 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
Back in the primordial days of Nukapedia when the anons ran wild and admins still rode megasloths, we used to host meetings of the minds, where the entire staff would get together in a productive space and pitch innovative new ideas that could potentially help improve the wiki and its community.
These meetings were rather informal and sporadic, and as such, they eventually just stopped happening. But I'd really like to take this chance to formalize these meetings and make them a regular feature again.
寧靜 
05:28, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
Why?
- To put a fine point on it, our forums are dead. They're still necessary of course, but we very frequently have important discussions and even votes that are either ignored or not even noticed, and that is 100% a problem. /d is lively enough, but doesn't have the functionality we need to hold any sort of professional meeting with enforced speaker etiquette. So that leads me into...
Where would we host these meetings?
- Historically speaking, our chat-room is the best place to hold these sorts of meetings. It's even easier now these days with Discord, as we can use roles to help set the etiquette we'll need to allow everyone to have their say without the chaos of everyone trying to speak all at once.
- I know that this isn't the perfect medium for everyone, but unfortunately it's the best I can come up with unless anyone else has a better alternative.
What if I can't make it to one of these meetings?
- In the past we've always had a summary of each meeting's minutes, but they weren't exactly super great quality. For future meetings we'll be providing a transcript of everything said, transcribed over onto the wiki for anyone to look back over as they see fit.
Who all can talk at these meetings?
- Meetings we had before were usually reserved for staff only, but I'd really like to change that up a bit going forward. Unfortunately there's just not enough time in the day to let every single person have their say, and so what I am recommending is that we introduce Ambassadors that will join in on these meetings and have their say.
- Everyone, however, is allowed to pop in and read these meetings as they progress, and exceptions can always be made if someone has something important to bring up. Just DM an admin and we'll see what we can do!
What are Ambassadors?
- Ambassadors, simply put, will be members of our community that are well known and highly respected within their sphere of influence, and are outside of our staff. As I currently see it, we'd have ambassadors for /d, chat, and the editing side of the wiki, all of whom must be nominated by the facet of the wiki that they'll be representing.
- These Ambassadors would be allowed in as speakers at each meeting, and will be there to express all of the feedback and grievances that they've collected from their corners of the wiki.
How long will these meetings run?
- As long as they need. Some meetings may take over an hour or even hours to finish, while others may be over in 20 minutes if there's nothing really new to discuss.
Discussion[]
If you have any questions, send em my way! Everything I can answer will be added to the F.A.Q. as necessary. 寧靜 05:28, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a very good idea. I would enthusiastically participate. It may be helpful to have rotating assignments on a calendar for sending out an agenda ahead of time, providing general moderation, and taking meeting minutes.
take her for a spin! 05:53, September 13, 2020 (UTC)- That's a good point, and a calendar is a great idea for something we can have on the front page and/or the side-bar. 寧靜
05:56, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me 👍. I think it's also important to put a time limit on the meetings because otherwise they may drag on forever, people get bored, and don't come back in future meetings. So for that we'd need a timekeeper, whose role is also to ensure that we don't get stuck on one topic for too long because I can assure you it will happen more than once that we start talking in circles. - FDekker (talk) 08:54, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
- I hadn't even considered that, but you're making a lot of sense. That's something we'll have to put a lot of thought into having, because, yeah, you're right that otherwise there will be times where we just end up in an endless loop of talking in circles. 寧靜 14:53, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
I've always considered listening to users' issues and ideas a cornerstone part of our job as staff, so I plan to do it regardless if a specific place to do so is made. Sax 11:46, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Sax. Part of a moderator's job is to listen to users and answer any questions or concerns they have. I'm actually feeling a little uncomfortable because another serve I am in as moderator gets extremely hostile when someone pings staff for anything short of a nuclear meltdown in the server. Anyways, I like the idea of these monthly meetings (even though I probably can't be arsed to actually attend. I'll read the CliffNotes). Other wikis have had things like these for ages, my first thought being Elder Scrolls Wiki's moots. I don't see the need to elect ambassadors, especially since you say they are supposed to represent all three sides of the wiki by being voted in by those communities...but they aren't staff. That just sounds like another pointless staff role to me. I think the content moderators, discussions moderators, and chat moderators should already be representative enough of the three major wiki facets. I also don't mind opening the meeting up to the public, perhaps in a read-only capacity until the end, where we can open it up to questions and comments from the regular users. - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 00:04, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
The forums are ignored all too often, and I agree that a community meeting is a good idea. However, I do not believe that such a meeting should be considered a wholesale replacement for the forum process, if that is what's being suggested, and instead it should be seen as an additional tool. The two formats provide very different strengths and weaknesses, so the best potential outcome would be to supplement the existing forums with Discord meetings. Forums, even when active, take a long time to conclude, allowing for long form discussion in a manner which cannot be replicated in chat, where ideas can only be pitched quickly and addressed at surface level. Forums are also considerably more open, with only slight time constraints (voting more so than discussions) or limitations on who can speak and when. Anyone who wants to speak, has the ability to do so, unlike the meetings, which will be far more limited. Dates available ahead of time would allow for independent forums created by users to be prepared in a timely manner, should the poster desire to see overlap, or could be applied to forums started by staff specifically to address the business on that meeting's agenda. Minimize the ability for schedule conflicts to knockout participants completely out, and maximize the number of voices who are heard ahead of time.
Scheduling is one of most important preparations that could be made. Not that I would expect anyone to take off work or completely clear their calendars, but it would be handy to know in advanced what topics are going to be discussed well before it happens and who will be available to participate. It may not be necessary for all points of discussion, but there will be many instances where a brief chat is not thorough enough. For topics which are important but not urgent, the greatest benefit to scheduling would be to allow the forum to run almost concurrently to the preplanned meetings, beginning several days prior and ending at least as long after. This would allow for the users who do frequent forums to have several talking points in place, to act as a form of absentee participation for those who know they will be unable to attend but have points to raise, for users who do not use the forums to have their say on a platform they actually are willing to use, and then still give time for additional considerations to be made after the information has had time to soak in during the days that follow. Problems not caught or solutions not found during discord conversation, can have a chance to be discussed, and if a topic needs more time than is allotted to it during a meeting, the forum can act as an overflow. Hell, if the meetings are successful in the long term and draw in users, knowing that the conversation may continue elsewhere (with more open participation) might actually see increased traffic come to the forums, as these interested users come to promote or dispute ideas they encountered first on Discord.
Creating an ambassador staff position seems redundant, though. I agree with Sig and Sax that part of having mod or admin rights is to have an ear to the ground, to be respected within the relevant sphere of influence, and to be intimately familiar with the issues that come under your purview. If there are other users who are more capable in these roles than current staff, to the point that these users are nominated as ambassadors to the exclusion of existing staff, then the question needs to be asked why are these users not already outright replacing existing staff members? Our staff should embody every quality listed above, and if they do not want to participate or cannot be trusted, then they have no business being staff and should be removed.
Instead, I would argue that speakers outside of staff should be chosen on a case by case basis, where they present a specific issue and have a specific point to be made. Someone has an excellent idea in the pre-meeting forum and staff wants to hear that idea elaborated on? That's the perfect example of a guest speaker. Additionally, the meetings themselves can conclude with a Q&A section, as Sig suggested.
This whole idea would, after all, be an experiment as much as anything. Unless mandatory participation in prerequisite number of forums or meetings forces people to care, it is entirely possible that after the shininess wears off the idea, we are left to find the same 6-7 voices who typically contribute to forums now having the same conversation on two different platforms. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 05:40, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
Ambassadors[]
It seems as if everyone so far is in agreement that meetings would be a good idea to put back into effect, although there is some consternation regarding my Ambassadors pitch. I'll be moving this onto a vote starting next week, so I'll go ahead and take this chance to clarify my pitch a bit more:
- The wiki has been calm lately, but that isn't always the case, and in the past, we've had a lot of general distrust between our users and rights-holders. As such, I'd like to experiment a bit with having what would be considered civilian figureheads here at the wiki that would be put in place specifically to represent the best interests of those who don't have any rights.
- I would also like to experiment with the effects that such a position will have on not only the activity of each Ambassador, but also their willingness to get more involved in discussions and votes. Similar to Patrollers, there's going to be a degree of responsibility that comes with the position, and I'd like to see how far we can take that. 寧靜 00:02, September 18, 2020 (UTC)