This HTML5 document contains 6 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

Avatar Wiki:War Room/Editor Review

rdfs:comment

__NOWYSIWYG__ While looking at the Wikipedia profile of a fellow #wofgame-ian (Reaper Eternal) I noticed something on his profile stating that he was requesting and Admin Review. After reading up on it turns out that it is a place where an user can request a review of how he is doing and what he can do to improve his act. See here for more info.

n4:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n5: n6: n8:

n7:abstract

__NOWYSIWYG__ While looking at the Wikipedia profile of a fellow #wofgame-ian (Reaper Eternal) I noticed something on his profile stating that he was requesting and Admin Review. After reading up on it turns out that it is a place where an user can request a review of how he is doing and what he can do to improve his act. See here for more info. If this proposal is about "we should do something similar", then I must say that I am against it. Even though it might have some positive outcomes -being that a user knows what exactly s/he can improve on, it opens the door too easily for possible abuse and bashing of said user. To keep that under control, we should keep a constant eye on said "review page", so basically, I feel like it'll take more work than positive outcome. 22:30, March 16, 2013 (UTC) That can be something that the user will have to accept. Why should we bother filtering it out. IMO let it be there. If something bad is there it can be edited out but we don't /need/ to. The user in question will just have to not be offended by it. Per Lostris. The negativity that may spawn from this, and the point that it will have upkeep costs don't really do it for me. Plus, I believe this is far more suited to larger wikis where there would be a demand for this - on a wiki such as ours, there is little to no point. I would think that after the novelty of having it wears off, it would quickly fall defunct. KettleMeetPot • wall 02:17, March 17, 2013 (UTC) I don't think possible negativity is reason enough not to try something like this, but I don't see a whole lot of tangible benefit from it, and it would also be difficult to maintain. For those reasons, I have to side with Lostris and KMP here. However, if a user took it upon themselves to make something similar but unofficial in a blog or other form and entirely voluntary, I would have no objection to that. -- 02:31, March 17, 2013 (UTC) I actually do object it in any form possible. The editors we now have are slim, at least the core-base of the editors. It are always the same . . . what, seven people or something? Then you have a few regulars who edit now and again, and then you have a lot of one-time editors. So basically, this entire review system would only be beneficial for a handful of people, and are we really going to risk putting those few that want to edit off editing because we have a forum where they can "rightfully" be put down? Who here would going to do the reviewing anyway? It would have to be one of the core editors, but there aren't that many, and I for one am not going to waste my time reviewing someone's editing style. We have an Avatar Wiki:S.O.S. editing guide for a reason, so people could find out what to do. If they have questions beyond that, then it is more sensible that they would go directly to a user whose name they after see popping up on the RWA/RC by editing and ask said user how they could improve. There is no need to make a public spectacle out of this all. 09:56, March 17, 2013 (UTC) I agree with the above, I think users can easily figure out for themselves what they need to do or what they are doing wrong without the need for such a review. As KMP said, it can open the door to needless bashing which would in turn just discourage an editor. With already a lack of regular editors as noted above, that would be counter-productive to helping activity increase around here. 18:24, March 17, 2013 (UTC) Per the above. Every reason I don't support this this has pretty much been covered already, but honestly a user who wishes to improve his/her behavior will find ways to do so with or without a "review page." There are plenty of active users here that one can ask in many ways for help when it comes to self-improvement. And on the flip side, a review page will not do anything to change the attitudes of bad users, who probably don't feel a need to improve most of the time. So yeah, I'd agree that this should be avoided because it'd only add more work - and probably won't improve the actual problem of bad behavior to begin with. --MinnichiFile:Dai Li Sprite.gif 15:49, March 18, 2013 (UTC)