| abstract
| - __NOWYSIWYG__ Okay, I am proposing that we set up a standard of what a News blog can be defined as. At some point, I feel like many less useful blogs have been cluttering up the Avatar news feed, and I think it's time that we maybe set some limitations. The reasoning behind this is again, the news feed gets cluttered with fairly useless news, and sometimes useful things get lost. Also, it can cause duplicate blogs which would be created because the originals weren't there and again, clog up the news feed and drown out actual useful news. So what would the rules be then? First of all, I don't think any blogs should be tagged as Avatar news if they aren't. This can be surveys from wikia, announcements about things that aren't really news, etc. Another thing this would include, would mean that there would be no more individual blogs about "another new frame". Especially if these are just storyboards. I don't think that these qualify as genuine news that are worth alerting the community and pushing down really important things. So basically, no more blogs about another story board. Finally, when it gets to that time where the trailers are everywhere, no blogs about every single individual trailer that occurs. Blogs about the first one or even first two are great, but I don't think it's useful for the community if that feed is clogged with people reporting on, essentially, nothing new. Of course, there would be exemptions from this rule, for things like the BSST, or if wikia does something that is deemed relative to the wiki, if somebody wanted to master-post all of the screenshots or trailers, or anything of the like. Anyways, I can understand if this seems a bit extreme, and I'm totally up for discussion and compromise. 02:37, June 29, 2013 (UTC) for the most part, i disagree. i do think duplicate news is a problem, and good news getting lost is a problem, but i for one enjoy seeing each new images/screenshots released - the news feed on the main page is the only way i really am notified of when this happens. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) That is a fair point, but the information is extremely easy to access. It'll randomly be updated in Bryan's tumblr, and anybody following it/checking up on it periodically would be able to see it. Or, we could have a master post for whenever a new one gets uploaded, but the screenshots aren't exactly "news", more of a small teaser, and we have a good 5 now so I don't think it's really note worthy when we get another one. 06:22, June 29, 2013 (UTC) I get that the perception of important posts being pushed down can be annoying, but I think the standard has been set far too high here. Most importantly for me, I strongly disagree with the removal of posts by Wikia staff members. I consider these mostly to be highly useful in promoting our community and further engaging potential members, and I think the evidence strongly suggests that the volume is not unreasonable in the least. Removing them in such a fashion, based on the idea that someone is not particularly interested in one particular post, undermines their utility. As for the rest, I think the approach should be different. Let's not have a list of certain things some of us don't like, which is messy and certainly will result in a plethora of exceptions when, for example, really important trailers are released back-to-back. Instead, simply demand that a news blog post be of a certain length, say, 300 words (open to suggestions on exact word length). For something truly newsworthy, there will be enough to report from (note: not copy from, I detest this) the source. For example, in a trailer, there can be a list of what's new in it and commentary about the implications for speculation. If it's not really that newsworthy, it will be difficult to meet that standard and therefore won't make it onto the news blog. Further:
* To cover cases where people simply pad out with rubbish to reach 300 words, have an additional line that blog posts that appear to be deliberately padding out will simply be rewritten in a more reasonable way, and if it does not end up over 300 words, it will be removed.
* To cover cases of repetition, information that is not new will simply be removed, and if it does not end up over 300 words, it will be removed. I think that will be enough to simulatenously allow flexibility while establishing common standards. Not to mention that making people write stuff rather than just lazily linking will greatly improve the quality of our reporting. Two birds with one stone. The 888th Avatar (talk) 12:04, June 29, 2013 (UTC) Alright, I agree and I think that's a much better approach then what I initially suggested. I suppose wikia staff stuff can be useful for the community, I hadn't viewed it as such, but I can see it that way now. I suppose if it's in the name of promoting community spirit it's good to keep up there. ^^ 20:11, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)