[00:01:34] Prolly an issue with the ``, which I think I've fixed. In any case, your request is in the right place and stewards will get to it as they can. [00:08:30] If you posted on mobile, that always happens [00:17:04] Good night everyone [00:17:19] [1/2] 💤 [00:17:19] [2/2] 🛌 [00:17:32] Why MacFan4000 doesn't make a Discord account? just for curiosity [00:19:28] MacFan does have a Discord account; he just doesn't use it much [00:20:55] ok [00:22:35] Even so, it's their choice. [00:26:03] hi macfan youre working on my domain request hope ur having water [00:26:19] talking about choices, who remembers that woman protestant that repeats over and over the phrase "MY CHOICE!!!" [00:44:14] lmao! [00:48:32] everyone will be happy if FANDOM goes bankrupt [00:52:09] Real [00:53:38] I heard in the https://complaint.wiki (or http://complaint.wiki idk), FANDOM registered desciclopedia domains (desciclopedia.net etc), so FANDOM hijacked [00:57:58] @tali64, I'm not sure why there was a need to create the reception wiki RfC? [00:58:36] it seems evident he wants to raise the issue again, and tbh it's been clear he's wanted to do it eventually for some time [00:58:43] We can make the RW help page a pseudo-policy page (it doesn't make a lot of sense to have said page as a policy as that isn't generally done) [00:58:44] naturally I will oppose as soon as it moves to vote [00:58:59] specifically the bit about relaxing our stance on the wikis [00:59:13] It doesn't feel like to me at least, especially given the community's opinions thus far, that either proposal has a remote chance of passing [00:59:41] I don't see what's wrong with raising the issue [01:00:11] Nothing's wrong but the issue was just raised a year ago and essentially nothing has changed [01:00:39] Well people can change their minds after a year [01:00:46] I do think there is merit to reconsidering how specific problematic niches are applied in policy but what should be offered alongside is an additional scrutiny/topic ban header for related cases rather than continuing to single out reception wikis either within the policy or as a split semi external thing [01:00:51] And also some of the more annoying reception wiki members have left [01:01:03] Yes but that generally requires something to have caused that change [01:01:06] It isn't spontaneous [01:01:13] I do think enough people have forgotten what a pain in the ass they were and are too trusting that they will give the proposal some more momentum [01:01:31] year after year it becomes necessary to remind people why it happened and it is more than just the given generation of annoying members [01:01:56] New arguments and the very annoying reception wiki members having left could get people to support [01:01:57] This is true. With each passing year, the memory of it dissolves a bit more. [01:02:08] What is the new argument, exactly [01:02:21] it is the inherent appeal of the wikis and their fundamentally lazy nature that makes them what they are, not the exact people on them at a given time who ebb and flow [01:02:52] Yeah but that's not such a problem that you have to ban it, just a bad idea isn't banworthy [01:03:12] IDK if there is I wasn't here the last time it was brought up [01:03:16] and mandating sources is a thing that won't go well if it is enforced with any consistency; even with sources what actually happened was either poorly selected/creditable sources or straight up making things up which the sources did not support [01:03:33] I cannot give a single scenario in all honesty, in which a reception wiki were approved even if they were unbanned [01:03:36] some bad ideas are prone to causing problems than others, it is what it is, not every idea is created equal [01:03:42] Toxic communities, violence/hate/harassment clause, etc. [01:04:07] I could give examples but I don't want to invoke godwin's law or other extremes, just to say that some things inherently lend themselves to high maintenance toxicity [01:04:14] They do not have to be toxic or harassment to be a reception wiki [01:04:21] stewards are doing far better than they ever did by not having to babysit them and there is no reason that needs to change [01:04:32] Not every reception wiki on Miraheze has caused problems [01:04:37] it is that the formula attracts toxicity more than others [01:04:50] The ones that currently exist are operating well [01:04:56] many did, a portion of those that remain do in greater proportion (and are the main source of cvt issues even today) [01:05:00] heh, define 'well' [01:05:11] Any popular wiki attracts vandalism [01:05:18] I hear multiple times a month about how one or another is causing issues [01:05:20] Just having vandalism isn't a reason to shut down the wiki [01:05:24] RW in particular [01:05:28] they do not attract it as consistently or severely as those wikis [01:05:33] Eh, I disagree to an extent [01:05:39] thank you macfan for the swift SSL request :BlobLove: [01:05:52] especially when the basic premise of the wikis is subjective to the degree even without vandalism it inherently invites edit wars [01:06:18] they were at their best when the people who liked them were in echo chambers, not noticed [01:06:18] I haven't seen it every month, yes it happens sometimes but that's not a reason to ban [01:06:39] inevitably they attract enough attention that the bubbles burst and the problems happen [01:06:46] Again this doesn't require banning them to resolve it [01:06:54] Mmm I don't know I agree [01:06:56] it does, it did, and it's done a damn fine job so far [01:07:09] and there is absolutely no compelling reason for that to change in my book [01:07:45] anyway not going to fuss about it, people will think and vote what they will [01:07:48] <.labster> I’ve been wondering if we can allow receptions on a different domain name where we don’t get the reputation hit we would otherwise. [01:07:57] Alright [01:08:00] Not sure what that would be [01:08:02] make a reception wiki farm, done [01:08:05] It would still be hosted by Miraheze [01:08:09] I think this was done before [01:08:10] thus ours [01:08:22] reception wikis never had a dedicated domain [01:08:26] Iirc there was an angry Twitter mob that saw miraheze.org and started raging [01:08:32] the idea came up but was never followed through [01:08:33] There was a QP domain [01:08:40] Oh [01:08:58] Public perspective very much influences our decisions, to say otherwise is folly as this entire platform is built off public opinion [01:09:03] I was tempted to acquire qualitipedia.net at one point but it was frankly not worth my money to see through [01:09:21] Twitter mobs are a vocal minority [01:09:27] and reception wikis don't exactly attract an audience that technically or financially self sustains [01:09:32] But those same concerns were shared here [01:09:40] IIRC it was the dedicated domain idea that led to the RfC to shut down the wikis [01:09:49] I know multiple Stewards, at minimum that had issues [01:09:49] not that I knew of [01:09:55] The problems with QP haven't existed on the other wikis so far [01:10:01] Well some have [01:10:08] they just haven't been plucked open as strongly [01:10:09] But not to the same severity [01:10:20] Amazing YouTubers is fine for example [01:10:38] a fine example of a wiki partially paralyzed and held up along with most others by sheer tali grit [01:10:57] bingo [01:11:03] <.labster> I guess, like, give me an example of how reception wikis serve an educational purpose. [01:11:11] Some have but not all have [01:11:20] they serve at best a childish form of an ecyclopedic purpose [01:11:36] a fundamentally lazier version of an essay on what people thought of a media [01:11:36] This also - it doesn't fit our 'educational' mission, and @.labster correct me if I'm wrong, but we can't approve wikis that don't fall under that, correct? [01:11:58] When did that decision happen? [01:11:58] <.labster, replying to raidarr> Childish people are frequently educated at [01:12:00] usually they resemble whatever the writer thinks [01:12:11] When Miraheze and WikiTide merged [01:12:25] So there wasn't any community voting or support? [01:12:46] I've never been terribly fussed about the reputation part, most of that fuss was random one-offs on reddit, a google doc, and some ex-members on deviantart who were salty because they got rebuffed, those are a grain of salt to me [01:13:02] 501(c)3 was given to the WikiTide Foundation afaik for the wiki farm, albeit with certain restrictions [01:13:04] A ban on reception wikis was extant before the merger, per RfC [01:13:11] Educational purposes being the main one [01:13:13] No I know [01:13:18] <.labster, replying to bwm0> The wikis themselves don’t necessarily have to be educational(/charitable/religious/literary) so long as it serves our overall nonprofit mission [01:13:19] I'm talking about the educational purposes [01:13:42] it is their disproportionate impact on platform time and energy among other factors that bring down their quality and attraction that have convinced me any platform that wants to be taken seriously will not give them the time of day [01:14:00] Ah, okay. What was WT's stated mission? I don't remember tbh [01:14:00] a cheap way to drive up traffic by controversy, like tabloids [01:14:40] The controversy they create is very minor, it's just people getting mad that a game they don't like is rated poorly [01:14:50] hate [01:14:57] banned by the CP as it currently stands [01:15:00] which is exactly what they attract consistently [01:15:21] You don't have to make hate articles to criticize media [01:15:39] you weren't there when they dominated miraheze meta and this was well before they centralized into qualitipedia, which I largely pushed in order to keep stronger tabs from them at a global level [01:15:46] <.labster> It’s in our articles. Anyway, it seems like hair splitting, but it’s not. We can do non-education things on the belief that it will draw greater monetary support for or participation in educational programs [01:16:26] No I know that happened and it's a genuine concern, I went and read through a lot of old notice boards, but we still have reception wikis now and they aren't doing this to the same extent [01:16:29] <.labster, replying to .labster> But there needs to be a prima facie case for that belief [01:16:44] Almost all the problem users were on QP which is gone [01:16:57] because they are incredibly few, discouraged and finally been filtered down into a small enough group + about the best management we're going to get from them [01:17:03] let them build back up and that'll change real quick [01:17:15] but hey maybe we need another 2 years of that for the message to sink once again [01:17:22] maybe we should let it happen and see how that goes [01:17:28] `prima facie: based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.` [01:17:34] it's not something I want to fuss about anymore and I really ought not right now [01:17:40] alright [01:17:42] so do as you will I guess [01:17:55] I remember someone said that for awhile whenever Miraheze got mentioned, people would just think of reception wikis [01:18:27] <.labster, replying to bwm0> It’s a phrase meaning I hung out with too many lawyers [01:18:43] That's the problem [01:21:34] <.labster> allthetropeswiki has had reviews of media for years and has never had a problem. But the point there is literary criticism, not literary criticizing. [01:24:18] Hmm yeah [01:24:46] I'll talk about it more later [01:24:54] Rule 12(b)(6) [01:25:01] Prima facie plausibility [01:26:30] oh nice, another reception wiki RfC [01:26:34] Isn't this like the 5th? [01:26:40] Idk [01:26:43] Could be [01:26:51] I'll write more about my thoughts on it later [01:26:54] Just goes to show how uncontroversial the whole genre is [01:27:12] Have to do health science homework right now so talk later [01:27:26] Yep [01:27:32] Last one was Feb 2023 [01:27:34] Now this [01:27:46] Which of course I plan to oppose..... [01:28:05] <.labster> Once a year is not too bad [01:28:14] {{oppose|strong}} once it comes out [01:28:14] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Template:oppose [01:28:30] Oh what now [01:28:52] I'd honestly go the other way and remove the remaining reception wikis if anything, before ever unbanning them [01:29:10] Is that an RfC thing or a Steward thing [01:29:19] RfC probably [01:29:30] The whole concept is fundamentally broken. No amount of moderating and scrutinizing will fix the immature mess that those wikis were and still are [01:29:44] New QP is slightly better but still a mess [01:29:48] 100% agree [01:30:52] well....that'll be fun if it's ever done [01:31:58] their mob of 12-16 year olds will just `{{oppose|strongest}} ` them [01:31:58] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Template:oppose [01:33:22] really not better, just less traveled therefore less constant problem [01:33:23] <.labster> I’m {{oppose if}} no one can explain to me how it serves an educational purpose [01:33:23] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Template:oppose_if [01:33:24]

[01:33:40] I have some smacks to deliver to one of the admins of all people [01:33:50] Which RFC is it again? [01:33:55] Don’t see it under drafts [01:34:08] I have thoughts regarding RfC policy but they're undoubtedly polarizing [01:34:10] <.labster> What, `oppose if` doesn’t exist? Lame [01:34:18] make it so [01:34:33] It was forgotten to be added. Please stand by. [01:34:46] <.labster, replying to bwm0> Go on 🍿 [01:34:58] Oui oui [01:35:05] Same day as Silicona’s [01:35:09] But they teach people why the producers of the Madam Web movie should be executed for their crimes 🥺 [01:35:32] Reception wiki in North Korea [01:35:35] Users with a certain number of edits on Meta and have shown to have an understanding of Meta policies should be allowed to vote. [01:36:21] In general disagree but I think good in some cases [01:36:27] We shouldn't just allow votes in by totally random users as it completely compromises the integrity of some proposals by a community of users that would seek to preserve it. [01:36:28] the issue is drawing the line on thay [01:36:36] mmmmm [01:36:36] Steward discretion is fine by me [01:36:45] I'd go a step further and restrict RfCs to only autopatrolled users [01:36:54] seriously? [01:36:56] As Agent said, the young teens that would keep all reception wikis [01:37:00] And that could bring it back [01:37:03] That’s too far ngl [01:37:24] I'm not entirely opposed. I think we probably should open autopatrolled a bit more in that case, but I would probably support. [01:37:24] As one of those gremlins I def would not fr fr no. Ap [01:37:26] <.labster> No. Meta is not a community. [01:37:38] Yes. This. [01:37:46] i just got it with like 4 edits lol [01:37:49] Meta is a hub. Meta is not a community. [01:37:50] Silicona for sysop [01:38:04] There should be a balance between "prevent vote brigading" and "don't make RfCs too exclusive"; autoconfirmed would probably work better [01:38:07] also uh the page on meta still says 30 edits i think [01:38:16] <.labster, replying to agentisai> Global sysop, im lonely [01:38:26] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/407537962553966603/1215836060722921662/image.gif?ex=65fe3292&is=65ebbd92&hm=b6316bf279d944577a5e3493030db9de25543a4b6e644a4e1ee9c9dc30225174& [01:38:31] I'll join ya soon enough, don't worry [01:38:37] fuck it steward [01:38:38] nobody saw that [01:38:40] nah [01:38:43] BOARD [01:38:54] Super Board [01:38:56] I don't necessarily agree [01:39:02] I have no problem with RfCs being exclusive [01:39:14] your suggestion is essentially autopatrolled in how it would be implemented I think [01:39:27]