Discodefinition QC


  • mod

    Continuing the conversation from Discopædia

    @abarker said:

    We may need to start enforcing quality control on the discodefinitions ...

    With the introduction of the new Discopædia badges, it seems appropriate that some sort of quality control should be introduced. Before a discodefinition is wikified and indexed, some level of criteria should be met. Since this is a job that is handled by TL4+, it must be accessible to all TL4+. This means that flags are not a viable option. I'm thinking that a Likes threshold is about the only viable option. To do that, we'd need to be able to easily spot actual/proposed definitions. This means that other discussion would need to be Jeffed to a meta-Discopædia topic, something that would need to be strictly enforced.

    Are there any other suggestions? I drawing blanks.


  • sockdevs

    @abarker said:

    This means that other discussion would need to be Jeffed to a meta-Discopædia topic, something that would need to be strictly enforced.

    There's been talk of Jeffing all the discussion to a separate topic before; maybe now is indeed the time to do it.

    Relying on a Likes threshold isn't good enough IMO; it'd be too easy to game the system by poorly defining a term that's popular. Realistically, I think the only real way to manage it is for the TL4s to judge each entry on its own merits.


  • mod

    Maybe use the likes as a minimum "requirement". Kind of like three flags are "required" for nominated badges.

    Just because you get three flags, you aren't guaranteed to get a :badger:. Lack of flags is not necessarily a :barrier: to a :badger:.

    Discodefinitions would probably be restructured similarly.


  • sockdevs

    True, but equally, people are used to using :fa_flag:s to draw attention to something; no-one's used to :fa_heart:s doing the same thing. Plus, :fa_flag:s allow the user to add extra info; :fa_heart:s do not.


  • area_deu

    @RaceProUK said:

    no-one's used to :fa_heart:s doing the same thing

    If you were using Discourse as a bug tracker, you would!


  • mod

    Yeah, but TL4 can't see flags. @loopback0 and @aliceif help wiki the definitions, so they can't judge based on flags.

    Also, I don't want one more thing to be dismissing flags for.


  • sockdevs

    That's why I'm saying it should simply be down to the judgement of the TL4s ;)
    And if anyone thinks they got it wrong, well, that's what the discussion thread is for :smile:



  • Instead of likes, how about including a poll in each discodefinition?

    [poll name="Including a poll in each discodefinition?]

    • Yes
    • No
    • FILE_NOT_FOUND
    • Polls are broken
      [/poll]
      (added a poll for you -aliceif)

  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Polls are broken is a vote for yes, right?





  • Anyway I think this poll already illustrates the problem - we're just like slashdot.

    If there are no joke options, we reply complaining about the lack of joke options instead of voting.

    If there are joke options, we overwhelmingly vote on the joke options.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    ACTUALLY USEFUL BOT IDEA:

    Have one of the bots (or build a new one) add polls for people: as a reply, not by editing a post, of course, so the bot doesn't need TL4.

    Option: Don't spam Discopædia topic with this: Have a separate topic for this, with original proposed definition quoted for review and poll under it.

    Trigger method: Specific content in post. UUID is an option. UUID should be ignored outside Discopædia thread.


  • sockdevs

    doable. not bad actually. :smiley:

    hmm....

    yes i like


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I know I am a minority here... but I think you guys are worriying WAY too much about this.

    If somebody gets a badge for putting a lot of Discodefinitions into the Discopaedia, give it to him.

    If you seriously think, you need quality control then (in my opinion), do it yourself. That sounds rude... but what I mean is: You are TL4. If you find a wikified post that you COMPLETELY disagree with unwikify it. It's your topic. Pretty sure nobody has anything against that.

    The worst thing that can happen here is somebody going "Why was somebody elses post accepted and not mine?" and then throw a hissyfit. Thats not what we are here for. People come here to have fun. As far as I can tell, the only requirement for an entry in the Discopaedia is that it has something to do with Discourse (and it's beneficial if it has Disco in it's name). Leave it at that.

    I really dislike the poll idea as well. As somebody else posted already if there is a junk option, everybody picks it. And if no junk option is included, everybody picks yes on instinct (unless they wanna be a dick). Why? Because nobody loses anything if a post gets wikified.

    TL;DR: The badges are an interesting idea. Having quality control for them is stupid.

    Filed Under: Also, leave the bots out of this. Servercooties are bad enough as is. Thank you


  • area_deu

    To be honest, I find most of the Jeff* words just unoriginal and superfluous.



  • @abarker said:

    Before a discodefinition is wikified and indexed, some level of criteria should be met.

    So remove the Wiki on the index so only TL4+ can add them?

    Are we going back to the existing ones or leaving them as they are and just checking new?



  • I think maybe entries should be added by someone else too - so no coining a term and adding it straight away yourself.

    Also - citations required.


  • mod

    @Kuro said:

    but I think you guys are worriying WAY too much about this.

    And this is part of why I asked instead of just doing. Gather opinions and all.

    @loopback0 said:

    So remove the Wiki on the index so only TL4+ can add them?

    That's probably a good idea.

    @loopback0 said:

    Are we going back to the existing ones or leaving them as they are and just checking new?

    There's well over 100 existing. If we make any changes, it should just be to accepting new definitions.

    @loopback0 said:

    I think maybe entries should be added by someone else too - so no coining a term and adding it straight away yourself.

    Also - citations required.

    That all sounds reasonable. The not doing it yourself bit will be hardest for TL4+, but can always be undone/reinforced by another TL4+ in case of a slip.



  • @abarker said:

    There's well over 100 existing. If we make any changes, it should just be to accepting new definitions.

    Yeah - going back over the existing ones did sound a lot like work :laughing:

    @abarker said:

    The not doing it yourself bit will be hardest for TL4+

    The rules are supposed to apply to us as well? :imp:


  • area_deu

    @loopback0 said:

    The rules are supposed to apply to us as well?

    It's called TrustLevel for a reason! We are good girls and boys who wouldn't cheat for badges.



  • @aliceif said:

    We are good girls and boys

    I almost wet my pants reading this ...
    Really ...
    I almost knocked over my glass of water.



  • @abarker said:

    Yeah, but TL4 can't see flags. @loopback0 and @aliceif help wiki the definitions, so they can't judge based on flags.

    We'd have to invite them to the message topic. (Good God, but that sounds stupid...the guy who complained about how unprivate the messages are seems dumber and dumber as time goes by.) That sounds like a lot of work.



  • @Kuro said:

    If somebody gets a badge for putting a lot of Discodefinitions into the Discopaedia, give it to him.

    I agree. The badges are for fun.

    @Kuro said:

    People come here to have fun.



  • @loopback0 said:

    I think maybe entries should be added by someone else too - so no coining a term and adding it straight away yourself.

    Also - citations required.

    Whoops, this would disqualify my entry (I would not get upset if that happened). This is a good idea to improve the quality, but it awards the :badger: to the person who added the term, not the person who coined it.



  • Yes - that's the point.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @loopback0 said:

    Yes - that's the point.

    :wtf:?



  • @NedFodder said:

    it awards the :badger: to the person who added the term, not the person who coined it

    Empty post.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Yeah, hence the :wtf:
    I'd think the award should go to the coiner, not the poster :P



  • Ohhhh... my bad.



  • @sloosecannon said:

    I'd think the award should go to the coiner, not the poster

    That would be nice, but no one is going to go back and figure out the old stuff. Also, encyclopedias are typically not primary sources. And we're rewarding the recorders here. Maybe we could make another badge for this sort of thing, and people can hunt down the earliest known usages so we can reward the coiners.



  • I'd say forget all the old stuff, if it's in it's in. Going forward, using @loopback0's idea that citations are required, we'd know exactly who coined it and deserves the badge.



  • I guess we could have the entry quote the cite and use that link. Have to think about how that could be abused, though. Not sure it's a good idea.


  • mod

    So it seems that the only changes we can all agree on are:

    1. Remove wiki from the OP so that only TL4 can list a new entry.
    2. Move non-discodefinitions to a new meta-discopædia topic.
    3. New discodefinitions require a citation.

    Is that correct?

    [poll]

    • Yes
    • No
    • Hell If I know (counts as yes)
      [/poll]

  • mod

    I'd say that's pretty conclusive. I'll get to work on it as a Discopædia Editor.



  • @boomzilla said:

    We'd have to invite them to the message topic.

    @shadowmod to the rescue?



  • Eh...I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that sort of thing.


  • mod

    @abarker said:

    So it seems that the only changes we can all agree on are:

    1. Remove wiki from the OP so that only TL4 can list a new entry.

    2. Move non-discodefinitions to a new meta-discopædia topic.

    3. New discodefinitions require a citation.

    • Done

    • Initial jeffing done (I think), will require ongoing work.

    • Ongoing effort.


  • sockdevs

    I do not envy that you undertook that task, and I applaud your efforts. I suggest you now go to the Cupcake thread, because, dayum, you deserve some sort of reward ;)


  • mod

    On a related note, did you just enable an autoliker on the discopædia?


  • sockdevs

    @abarker said:

    On a related note, did you just enable an autoliker on the discopædia?

    No; that was all manual. Besides, my cyberparts can't log in at the moment anyway :rolleyes:



  • @abarker said:

    Initial jeffing done (I think), will require ongoing work.

    All right...finally safe to clear notifications! Wonder how many people will complain about the persistent Jeffing notification.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    So if we now have a Discopædia meta topic, and we're discussing it here, is this the official Discopædia meta-meta topic?


  • mod

    @sloosecannon said:

    So if we now have a Discopædia meta topic, and we're discussing it here, is this the official Discopædia meta-meta topic?

    This topic is so meta.



  • Discopædia sounds like it's gotten way too serious and a lot less fun that it used to be. I suspect my contribution to it is done.


  • sockdevs

    I dunno; Jeffuchet was accepted quite readily ;)


  • mod

    The first two points were primarily done to make it easier for @boomzilla's badges. The third is really just a little extra bit to encourage people to show where terms came from. Un-cited terms are still welcome, they just won't be wikified or indexed.

    Of course that's just a guideline. A TL4+ could go against it for a really good definition.


  • sockdevs


  • area_deu


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.