'm not sure about that. What if the "owner" plans to use it next week? What if it's part of a forum discussion?
I understand the value of going through all of the sword images and standardizing their file names. But if some user page links to the old name, what is the harm of just leaving that old image where it was, so that the user page still works as intended?
In short, if there are a bunch of files that don't interact in any way with the main wiki space, but which some user somewhere might care about, then why should we go out of our way to mess with them?
Do, 10/29/2015 - 14:04
#3
@Bopp
The protocol is about editing the userspace, not about whether or not a file should be deleted.
Files need to be deleted if they are cancerous to the mainspace. This is outlined in the protocol and is enforced by staff. Here's a reference and here's a reference (read red text). What's a bad file? This includes duplicates and poorly named files. Poor names include inconsistencies with capitals, hyphens, and word order, making them both difficult to find easily as well as use consistently in templates. We need to edit the userspace so bad files can be deleted by an admin. If duplicate-but-same-function files are allowed to sit around instead of being deleted, editors trip over them and get confused about which file to use, or are unaware of a typo in a template such as a capital letter resulting in using a previously buried sub-par file, or which naming convention to use, etc. This has happened before many times. Examples I remember somewhat fondly were the duplicates-to-different-filenames-but-same-function icons of the attack, defense, and movement speed buff icons. They inspired me to rather unconventionally organize the icon category so editors looking for certain sparsely used icons can search through the category easily, before haphazardly uploading a duplicate they believe hasn't been uploaded yet. This project was finished by Hikaru, many thanks. Okay enough with the tangent.
In short, if there are a bunch of files that don't interact in any way with the main wiki space, but which some user somewhere might care about, then why should we go out of our way to mess with them?
We wouldn't be messing with these, unless the file name is too similar to a mainspace file, such as this one, (the proper one is here). Often you can tell the intent of the upload in the upload comment - casual users will either put 0 information in, or way too much. I saw an entire guild description under an image on the wiki the other day, I'll see if I can't find it and link to it here later. You can tell that the Trinket_Icon file was intended for use in the mainspace, it just HAPPENED to be used by a few users, and that needs to be taken care of. But this could easily be misinterpreted, so, just jump to the last paragraph of this comment if this is most similar to the inquiry.
If a file is uploaded, it no longer pertains to the individual. "Ownership" is the improper mentality that makes people fussy. Every edit window has the following note: Please note that all contributions to SpiralKnights are considered to be released under the the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license (see SpiralKnights:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.. Not to mention the numerous citations at the bottom of the protocol...anyway, I think you mean "the intended use of a specific uploader."
There are numerous untagged files. Sometimes some of us get in the mood and fix them up with the correct tag. Some files might be linked to externally (as with many obsolete "official" images on the wiki from the SK forums), or offensive, or copyright. Admins deal with these as needed, and they are external issues to the edits we'd make in relation to this protocol.
There is a point where we go with consistency over truth/accuracy. For example, I don't think we'll ever "fix" the file names of -Equipped accessories to be -Tooltip. *Shudder.* But we have run into groups of inconsistently named files, so we fix them. I recently did this with battle sprite galleries.
===============================================================================================
But I think you have found a loophole, or a high possibility of misinterpretation. If this part of the protocol could be reworded so the justification more clear, that would be helpful: used officially in the mainspace from section 2.1. Perhaps examples of appropriate edits would suffice?
Do, 10/29/2015 - 19:05
#4
Opinion
Ohhhh Equipped...... EQUIPPED! I get where the name was taken! Man im so slow.
So, serious now. As i said in the wiki, i support this. I have never edited wikis (wikias, derivates etc) before August but it took me some time to find how to do a Guild page, and some other time to find those tutorials. Luckily i didnt have any icons of my own and went clicking pages everywhere to find some good icons (because... i didnt know such thing like "category" existed in the wiki :X), but it was more due to lazyness to upload icons than anything else.
Im saying this because what Thepc said is true, not all read (i didnt xD at first), so, maybe, after we agree in how to process this "issue" we can also do something else, like... revamp the style guide? shorter with subpages? or add first the "rules" for user/guild pages, little tips and tutorials (old and/or new ones) and give the new user a page where they can know what to do and what not to do, maybe provide a basic template (a "template template", not like a copy paste, in the User page i mean) to avoid errors (actually it seems user page have more errors for that? havent see that much of disaster in guild pages) and a "where to find" section for all the links of categories people might want to look for their images (icon images, misc image, etc), even direct links, like "for icons of armors click here"(direct link to the icon's tag), "for icons of helmets click here", etc.
I mean, not ALL users read, they should, but dont, and... even when i know the mayority of the people who enter the wiki or do an edit are native english speakers, others dont aaaaand those while read even LESS (I was one of these, sorry xDU) because, DE wiki is being "inactive" since (at least) 2014, FR wiki too, and ES wiki wasnt that bad compared to others because Clotho was trying to make something of that wiki. So, like me, much people go to the EN wiki aaaand that could be part of the problem, not all, but a part.
So i would like a simple way people can see the information and know where to choose, what to do and not do to, etc. And, i know if someone go to a a place with another lenguage must know that lenguage but some people just know the basic so a big text or else will not be productive for they, and im just counting DE, FR and ES people, i havent count other lenguage. Im saying this because im one of those who "migrate" to EN wiki because ES wiki was so out-of-date and lonely.
Fr, 10/30/2015 - 15:26
#5
↓
Question with respect to editing other pages (Item #4 of V1.6)
I feel like there should be language to describe the acceptable formats of "clear permission".
Some would consider an ingame PM clear permission while others would not.
I'd suggest that it restricts the "clear permission" as being on the forums or the wiki.
Fr, 10/30/2015 - 16:14
#6
@Skepticraven
A very good point. I have adjusted the protocol to include details. It considers heavily alternate account abuse and dynamics of user names, as well as problems I have encountered before for various other things in real life. I think we need to isolate permission to the wiki, as this is about the wiki, and forums can be dicey due to name issues. If the user is unable to edit, that's a separate issue that they need to bring up with staff through the support portal.
Should the protocol be adjusted further, or is the current version of section 4 sufficient?
I am still thinking about how best to clarify section 2.1.
Sa, 10/31/2015 - 07:04
#7
↓
Permission is a fairly dicey topic anywhere. Not much time should be put into discussing the specifics of what should be restricted as I suspect few will even read the protocol. However, it gives editors that want to act in the best interest of the wiki permission to do what the community feels is right.
It should not be used in all cases of one user editing another's userspace. However, clear wording is always good to have if/when interventions need to be made.
Personally, I think it shouldn't be as wordy as it currently is. Draw the line, drop the explanation. No one will read guidelines if it takes them 20 minutes to get through and understand it. (Citation: ToSs and EULAs).
I normally think of the talk page being the place where details can be discussed. That might be the good location for these explanations.
Sa, 10/31/2015 - 08:56
#8
@Skepticraven
It should not be used in all cases of one user editing another's userspace. -Skepticraven
It should actually, that's why we're making it. If there's not a reason listed in the protocol, then there's no reason for an editor to 1) waste their time in the userspace and 2) mess with someone's page(s). If we've missed a reason, it should be listed.
If a "new" editor changes "someone else's" space, and they don't give a reason, and/or the changes do not pertain to the protocol, we have a problem. I have seen this before with angry ex-guild members on guild pages as well as nonsense edits to user pages. It's fine if new editors forget to (or don't know that they should) refer to the protocol in the edit summary...well, as long as they learn to do so in the future, and as long as we can justify the action(s) by referring to the protocol if the user brings it up on their talk page, then the protocol functions as it should.
This leads to lengthiness but it's kind of a legal document, so to speak. Yes, we all know nobody reads the stuff. The point is to have something consistent the community has agreed on so we can refer to it (even if it is lengthy), instead of wasting valuable time repeating details and/or discussing them on each individual's talk page and having it fall on deaf ears. You can see a fundamental lack of understanding and/or respect for the way a wiki works here, so having something we can just point to and say "look, this is what we do for the wiki, the community has established this protocol in accordance with wikipedia MoS, please stop making a fuss" would be a relief. I would have liked to say "Changes were made to this page in accordance with Userspace Protocol section 2.1" for my edits regarding this. If you notice, I had to do several edits, their page format prevents uniform editing and it was awful to have to do all those necessary fixes per section. And many others - just refer to the protocol, done.
EDIT: That being said, we can work on making the protocol more concise. Perhaps even divide it further into subsections, as generalization is good, but interpretation is bad. The subsection parts could have details, or simple paraphrasing of citation. Or, we could have two major sections, one on top of the other - a simple list of reasons on top that should take less than a minute to read, and then justification/reasoning/citation below that section for each reason for the curious.
Sa, 10/31/2015 - 09:38
#9
↓
"It should actually, that's why we're making it. If there's not a reason listed in the protocol, then there's no reason for an editor to 1) waste their time in the userspace and 2) mess with someone's page(s). If we've missed a reason, it should be listed."
Yes, I agree that it should be referred to and applied in those situations. The wording for that page is what other editors can do if something goes wrong. I was discussing the other side of it - a player that wants help might not ask according to these terms. I feel as though they should still get help without bashing this "rulebook" over their head. We shouldn't police valid help requests to be specifically documented on the wiki, but can question them if the edits seem malicious.
Sa, 10/31/2015 - 09:50
#10
@Skepticraven
Oh, I think I know what you mean. Some wording such as:
"Requests can be anything within Spiral Knights ToS as long as they do not interfere with the wiki project, but before other editors can help you with edits not covered by this protocol, permission must be given via a message from you on your talk page. It would be helpful to describe what you want to change with your page(s) along with this permission."
Would this cover the other side?
Sa, 10/31/2015 - 10:19
#11
↓
Not quite.
Hypothetical:
Player A wants help with their personal page. They request help via the forums.
Player B helps them.
Under the current wording, Player C sees these rules and the edits (without the request on the wiki) and reverts the edits.
If the edits appear in malicious interest, Player C is protected via the proposed protocols.
If the edits appear in good faith, I feel that Player C should not revert the edits (we shouldn't police if they don't appear as bad edits)... despite what the proposed policy states.
^ This last sentence is the distinction that I am trying to make.
This is just my opinion, though. I'd also be in support of having your wording too... just don't expect me to police the wiki :P.
So, 11/01/2015 - 13:04
#12
@Skepticraven
But I made a police hat just for you!
I'm working on 2.0 at the moment. It should be simpler and cover these confusing interpretations. I hope.
Check back in a few, idk, hours probably.
EDIT: after a long night of contributing to childhood obesity and suffering through another rocky horror time warp, the protocol will have to wait till sometime tomorrow. Hurray for text editor saves!
EDIT: Version 2.0 is up. Significant organization, more citation, and examples around the wiki. Discuss...everything. Obvious problems should be discussed first. For example, one of my links in my notepad version linked to an irrelevant internet article I was reading about trees and got copypasted in, instead of proper citation. With a huge edit such as this there are likely many mistakes.
The goal of 2.0 is to provide a clear protocol with excessive details for procedure+examples and citation for a ridiculously powerful reference. I hope I have designed the protocol to be easy to reference at a glance - the "Reasons to Edit" 1-5 with their simple titles should be explanatory enough, once users understand the polite "warrant" idea of the protocol - this is what we do, this is what is done.
Do, 11/19/2015 - 12:29
#13
Mmm...
If you're talking about people being too much on Userspace...
I was in MarioWiki and they issued reminders for too much userspace edits. How about you issue such reminders to people editing more userspace than normal wiki?
Do, 11/19/2015 - 13:49
#14
Matikclocker
Too many edits in the userspace in general is not an issue for our relatively small wiki, nor is it discussed in this thread. We just don't encourage the use of the wiki as a sort of social media site, and make sure that ToS is followed.
Regarding sheer edit quantity, we can simply choose the namespace we wish to view in recent changes, and/or encourage editors to mark their edits as minor so we can hide minor edits to catch spam.
Do, 12/10/2015 - 15:04
#15
So!
Going to work a few things out on the wiki end, and publish this soon, unless anyone finds any contradictions or other problems - please state them and we will smooth them out.
EDIT: the wiki end issues have been cleared up. Please look over the Protocol before it's published!
Unless y'all find something horribly wrong, I would like to publish this within the week. There are several minor cleaning projects hanging on its implementation.
This sounds like a good idea to me. "The Protocol" is a clear guidline for wiki editor and makes changes to user pages appear less random to the user.
The best way ofc would be to inform users what to do and what not to do in the first place, but they wouldn't read it anyway (most of them).
So yeah i support this.