Forum:VOTE: Adding Edit Requirement to Chat

Forums: Index > Wiki Operations > Voting Booth > VOTE: Adding Edit Requirement to Chat

Related Discussions: Requirement Discussion

Question on the Table: Adding the edit requirement (as suggested, and put into a trial run) as an official part of the wiki, thus being able to enforce said rule, thus adding it to the chat room policy. The requirement would be one hundred (100) total edits, with fifty (50) of them being in the (Main) namespace. Anything less than that would bar a user access to the chat room until they have obtained the proper amount of edits.

PROCESSED BY —Jayce(04:35, 2/4/2013)

Cast your vote with the Basic Voting Scheme Select the code from the list below that best describes your feelings on the voting topic. You have a single vote, which you should apply to the end of the list below box. Voting will be open from 04 February 2013 until 18 February 2013.
PICTURE	VOTE CODE	DESCRIPTION
	{{voteyay}} ~~~~	You are in favor of the subject of this vote.
	{{votenay}} ~~~~	You are against the subject of this vote.
	{{dontvote}} ~~~~	You are choosing to abstain from voting on this topic.

It's been working so far. Shall we make it official? —Jayce(04:35, 2/4/2013)

Though I originally supported this idea completely and was really looking forward to it, I'm not sure I'm happy with the result of the test run. I've thought this over quite a bit, and I think... we'd be better without it. Let me elaborate a bit before you go ripping me to sheds for voting no on such a highly supported idea. :b This may work in the future, but what I'm voting against is putting it into use now. Though this has it's definite advantages, I think the disadvantages outweigh it on this one, at least for me. New users have had a lot of trouble understanding just why they have to edit before being allowed into chat. And it's a bit hard to explain it to them as they don't have much experience with the runnings of a wiki as they're new. And some users simply make a lot of really really minor edits just to get into chat, and then don't do much more. Some have even gotten banned for their lack of understanding causing arguments and such. Furthermore it's seeming almost as if chat is now some kind of special place for elite members only, cutting off newer users a lot, and I really don't think that's good. In the past chat has been an extremely useful place for new users who do actually intend to be a part of the wiki rather than just sit in chat all day. It gives them an easy place to ask questions, and get to know the users they'll be working around. If we limit it to those who only have a set number of edits, it'll likely take away that and make it harder for newer users to learn and get used to everything. While it does allow trolls and such to get in easily when they want to, I don't think it's worth losing this advantage for the new users. Perhaps this would be able to be implemented if we added a lot of other things in the future, such as perhaps a "Newbie Center" to act as what chat used to be for new members. Granted that would only help if the more senior members of the wiki were active there too rather than just the new ones. And perhaps a page or something somewhere on why editing is so important and why chat would be restricted for those who don't edit. But for the time being, as the wiki stands currently, I don't think it would be fully beneficial to put this rule and code into place. Though I most likely wouldn't be opposed to perhaps some rule against those who simply sit in chat all day without editing. I'm not sure how that could really be clarified as to what would count as not editing enough, or being in chat too often, but if it was worked out correctly, that would certainly be nice to have. That could also be used along side the edit requirement if we ever did end up putting it in place, as it'd ward off those who simply make the 100 edits and don't edit after that. But I suppose that'll be another discussion. So this is my opinion. Apologies for the novel length comment, and please don't bite off my head for my opinion. ouo

Paleh Send help 04:58, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with Paleh. I don't think the chat is that special, honestly, and all we do by making it an editing goal is put it on a pedestal as if it's more than it really is. The chatroom is also a great place for new people to go to to ask questions when they're confused about the workings of the wiki, and I don't think that that is something that should be taken away. Also, the chat hack we're trying to implement doesn't even really work. It works on some browsers, but not others. And it gives users bad marks on their record they won't technically deserve if they happen to get past the chathacks because they aren't using firefox of chrome. Shelly _{For a limited time only} 05:03, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there, I'm not sure the browsers are the problem with the coding. It seems to work in all browsers for some people, but in others they can get through just fine in the same browsers. I'm not totally sure what the problem is, but it's not as simple as not working in some browsers. Just thought I'd point that out.

Paleh Send help 05:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

with Paleh on this one. While I did support it before, I'm not sure it's an overly good thing now. It's going to encourage users who don't have enough edits to go and rage on a mod's talk, something we really don't need. And it'll just end in unproductive edits like a comma to a full stop or adding or removing links. It'd also result in troll edits from users who've been banned for offensive comments on a mod's talk. Paleh also makes a good point there about new users thinking it's an elite group of users only. It's really not, mostly just a few of us fooling around after a day of school, work or just editing the wiki. So yeah, contrary to my earlier opinion, I don't like this idea now. ★ Berry ★ ^{Midnight Monster's Parade!} 06:35 Mon Feb 4

I'm still for this. It's cut down on so much harassment of users and unneeded bans. I think that's great. While it is true that it puts the chat on a pedestal and that some have spam edited to get in, just look at the reporting page on user issues. There's almost barely any reports against abuse, or spamming chat, or whatever else could be banned in chat. I think it's even cut down on general vandalism because now these users aren't finding anybody to get offended by after being banned for issues in chat. It makes people that want to chat edit. It's a reward now, a reason to contribute. People don't abuse it nearly as much because they worked to get there. As for users that have questions, they've started to ask on talk pages, which is great because it means that wiki business is actually on a page, and not the chat. If we really want a place to help users out more, there's the Help Desk. It's right there, why not use it? Why not promote it and stick it out there to encourage the users to ask there? I don't see why we need to sacrifice the more peaceful wiki that attracts more helpful users I've seen lately when all we need to do is use tools we already have. -Rustle _{it takes a leap of faith} 06:54, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

At first I was going to abstain, but then I read Breezy's vote. I looked at the reporting center and realized that she was right. There have been next to no chat-related reports and I do not think that this looks like some kind of pedestal, the users that can get in chat have a right to be there, they have worked to earn their place in chat, and that's something that they can be proud of. If they start joining projects and editing on the wiki, they might see why other users love to do it, and that could make them want to become a staff member or a project lead, which could give them something to work for. I'm still for this, though I do think we need to implement a rule about users that have the requirement, but just sit all day and do nothing but chat. x3 -Ducksauce 13:42, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

: I vote that we should dismiss the edit requirements for the chatroom because I think everyone deserves a chance to get to know other users while making friends at the same time. How do you think the crazy family here on the wiki formed? Without that, nobody would know anyone as much as they do today, and they should continue to grow this family! We should be able to communicate without having to be stuck in a barrier to keep us from chatting! Go chat! XD ~ Hawkmask121

Based on your comment, Hawkmask, I think you meant to submit a nay vote. Also, you must actually put your signature on the vote for it to count. Shelly _{For a limited time only} 18:34, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

...I was gonna say no. I really was...but after reading what Breezey put and Duck did as well...I mean, it may be up on a pedestal, it's working in a different way. I actually haven't had to ban someone, let alone warn someone in the past month. It's practically a godsend...sure, it makes me feel like I don't need my mod rights in there, but it's nice. We have a nice, peaceful community...and the edits may only to gain access to the chat, they're still edits, and I've seen several people decide that they like editing here, and then keep it up, when they were really only going to aim for the hundred edits. A few are even now motivated to becoming leads in a few projects, let alone a staffer on here. I rather like this function, and it's working...sure, maybe not quite the way we intended in the trial, but, hey, there's still more editing and still more peaceful, helpful, motivated, and active users. We also have the help desk for a reason...why don't we start really boosting activity on it? Rages on a mod's talk aren't awful, either...it's typed words. They aren't harming anything, and if they screw up the coding or such, so what? Edits can be reversed. As for the browser deal...it's most likely a bug, and if we can't seem to fix it on our own, we can bring it up with wikia and see if there's anything we can do to solve this. As for it helping newbies...when i was a newbie, there wasn't even a chat. Nothing of the sorts existed except for IRC, but, hey, that's still there. The chat shouldn't be the reason someone joins a wiki. A chat should be earned, not given. And, hey, look! I survived with the Help desk and using someone's talkpage for help, and I'm still around, and a fairly decent user here. On a side note, I agree with Duck- to solve the issue of people with the needed edits but drop in activity and sit and chat all day, we should vote on some kind of rule...but that's not too difficult. And better to deal with than users with no edits. As we've said in the past- the chat is a privilege, not a given. Rainlegs 02:52, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

 Kitsufox  ^Den/_CoSC 13:46, February 8, 2013 (UTC) But, I'd like to be stated that I want to keep the script in place, but not give staff the power to ban people when the script fails. Our staff is already busy enough and has more important things to do when someone new pops into the chat like checking edit counts... You know... like being awesome and friendly and showing people how great we are.

I'm not basing my vote on not being able to get into chat myself, mind you. I agree completely with Paleh's novel of a comment. When I fist joined, I remember not understanding anything about the wiki. When I went into chat, I learned new things, met new people that I knew I could go to, and so much more. I think having chat open to everyone is a better idea. It's /really/ actually putting the impression that /only/ the older and more known users are allowed in chat. I thought it was a good idea when I first encountered the message when I tried joining chat. I thought it over as I looked at things to edit. Yes, 100 edits, with the 50 mainspace, is easy to obtain. Newer users don't understand this. Yes, we are a wiki based on facts, an encyclopedia. But, newer users don't know what to edit. I got most of my edits by removing double links. New users may not understand that this is one of the easiest ways to get edits. Yes, chat on this wiki is a privilege. But I think that the edit limit is a little to far. — ferk ^{my name is BLURRYFΛCE} 16:19, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

:--72.141.88.238 21:57, February 8, 2013 (UTC)--72.141.88.238 21:57, February 8, 2013 (UTC)I am nay also, It isn't fair to those people who don't know how to edit the right way

This is a good idea. It does cut the amount of mean users - if they plan to insult or bully, they will have to edit for it - but they may get bored, and give up, so this prevents the troublemakers unless they're so desparate to cause trouble.☮♞✞SorrelΩflower☠☯⛄_{I need Coffee!}

This is not a good idea I agree with paleh. Its not fir to user who have questions, if they dont know how to edit. And with bullies you can just ban them Sorrel Siberia

23:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well, for questions, as stated earlier, we do have a help desk, and that's exactly what it's for. We also have talkpages, and younger users are encouraged in our welcome message to come to staffers to ask questions, and, speaking because I am one, we're always willing to answer. I know I have the patience to answer any little question. As a younger user, I would've never had the guts to go into a chatroom and ask a question- IRC was scary, and I never had the guts to speak up in it. And banning people with bad intentions takes time that could've and probably would've been saved by the edit limit. Rainlegs 00:44, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

yeah but remember, there are users around who don't actually know how to edit and think they've done something wrong when they're editing a page with a lot of content, and goes into source mode - it happened to me...i was afraid i'd totally destroyed Cinderpelt's page all those months ago o3o and as soon as a new user's in there to ask a question, it's not like we're stone cold and terrible, we're kind, and if the user's only there to ask questions, then kind answers and a friendly nudge toward to rules if they do something wrong is all we need, that way there wouldn't be useless bans. and it's very rarely that we get a troll, and when that rare occasion occurs, they usually leave before we've the chance to ban them, and you know the drill o3o but either way, i still think that we don't need to edit limit but that's me ★ Berry ★ ^{Midnight Monster's Parade!} 10:41 Sun Feb 10

Agreeing with Berry and voting nay. I agree with what she said, so I'm not going to vote a yes. And new users go onto chat because they don't know what talk pages are. So, no. Cloud 9 ^{The Clock _{is TICKING!} 12:34, February 10, 2013 (UTC)}

Not to be like "well in my day", but seriously, how do you think any of the older members really got started editing? We all learned, thus why we're still here today. Not knowing how to edit is a rather simple issues to solve using trial and error or asking someone. As I'm sure most of the wiki is aware of, my editing habits were not extraordinary at the beginning of my membership, but once again, I learned. However, perhaps whenever we start reverting edits, we add an edit summary as to why it was reverted. But honestly, there's nothing friendly about the chat when someone comes in asking questions and "nudging" them towards the rules. It's more of, "Go read the NOT policy" and that's not very friendly at all. Atelda _{insert vague subtext here} 16:35, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I've rethought this a bit and I'm just gonna abstain from voting...

Paleh Send help 00:04, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see a lot of pros and cons, but they balance each-other out, and everyone has really good points, but I'm not voting, I'm good either way we go. x3. Prussia:^{The Awesome Time Lord} 02:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to vote yes because quite frankly it is much more peaceful, less stress with having to deal with troll and whatever else might pop into chat, and does make people edit (at least a bit) more than they have been currently. People can learn to edit, after all as it's been said, we all have. david ^🌈 02:52, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Though it might be useful to some extent, new users will not be able to get to know the older users as quickly. Also, they might be able to get a hold of the rules firsthand if the chat is kept. Even though the chat itself is not necessary, it is a way for wikians to connect easily. I am voting down. Yatz^私の話 19:05, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Just edited what Hawkmask said. o3o Cloud 9 ^{The Clock _{is TICKING!}}

I think this vote is done.. because it is past Feb 18. So, I don't think we're going to have to edit to get in to the chat. Cloud 9 ^{The Clock _{is TICKING!}}

Results

With a close vote of seven nay votes, and six yay votes, the edit restriction for the chat will not be implemented. Atelda _{insert vague subtext here} 16:49, February 23, 2013 (UTC)