Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-3416945-20160829051027/@comment-4533965-20160829202027

Myself 123 wrote:

BlueSpeeder wrote:

Myself 123 wrote: Remove community consensus!? Definitely not! That's absurd. For the sake of clarification, might elaborating on why you disagree? It would help us out a ton if we knew why people disagree with this idea. :) Well as I said, it's absurd, a wiki should be driven by the community, not by a select few. Do you not see an issue with only a small group having all authority on the wiki? No offence to the proposed three, but what if their decisions do not reflect what is best for everyone? Regular users who have issues with the current state of things would no longer have a say, which would be incredibly discouraging. Who would join this wiki if they have no ability to voice improvements? This is a terrible solution to the problem and I doubt the wiki will continue is spite of it; we already get users who are afraid of those with additional rights, what's it gonna be like if they're actually above the other users?

If the issue is that the community is too small, wouldn't the simplest solution be to reduce the amount of users needed to participate in important matters? As you stated and as Morff suggested, I believe that, though a bureaucrat team would run things, the community could voice an outcry of what needs to be changed in case something doesn't work. From my understanding and personal belief, it's not saying community output is going to fade: it will be there but it won't play a major role unless the bureaucrat team believes it is a problem. Keep in mind that the three chosen were specifically chosen because of a certain area we cover: Ultra is the editing expert, he'll know what works for editing and what doesn't; if Mystic joins he knows about the forum side of things; and I am a bit of a middle man, who can work with both ends, along with being interactive with new and upcoming users. The point is, if the community thinks there is a problem, we can easily work with them. They just have to let the team know. Having a team of three run the wiki will help get things going, especially considering that a nomination for user rights barely gets seven people to actually vote. I don't even expect my current nomination to get fifteen by the midpoint.

Regardless, it'll help establish things that couldn't be done because of a lack of community involvement on certain ideas brought up. Example? Ultra made a thread about gallery subpages, barely any response, and if there was any response it was irrelevant comments.

I think I've deviated too much from what Bullet is suggesting, so I would like to hear his stance on allowing minimal community output before suggesting ideas I have first.