Maniac
1
After launching discussion of user groups on the “Trying out a new welcoming tool” thread ( http://forums.wikihow.com/discussion/comment/26236/#Comment_26236
) this topic in itself deserves a new thread for discussion. TL;DR version:I don’t think that our current four user groups are good enough for wikiHow as the site and the community continue to grow. Currently, we only have NAB as the “middle” group between being a regular contributor and an admin…and this group should maintain its title and solely work on boosting new articles, and not on various other stuff as new tools are made. Instead, I think we need to create new user groups as they are needed, based on “general” tasks as opposed to specific tools. So instead of making a user group solely for the NFD Guardian, for example, a group could be created that not only includes the NFD Guardian but other similar tools or functions, including those created in the future. These groups wouldn’t be a replacement for projects, but instead would be for new abilities and tools as they are created, just like NAB. Why do I think we need this change? The title “New Article Booster” doesn’t describe all of the things that have been (and may be in the future) added to the group…people may want to boost but not do other things, and vice versa…we can create more relevant entry tests/quizzes if the user group is focused on a specific aspect of the site…and most importantly, it will allow the site to be more organized, and keep everyone’s efforts in the right direction. Expanded version:As @Krystle
pointed out in the aforementioned thread: we have anonymous users, regular editors, New Article Boosters, and administrators. While this might have been efficient in the past for wikiHow, I’m not sure that this will be the best for the site as wikiHow grows and progresses. I’m not sure what all was said at RCC in Boston, so if @Krystle
, @Maluniu
, or another editor who was there can mention it, that would be appreciated.
With new tools being added and new things to try out, not everything fits best into the title “New Article Booster”. As the title suggests, new article boosters should have their focus on new articles as they are created - and not end up being the “test” group for new functions to the community, nor should it be the only middle group between being a regular contributor and being an admin. I see concern both on the admin side of things as well as on the regular editor side of things. Right now, we have admins and staff/employees as far as administration goes…and that’s about it. A few admins are checkusers as well, but I don’t think that we take advantage of the checkuser group, nor the bureaucrat group, as much as other wikis do. One issue right now, I think, is that many editors have the ultimate goal to become an admin and that’s about it. While there’s not necessarily an issue with this desire, we should also ensure that people don’t come here to edit solely because they want to become an administrator
and have “power” over the site. I think new user groups should be created on an as-needed basis. I don’t think a group should be made every single time a new tool comes out, but we should instead create groups based on the tasks they perform
. Rather than create a group solely for the NFD Guardian tool, for instance, we can create a group that can be expanded upon in the future and follows a theme that a person in the group would possibly be interested in. This would also help in creating new entry tests as the group’s focus would be on one specific part of the website. Another example, relevant to the “welcoming new users” task of the site, would be an “ambassador” style group. This could be some sort of expanded group for users who are interested in helping and mentoring new users, providing guidance when needed, and things like that. A group like this (and any other possibilities) would probably require more tools or reasons to actually create the group, but it’s just an example. Thoughts? Ideas? Comments?
Well, according to the User list page
, we seem to have more roles, although I’m not sure what most of them mean. 1. Bots 2. Admins 3. Bureaucrats 4. Check users 5. Imagecurators 6. Qccheckers 7. Staff 8. Newarticlepatrol (which I’m guessing is NABer) 9. Renameuser
Maniac
4
@Cece123
, from my knowledge your descriptions of the usergroups do seem accurate. I’m not sure about the imagecurators group, but it would make sense that #6
, the Qccheckers group, was supposed to be for the Quality Guardian tool - maybe something for the future. I’m glad those current groups were listed as it gives us something to talk about. If you look at those, the only ones we *really* use are bots, admins, checkusers (kinda), staff, and NAB, which is 5 out of 9. The others… 3. Bureaucrats - This role is used a lot on other wikis but never was really used here, probably because we do
have a employee/staff presence on the site more than other wikis. Our only bureaucrats are three of our staff members (plus two test accounts) 5. Imagecurators - While we don’t really seem to know what this usergroup does, everyone in it is a member of the wikiHow staff. 6. Qccheckers - I think this was probably either a group that never panned out or a group for the future, but consists of two staff members. 9. Renameuser - Four members, including two staff, one prior staff/intern, and one admin Looking at the above, having usergroups that are rarely assigned/used are not necessarily a critical issue, but at the same time could some of these be consolidated down to allow us to prepare for new, necessary groups? For instance, if a group is solely for the wH staff, and would never be granted to anyone outside of the staff, could it not be combined into the basic “staff” group? It’s just another thing up for discussion… I’m not suggesting that we SHOULD do any of this, but just throwing it out there for discussion. While we explore new groups that we might want to create, it’s probably good to review our current groups as well.
Hmm… The User Rights Log
is talking about some position called “wysiwygtesting”…
Yes, that was some time ago (once upon a time when we still had old forums), when a new feature for article editing was being tested. People could mail Jack, and then he gave them beta rights. What became of this WYSIWYG feature for article editing, I really wouldn’t know…
system
7
I think what became clear in the thread about welcoming is that it would be good to have a way to officially recognize people who are familiar with how things work on wikiHow and can help newcomers, without necessarily wanting to be a booster or admin. All boosters have a pretty good handle on wikiHow policies, but they must also be very proficient editors. It would be nice to just have a group of people who are familiar with wikiHow. Not everyone who is familiar with wikiHow enjoy the intense editing that boosting requires. I like the “ambassadors” idea. Maybe we can start with this one group, and then develop more groups later (after we learn from this experience). So the first step in designating a new “user rights” group is to define it clearly. Here is my suggestion: I think we should have a group of people who are familiar with wikiHow’s policies, and how things work on wikiHow, and are able to explain it in a friendly, patient way (sometimes over and over again) to new people. Maybe this can be the official help team
. Right now anyone can answer questions published on the help team page; but unfortunately there have been many times when I’ve seen the wrong (or incomplete) answer given, or the right answer given in a not-necessarily-friendly way. I think the latter is really important because when you are looking for help on a new site, you are probably already frustrated, and to be spoken (well, written) to nicely really helps things. The next step would be: How do we decide who is in this group? Some options: quiz/test, voting by another group, # edits, time on site, other ideas? Thoughts?
system
8
@Krystle
I like your idea- a lot. Voting by another group could be the qualification. Other existing editors are the ones who have been around and talked to you before. Perhaps this could be coupled with a quiz, just to make sure you’d be ready for any situation? Friendliness and patience are extremely important here in order to ensure that every single user gets the best welcome possible.
Caidoz
9
I would feel very uncomfortable if number of edits and/or time on site were used to judge this kind of thing, as it doesn’t actually mean anything. Someone can have a good grasp of how the site works after a week and a small handful of edits, others can make hundreds of edits, be around for months and still be completely clueless. Voting by another group is time consuming and runs a risk of “I don’t like that person because they didn’t agree with me once”. I think a test or quiz would be the best way to tackle this. As I said in the other thread, I also think this should be something people can turn on or off so they can work on something which requires their attention without being interrupted by a new user asking for help.
Maniac
10
+1 to all of that, along with my own comments: I don’t like using an edit count requirement for any user group really, because some people can make a few extremely good edits (as in expanding stubs or entirely bold editing an article) and not meet the requirement, while other users might simply add punctuation to articles and get their edit count up hundreds per day. Our edit count requirements for admin and NAB, overall, are relatively low, but even then I don’t really think we should have a specific edit count requirement for these. I think for all usergroups, we should have some sort of entry level test or quiz. This is the best way to see if a user grasps the concept - especially since it’s basically open book, so if the person does absolutely terrible it’s clear that they didn’t study or even look up the information as they went along.
system
11
Agreed. That would be a benefit of creating a new user group; people can be removed if they don’t want to make themselves available to help, without it being connected to having NAB or admin rights.
system
12
I have been trying unsuccessfully for months to get this implemented, and I am glad that an admin is *considering* new user groups and their feasibility on wikiHow. I would like to slip you one idea that comes from my home wiki. Most sites with content that can be edited by anyone have to deal with individuals that come to vandalize/troll for pleasure. Almost all wikis solve this problem with blocking, but this “problem” can be solved differently. Enter the ingenious idea of the vandal brake. All users with sysops powers (including me) on this *other* wiki can use the tool, and it is not the same as the block power (also available to sysops users). Instead, the vandal brake can slow down the rate of edits/comments made by a bad-faith contributor to a crawl for a certain period of time. This approach takes the fun out of vandalism, and discourages one-time vandals from coming back. All users cannot become admins due to the vast amount of “community experience and maturity” needed for the position, but vandal brake-style powers could be given out to many contributors who pass a quiz. This idea empowers regular users to fix their own problems with trolls and vandals without needing to consult administrators constantly. Name ideas/constructive criticism for this plan are encouraged…
system
13
For me personally, I find myself helping more “random” people in IRC (the hit & run questions) than my talk page; so this can be agreeable.
system
14
So, they can only make 1 edit every few minutes or something?
system
15
No… One edit every thirty minutes. I am not kidding. Although for this purpose, it may be best to make the rate 1 edit every 6 minutes.
Just to be clear personally, voting someone as Krystle said; would this take place periodically such as the Admin elections, but the whole community can opt to vote?
system
17
I hope that the entire community could participate… Even still, if the *powers* were gained by means of a test/quiz, community participation (admin or non-admin) would be unnecessary.
Maniac
18
Both could be incorporated… I don’t think those two combined would be too much
to ask, really. Although since NAB doesn’t need community approval, this probably shouldn’t either… Although I must also admit I’m not entirely sure which usergroup we’re talking about here…the one proposed by TheMartian for stopping vandals, or the one that was kinda proposed in the other thread for welcoming new users…
I like this idea all the way through. I agree that trusted users should be able use this on their own without bothering an admin. It’s better than blocking because this deters the vandals from coming back if they know they’re going to be severely restricted while leaving them a chance to change their mindset from malevolent to benevolent.
There may be ways to create more roles. I know there are a lot of roles in Wikipedia, which partners with institutions to do projects. They have people who manage their local chapters and they have a board. They also have a lot of techies that develop tools for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, those roles may not fit on wikiHow at the moment, but there may be others that we can create.
