This is intended to be the masterpost/main way of communicating for the moderation team of this wiki. It is not to be used by those without administrator or moderator rights, and will be removed if this is done.
General concerns/topics that need to be discussed will have dates corresponding to them and whether or not they've been addressed/resolved. This will be protected in a way so that mods and admins can edit this blog while those with default user rights cannot.
Here is a list of all administrators and moderators helpfully put together by RavenFire803. If you are a general user, please disregard this post and contact any of us through that.
Concerns Aug 23 (unresolved)
The moderation team, though relatively large, is seriously lacking in quite a few areas. First off, we have a lot of thread moderators, which is great and the discussion/community part of the wiki seems to be well-monitored, but we don't have a lot of content moderators (who do actual wiki maintenance). We need more folkel interested in taking on responsibilities of helping with the actual wiki part of the wiki, and who are relatively well-versed in doing so (such as moving pages, reverting edits, know the style and page creation/editing guidelines well, can add and remove categories, add citations, and can take on research or wiki projects for tasks that need to be done).
We need to better communicate and have more clear guidelines for consequences of guideline violation, just generally more clear guidelines that we aren't doing as well as we should to enforce, and more specifically, continue to be receptive to criticism from MOGAI spaces such as the MOGAI community on Tumblr, who have rightfully raised concerns about not having proper sourcing and bastardizing the meaning of the original coining of terms.
We currently are supposed to have a project that it seems a few of us are working on (I'm not even sure we've publicly enforced or encouraged this), which is going through all of our pages to mark if they are properly sourced, have been verified or not, and if they have a history section. I put this guidance in a post on the Tumblr account for those who want to help out:
- We’re still going through pages to either immediately verify or put in categories to verify (”Needs Resource Verification”, “Pages With No History Section”, and/or “Pages Without Resources”).
- If pages have been verified, the information matches coining source and common usage, and there are citations/resources for flags, history, etymology, and other general information. Officially verified pages are added to the “Verified Resources” category.
- Anyone can help with this! It’s especially appreciated if people look through and add resources to pages in the three problem categories.
- Many of the pages have been directly coined through the wiki with no outside sourcing, if you have done this or you can confirm that a term was originally coined through the wiki, you can state that “This page is the original source for the coining of the term.” in the history section and that will count for verification
I wasn't going to push for this because it's definitely going to be annoying to do, but especially with the new formatting update, a lot of people have no idea what the categories are because you have to click on it for it to display and it's not at the top of the screen anymore. It wouldn't have to be required, but I think that having this template on pages in the three problem categories will clearly distinguish to people that the page is not officially finished or verified yet. If not that, we need an alternative solution.
I also have suggestions for a guidelines update to clarify that this page verification is a priority and not properly verifying pages when they are created is not allowed. To prevent this from being ridiculous long lol, I'll put that in a comment box below.