Part 1 - Context and Reasonning
The purpose of this proposal is to find a middle ground for the mass-culling of pages; a harsher variation can be made should the staff team or anyone else want to pursue it. In addition, I find that calling it a "Mass Edit" can create confusion around what the actual plan is, so I will be calling it the "Trimming" henceforth.
Before I start with the actual suggestion, I'm going to tackle a couple of the points that have been made since the start of the thread, as I feel like conversation often blurs arguments and points made by people on either side due to its sheer size. While this isn't that important to do for the proposal, I'd like to minimise and give proper answers to any potential questions so that nothing gets repeated for the umpteenth time. Lastly, as most people so far have agreed that there's an actual problem with the site at the current moment, I kindly ask that everyone focuses on the contents of this post after it's posted as a means of having the discussion be of value, perhaps actually moving onto the executing stage as well.
Site Goal:
This primarily falls on the staff team's shoulders, but it's an issue that's been at the forefront of site issues so far; it has resulted in many a community post going nowhere, which quite obviously is not the best for increasing trust in staff. A lot of arguments could've also been prevented had the site's goal been made clear from the start.
As of current, the site has no definitive goal or plan for itself; we're basically moving aimlessly with all changes and "fixes". Most of them seem to happen out of necessity rather than the sake of improving the site. At same time, there's a quite obvious rift within the staff team; now, while this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it creates an environment free of "opinion bubbles", its severity is worrying. It has led to a lot of indecisiveness from staff, which has continuously gotten us nowhere when it comes to community discussion; consensuses are a rare sight, substantial changes only really happen when there's pushback from the community, and conversations often leave a bitter taste in everyone's mouth. edit - the site now has a more clearly defined direction; see site direction summary
A similar phenomenon exists within the community as well; I'm sure everyone here has noticed how many discussions start and then devolve into fruitless arguments. Of course, you'll always have disagreements between community members, but the amount of times arguments start is appalling. These arguments obviously cull any chance of fruitful discussion happening, and any form of communal consensus basically becomes nigh on impossible. We obviously cannot have this happening all the time.
If I'm allowed to simplify a bit, both staff and the community are currently split into two "encampments", which I will dub "quality seekers" and "community seekers" respectively(note that both of these groups can include "non-contributors", but they aren't necessarily the majority within them). As their names imply, both groups came to TS seeking very different things. Problems arise, however, when the two groups advocate for any one change. Unfortunately, both of these groups are inherently contradictory with each other; to please one means to displease the other. You simply cannot have high quality pages while also allowing an environment of complete creative liberty and comfort zone-based writing.
With all this knowledge as a backdrop, how did this even happen in the first place? Well, if it isn't obvious at a first glance, culturally, TS is a place where people being completely comfortable with all aspects of the site has been extremely high-priority; this sentiment extends to the staff team as well, which has been for the most part trying their best to please as many people as possible while actively ignoring/being ignorant of the fact that the community is split into two. This has led to the creation of many systems that exist for the sake of pleasing everyone, when in reality it only pleased one of the groups.
To showcase this, let's take a look at how posting has worked over time:
- Greenlight gets introduced circa 2020, a fact that is in favour of quality seekers.
- February of 2022, due to established authors complaining about the slowness of greenlights, GLE gets introduced, a fact that is in favour of community seekers.
- December of 2022, due to complaints about how slow greenlighting is for everyone, the new crit system is established, which, again, is a fact that favours community seekers.
- May of 2023, due to complaints from greenlighters and a few newcomers, Greenflame gets introduced as a means of increasing GL count, a fact that favours quality seekers.
- Throughout the following months, multiple community posts are made by quality seekers as a means of trying to increase site quality; so far, they've gone nowhere.
Now, this is obviously quite simplified, but it should serve one well to show how contradictory some decisions are. Why introduce a system meant to increase site quality and then create two separate ways of circumventing it? To me at least, it makes no sense, and this opinion is not one I hold and limit to just the above example. As stated earlier, we have a split in the community with an inherent conflict of interest; being completely blunt here and restating what has already been said, but it is simply impossible to please both groups, so resources shouldn't be allocated to that. By doing that, you create an environment where conflict and arguing are the norm. edit - the current direction is to have a collaborative quality site with people improving their writing through the help of other people allowing for a healthy growth
It could be argued that most of these decisions and changes are a product and a result of community votes, which would mean that they are representative of the community's wants and/or needs. However, due to their nature, community votes inherently alienate those who're are actively contributing in different manners, whether that be writing, critiquing, moderating and staffing in general, or creating art for the site. Occasionally the wills of the few align with that of the many, the non-contributors, but it is not something observed often. More often that not, we see quite the split in votes, which may be a positive or a negative depending on which side of the encampments one falls in. That is to say that, outside of quality and community seekers, it is of high importance that staff decides who to cater to: either the wider group of non-participants or those who're active contributors within the community and site. ##edit - that has been settled, and staff defined that the people who "matter" in how the wiki is developped are the people contributing to it, since they are the people doing effort for the place, and primarely affected by changes. This can include authors, GLMP and critics.##
I will be making a separate community post about this subject matter at a later time to properly discuss it.
How does all of this relate to the Trimming?
It goes back to choosing which one of the groups to please. This entire discussion could've ended twenty messages in had the staff team been clear about what they want from the site. If they want this site to be a place to host high quality writing, then the choice instantly becomes obvious; if they want to host a casual community, the choice becomes obvious as well. In fact, this could've easily prevented many an argument, decisions would've been 100x easier, and yours truly wouldn't be writing this proposal. We could be in a much better place both community and site-wise had this been established from the start. edit - at least now it's defined, see the site direction summary for it again if needed]
Now, of course, there'll be a lot of constant pushback with whichever group is chosen; that is undeniable fact that we cannot unfortunately escape. However, I do believe it is a "necessary evil" of sorts. It is simply not realistic to develop in a stable, thought-out, and continuous manner should we keep treading this line of ambiguity and aimlessness; you cannot move forward if you don't know how you're going to walk.
By putting it to a community vote, the chances of the Trimming going through are basically guaranteed to be 0%. There's no universe where one can have the wider community agree to a proposal such as this one due to their inherent emotional investment to those old and new pages/ideas, so if the staff team has any interest in upholding some sort of quality standard, I do not believe it is the right choice to hold a vote, even if the reaction will be great; it is something that we will unfortunately have to bear. edit - "community" here refers to the entire discord, and therefore we circle back to the issue of having so many different people here for different reasons. Staff defined the contributors (authors, critics, GLMP…) to be the leading force, and therefore the people we cater to.
And if I may add my personal opinion to this, I do think that high quality articles should be at the forefront of the site's goals; it's still a writing site at the end of the day, so I find it a bit silly to forgo that for an aspect that will naturally get built up on its own due to the very nature of this site. Even if the amount of members gets reduced, we will recuperate over time due to opening ourselves up to a completely new audience. However harrowing and disappointing it may be, the site can and will survive with a lower member count; it cannot survive, however, without the writing. Stagnation is what kills, not negative reactions. edit - while quality isn't the main focus, it is one of the focus of the wiki direction. Quality comes with improvement and dedication for the site, and is a result to seek.
Rewriting/Pushing for Rewrites:
Honestly speaking, the fact we aren't pushing for rewrites already is appalling. edit - the community culture did shift toward a rewrite culture since then, but it's not really pushed, and the paes that should be rewritten stays on the site, even the ones whose rewrite perms are open for that matter (perma no appeal authors, fandom ports…) Even if the Trimming was never suggested in the first place, rewrites for older, and perhaps newer, pages should've been one of the staff team's top priorities when it comes to quality. This is not, however, what I want to focus on, as it is a separate matter. What I do want to tackle is the alternative to the Trimming being some form of "rewritecon" or a lowering of strictness for rewrite applications while also pushing for them.
I'll begin with the latter, as I have already posted something about this, which I'll be pasting below(slightly paraphrased)
…it's nigh impossible for this to be executed to a reasonable extent. Let me ask this:
- Who would be doing the rewrites? Besides a few established authors, there's very minimal interest by new people due to the culture surrounding first time posters. Sure, we can encourage it as much as possible, but when most newcomers only really give a shit about posting once and then leaving, the actual amount of rewrites would be quite small, excusing any potential nostalgia they might have that is preventing them from even considering applying in the first place.
- Would this guarantee that rewrite applications are accepted? Assuming a fair amount of people apply and assuming they get the rights to do so, having only a few come to fruition due the staff team denying most of them edit - back then staff was voting on rewrites. This is now a duty of the GLMP. wouldn't be that viable in terms of actual change, excusing any rewrites that just never get finished in the first place. The point of mass deleting pages is to give the site a hard reset in quality for both new and old pages*. Placing all of our hope on an uncertain solution is not optimal for the site's future, and if people give enough of a shit about it, the site's image.
*For a fair amount of time now, multiple existing applicants for rewrites have complained that the standards for being accepted are too high, so with the purpose of allowing more of them in the future, it has been suggested that said standards are lowered after the rewrite push; I find this to be counterintuitive if our end goal at its roots is to improve quality. While I do think it's important for staff (now GLMP) to revise how they view both applications and applicants, I do not believe the outcome will be a positive one should the standards be lowered. We should not place our hopes for a page's improvement on a hypothetical if it cannot be guaranteed, a situation that will be quite common should the requirements for rewrites be lessened.
Allow me to ask some additional questions to add to the above:
- How would the rights for pages be gained? Under the current rewrite policy, excluding self-rewrites and deleted pages, no one is allowed to rewrite any on-site pages unless permission is explicitly given by the original author. Unless the policy itself is changed or rights are just plainly taken away, we're stuck in this limbo of wanting to improve pages but being unable to do so to a substantial degree. I do not see either solution(i.e. changing the policy or simply taking away the rights of authors) going over well with the community if our aim is to minimise backlash. However disheartening it may be, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. It is simply impossible to uphold quality while also enforcing rulesets that directly contradict it. edit - some ideas have been discussed to open the perms of older pages, like making old enough articles fall into an "open to rewrite without author authorization" section, but with the mass trimming it might not be needed.
- Assuming rights are gained in some way or manner, under what criteria would the pages be chosen? If they're too loose, the increase in site quality would be too minimal; if they're too harsh, the chances of the community reacting negatively are quite high. For the sake of "fairness", would it be put to a vote? Who would be doing the vote? GLs, Staff, a mix, or the community? Once again, unless it's put to a community vote, accusations of nepotism and elitism as well as generalised insults aimed at anyone with any semblance of power are pragmatically guaranteed. Some form of resistance is basically assured if any sort of power is exercised. Continuing on, how often would this hypothetical vote happen and to what extent? If it is not thorough enough, we're left with a large amount of low quality writing on the site; if it's extremely exhaustive, once again, retaliation is something that can be expected. Taking of all this into consideration, we find ourselves in a similar—though adjacent—conundrum to the previous question: it is simply impossible to uphold quality while also attempting to regulate the emotional reaction of those it affects. In short, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. these points will be discussed below in the actual proposal
Moving on from the questions, rewrites are an inherently controversial action when it comes to highly popular pages. However much we may deny it, people are extremely emotionally attached and nostalgic about both new and old pages. We are in the sort of situation where even a minute change can create heaps of backlash and questioning, so simply opening pages up for rewrite can and will create a negative reaction, even if the final product is perfect in every sense of the word. As was stated way earlier, it is impossible to try and appease everyone, so we shouldn't be aiming for that. edit - it seems community members are less against rewrites of old stuff nowadays, seeing the positive receptions of ideas for things like Level 0 or 1. This is however too early to tell for most, as they barely just got handled (smilers, level 9…)
Simultaneously, I do not believe rewrites can be thorough and extensive enough to warrant being seen as the primary way of improving the site's quality. While, again, they should be pushed to the forefront, they will never be able to achieve the depth that the Trimming would be able to achieve, as they're simply entirely based on if someone is interested in rewriting a page. No one will ever rewrite a page like http://backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com/level-972 simply because nobody really gives a shit about it. Despite that, the page is still up on the site and will continue to be up on the site for the foreseeable future. Now, that isn't to say someone will never come and decide to rewrite it, but that is, once again, a hypothetical we cannot guarantee. I do not believe we should hold that as our basis for keeping pages up on the site.
A similar issue exists with the idea of a "rewritecon", if it ever were to happen. While it's genuinely a pretty alright idea, it will not be able to cover nearly enough to ground to warrant it being the main solution for bad pages. And even then, if our primary goal is the increase of the site's average quality, contest rules would need to change from the ground up, but that is a conversation for another time. Of course, if it happens extremely often, it might become viable in some way, shape, or form, but at that point rewrites might as well be open constantly, a situation that forces us to deal with all the issues described above. These are things that we'll have to deal with if we decide to place all our hope on rewrites unfortunately.
In conclusion, thoroughness and extensiveness are the primary reasons why we shouldn't rely on rewrites for improving the Wikidot. While they're crucial to keeping a healthy environment within Tech Support, they do not have nearly enough of the masses' interest to hold the entire site's quality on their back. Instead, I believe they should work with the Trimming for the same end goal. We cannot solve this issue with only half a solution, so we shouldn't constrain our line of thinking to only one idea simply because the alternative scares us. We need to keep moving forward if we do not want to stagnate.
A couple of notes:
- Authors' Rights: No authorial rights would be infringed upon should this proposal be followed. I do think it's important for us, however, to separate the will of the site and the authors'. What might be a positive for past authors(or for anyone consuming the content of the site in general) is not necessarily a positive for the site; it depends on what hypothetical goal the staff team has, which might not always align with that of everyone else.
At the same time, we need to recognise that no one really is owed a spot on this site, and we shouldn't let them get entitled because some of their pages are on one of the many lists. Does that mean we should completely disregard their opinions/wills? Of course not, but there's a limit to how generous we can be with the site and its content; at some point, we have to take quality and presentation into consideration, even if it may affect what's already there and what will come in the future. see this as a balance. We cannot function without gving ourselve liberty to change site elements and policies to suit new needs, but at the sam time we don't want to scare out authors by saying they have no control over what they made. Collaboration shouldn't be scary by any mean.
- Branches: They can be left to their own devices with this one. The choice to follow is up to them, and we shouldn't enforce such a monumental task if they aren't willing. Of course, if they do, in fact, decide to make their own changes according to our example, they are completely free to do so, but we shouldn't be able to dictate what stays and goes on their site if it isn't rule-breaking. Note that at least some independence is needed for a healthy relationship between us and them.
Part 2 - The Actual Proposal
Throughout the entirety of the discussion, it has been the worry of many that deleting articles en masse would cause a massive reaction and deface a part of the site's history, so as a means of pleasing both those against and for, let me preface this by stating that NO PAGES WOULD BE PERMANENTLY DELETED UNDER THIS PROPOSAL.
As a means of preserving articles old and new, pages—instead of being thrown into no man's land—will be placed into a new category called "trimmed". At the same time, these pages will be removed from the respective main list they are on, opening up the slot they took up and allowing for new writing to take their place. This would not only allow for us to have a hard reset in quality, but it would also memorialise all the foundational writing on the site.
Ideally, after the amount of pages affected passes a certain amount—a number that can be decided at a later date—a hub page can be created to host all the archived work for the few interested in viewing and consuming this site's history.
Now, what would be the process of deciding which pages end up in the "trimmed" category?
Let me preface this by saying that this would be a monthslong/yearslong project; it would be by no means fast, and that is not its goal. However much we may want, and perhaps need, hastened results, that is no reason to overwork both the staff team and members of the GLMP. As such, the process at which pages are chosen will be based on thoroughness and long-term viability for all people involved; this is not something to rush.
This is to accommodate the sheer amount of pages the people involved will have to get through. In fact, this project will be covering every page posted until the day it becomes officialised, whether that be next week or tomorrow(i.e if the Trimming goes through on the 25th of October, any page posted after said date will not be placed under scrutiny). Substantial change will not happen if we limit ourselves to a small sample size, so it is broadened through this method.
With all of the above taken into account, every week, as a means of keeping the amount being analysed at once to a realistic number, 11 to 12 articles will be selected, specifically from one singular category and ideally in numerical order edit - ideally, starting from the old and going to the new (at least 2020-2021) would be best, as the majority of trimmed pages would be old, with the occasional bad newer pages saved by the previous deletion threshold . Which category is selected at the start can be decided at a later time—though it most likely will be levels—but after it is chosen, it will stay the same until each page under the category is reviewed.
After said pages are chosen, a vote will be held within the GLMP on each page at once. The voters will primarily be the Greenlighters themselves; however, if there's a discussion around it, current voting standards—as in the voting standards that apply to GLT/GFT/GL applications—can be followed, which would mean that Admins and members of the critique team would also be able to vote. Each vote would last exactly a week as a means of providing ample time to every voter for them to read/reread the pages put up. During this time, voters will be able to discuss and deliberate their reasoning behind each vote, while also persuading others to change theirs.
Each vote will have three separate options for people to choose:
- "To delete": the first and most direct. The term "to delete" is only really here in name only, and it wouldn't be exactly what's happening, even if it may look so. In actuality, as was said a couple paragraphs earlier, any pages voted for during the Trimming would be placed under "trimmed" category. Specifically, voting for this option would directly place any page affected by it in said category, opening up their slot for new pages to take and effectively removing any low quality pages from the forefront of the site. This option explicitly exists for pages that are inherently flawed and would require a major rework of both the root concept and the execution to actually be improved upon. edit - the "lore" relevancy of those trimmed pages is up to debate and not really defined, but you can see it as a way to avoid misleading links (links going to a wrong page because an article took the place of another one) since we would update those links when moving the page. This also avoids site lore difficulties and inconsistencies that can be a struggle while writing or reading.
- "To rewrite": an alternative option to the first, which also is more complex in its execution. Instead of instantly just sending pages directly into the pits of hell that are the "trimmed" category, voting for this option would instantly open up rewrite perms for the pages voted to all. That is to say that should anyone wish to apply to rewrite one of said voted pages, they would not have to worry about receiving permission from the original author(s) to do so; now, that doesn't mean the standards for accepting rewrite applications would be lowered, as that would be contradicting to the purpose of this project, but it would remove one of the major hurdles that exist to rewriting articles. Of course, as goes in the "to delete" option, all original pages would still be moved into the aforementioned category, a fact that should already be happening in all honesty. This option explicitly exists for pages that are, while not conceptually flawed, executed in a subpar manner. edit - I would personally add that we shouldn't put a gap on the rewrite numbers. While the GLMP wouldn't choose the same author too much if multiple good applications exist (for the sake of efficiency at putting up the rewritten work), there is no reason to refuse a rewrite when the OG page won't be bothering anymore.
Now, that does not mean anyone can just willy-nilly request to rewrite a page the second it is opened. In the situation that the original author(s) of these pages is still contactable, they get into the priority line. If they wish/request to rewrite their own work, they will receive permission to do so instantly, and nobody else will be able to apply to do so in their place. Additionally, they'd also be able to request their work's permanent deletion if they aren't interested in rewriting it, which can include not allowing any future rewrites of it—a fact that can be applied to the "to delete" option as well if it is warranted. In simple terms, the normal rewrite policy applies here, with the notable exception of enforcing a time limit, as a means of deterring anyone from trying to use/find a loophole for keeping their article(s) up. Perhaps the time limit for this project specifically would be more generous with the total amount of time allotted, but that detail can be discussed and finalised after this proposal is officialised. The GLMP would still voted based on the same critteria. "Will it still be the same base concept, or is this a completely other article that is pitched there? Is it respecting the pages using the OG article in a way? Is the application ideas promising in the first place? and so on.
As a means of making sure people know that an affected article(s) is eligible for a rewrite application(s)—outside of any official announcement—a tag would be created specifically for this purpose. If that is not deemed sufficient enough for raising general awareness, a mega-list of sorts can be created on top of the tag that would be available to the public either on Oversight or the main site, perhaps both. Said list would be consistently updated with any new additions until the end of the Trimming's life, at which point it would be kept up until all entries are rewritten; naturally, any applications that are accepted through this would result in an entry on the list either being completely removed or checked off.
- "To save": the last option and most simple. "To save" simply means that everything is kept as is about any one article that is voted on. this would be the case of most pages on the site, especially from 2022 to today. However, this specific choice is very much conditional. Early on in the conversation, a small group of people suggested this idea and stated that if two GLs voted for keeping a page, all other votes would be disregarded, and the page would be "saved"; I find that since this argument was made with very different information in mind, it is not adequate in both its priorities and methods with the current proposal in mind. It would be more damaging to us if it went through with this number of votes specifically, as the consequences for "deleting" a page are much, much lower. As such, I've come up with ways of keeping the option "to save" for voting, without hurting the integrity of the project and proposal:
First off, the number of votes required for it will be raised to four due to the same aforementioned reasoning. At the same time, on the condition it is decided that select staff members(as was already mentioned, those would be Admin and members of the critique team) are able to vote as well, the number of votes required will be raised to seven, as the amount of people voting under these conditions would be much higher. This number would ideally be reconsidered and adjusted every couple months, with the explicit purpose of accounting for any increase in GLs and/or staff members. edit - numbers might change depending on the GLMP situation.
Additionally, as would be expected under normal circumstances, the majority would decide which one of the above would go through, with one notable exception: in the situation where the criteria for "saving" is met, if the amount of votes for "rewriting" is the same as or more than "deleting", the former would take precedence(i.e. if the vote is 2D/3R/4S or 4D/4R/4S, the page would be opened up to rewrite anyways, as the consequences of such a situation are not dire). It is like this due to the fact that the main purpose of the Trimming is to uphold quality, and as such, that will always be its utmost priority. Of course, this doesn't mean any of the conditions change; the original pages that are opened up to rewrite from this would still be placed into "trimmed" category, as is norm in the project.
How would all of this be executed?
First and foremost, the weight of this project will be carried by both the members of the GLMP and the staff team. That means that all associated duties will be shared, whether that be announcing the result of votes, moving pages from category to category, or cataloguing changes on Oversight and/or Discord. Of course, doing all of these—and most likely more down the line— requires explicit permission to be given out by the staff team, but if they want to create not only a relationship built on trust with everyone but a viable outline and focused workload to handle, I believe doing this is vital and a necessary sacrifice of authority.
Specifically, the results of each vote would ideally be posted in #devlogs by one of the GLs that voted. In the situation that select staff members are also part of the voting committee, they would also be able to announce said results, but as that is not assured as of yet, I'll base everything coming up on the former situation. Now, giving out such permissions to so many people at once is risky, at least from the perspective of the staff team, and as such, consequences and proper reprimanding will be enacted upon those who abuse the power that they have been granted. In tandem, in the situation that granting this power is still considered too risky, only select GLs—realistically two to three—will be given the right to make the aforementioned announcements. This would not only allow the project to be self-sufficient, but it would also reduce the amount of weight on the staff team's shoulders.
Alternatively, a secondary chat can be created right under #devlogs, named #trimming-announcements, with the explicit purpose of announcing information about anything related to the Trimming. The only people allowed to speak in this chat would be GLs—and the aforementioned select staff members if it is decided as such—as they would be able to announce any and all decisions as soon as they are made. If it is deemed necessary, perhaps in the future, during or after the end of the Trimming, this chat can be repurposed to hold all announcements related to the GLMP and/or quality-based changes.
Lastly, as for GLs moving pages from category to category, that is as simple as receiving permission from the staff team. It would take no extra/unnecessary work, and said duty could even be extended to GLTs and GFTs. Of course, staff helpers and the overall staff team would be able to help as well, but if the extra work is overburdening them, they would not be forced to participate in assisting the GLMP. Now, as to whether these changes would have to be logged on Oversight and/or Discord in any official capacity by GLs, that is left up to staff. Note that should Oversight-usage be allowed for GLs, it would greatly assist in the upkeep of the aforementioned rewrite mega-list as well as simplifying the process for those interested in applying to rewrite.
Thank you to everyone who took time out of their day to read this whole thing and contribute to the discussion. It is very much appreciated.
Rough summary
either delete useless and uninteresting stuff or rewrite pages that are interesting to some
Each week X pages gets voted on by the GLMP. "does it bring enough to the site to be kept there? Is it good enough to be on the site?"
Three possible outcomes:
- To trim: not delete it, but moving it (and all backlinks) to a "trimmed:" catagory, effectively archiving it until further notice. This option explicitly exists for pages that are inherently flawed and would require a major rework of both the root concept and the execution to actually be improved upon, example with conceptless pages "place that is strange" or "entity that kills".
- To rewrite: voting for this option would instantly open up rewrite perms for the pages voted to all. That is to say that should anyone wish to apply to rewrite one of said voted pages, they would not have to worry about receiving permission from the original author(s) to do so. Vote by the GLMP for applications would still exist of course. Of course, as goes in the "to trim" option, all original pages would still be moved into the aforementioned category, a fact that should already be happening in all honesty. This option explicitly exists for pages that are, while not conceptually flawed, executed in a subpar manner.
- In the situation that the original author(s) of these pages is still contactable, they get into the priority line. If they wish/request to rewrite their own work, they will receive permission to do so instantly (self-rewrite). They can also ask for deletion if they want to.
- Then a devlog can be made opening the perms to more people
As a means of making sure people know that an affected article(s) is eligible for a rewrite application(s)—outside of any official announcement—a tag would be created specifically for this purpose. If that is not deemed sufficient enough for raising general awareness, a mega-list of sorts can be created on top of the tag that would be available to the public either on Oversight or the main site, perhaps both.
- To keep: everything is kept as is about any one article that is voted on. It would require at leasr X (4?) GLs voting for it (can change if the whole GLMP/staff can vote).
the weight of this project will be carried by both the members of the GLMP and the staff team. That means that all associated duties will be shared, whether that be announcing the result of votes, moving pages from category to category, or cataloguing changes on Oversight and/or Discord. Of course, doing all of these—and most likely more down the line— requires explicit permission to be given out by the staff team, but if they want to create not only a relationship built on trust with everyone but a viable outline and focused workload to handle, I believe doing this is vital and a necessary sacrifice of authority. A course of action would be made clear in the maintenance team hub for that once everything is fully defined (most of it is, but some slight changes might be needed now).
NOTE THAT THIS WOULD BE A LONG PROCESS EITHER WAY
when the proposal is put in place
- make a separate devlog ts channel to announce weekly trimmings
- make a staff course of actions for trimming pages + a tag