As the title of this forum suggests, I believe we should scrap the 'underedit' rule that requires users to acquire 100 edits and 50 mainspace edits, or at the very least reduce the number of edits required to use the feature. At first I was a bit cautious to remove this rule, but I've become a believer following the reactions on chat and some various other reasons. As a frequent chat-goer and administrator, I can safely say that the 'underedit' rule is both counterproductive and unnecessary. In my eyes, the original purpose of the rule was to shoo away the unruly visitors that often came onto the chat with the purpose of disruption in mind. These users have shown no intent of returning, and the chat is doing well. With the recent termination of the automated chat program that kept these underedits out of the chat in the first place, chat moderators and administrators have reverted back to the old-fashioned method of warning these users themselves. This is both inconvenient and disrupting. The flow of chat has had difficulty rebounding after these users enter the chat, which isn't an intended repercussion of the rule. This also discourages users from editing altogether. It's a rarity to see a user go on an editing spree with the sole intent of using the chatroom, and we may be unintentionally dispiriting newcomers from becoming apart of our community (which can come off as intimidating and goes against 'Do not bite the newcomers').
Essentially: The 'underedit' rule is counterproductive and no longer necessary. Either scrap it entirely or reduce the number of edits required to use the feature by a significant amount (if you want to go this route, I would personally recommend 25 edits with 10 edits to the mainspace). I would at least like to see the rule significantly nerfed. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 03:06, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I would also like to suggest that we allow the 'underedits' to use the chat for a longer duration than we are currently allowing. This would act as a 'chat trial', and it would encourage them to get the edits required so that they can come back and socialize. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 03:09, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't have said this any better, I agree. User:SplashTheHedgehog/Signature3 03:15, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna be neutral, but, I rather not scrap the rule entirely. Because I get the feeling the chat will get turned "upside down" and will become chaos. I'm being brutally honest here. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 03:17, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah... rethinking it, we should just reduce the number of edits required and allow the underedits to stay on chat for a little while. We shouldn't scrap the rule entirely. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 03:19, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
I think the underedit rule is fine the way it is. Many new users join the chat with no intent on editing the wiki in any way. The underedit rule shows us which users are willing to edit and which users will just give up. This isn't supposed to be a social wiki, after all, so while we may be driving away some users, I also think we're also giving a users a reason to edit. I also think that when these users edit the wiki to join the chat, they make it a habit and become good editors (and may I also mention that many users who edited to join the chat (some recently) have also become some good editors?).
The underedit rule can also show us the true nature of a user as well. It will show us who is a true contributor of the wiki and who isn't, but it can also show us if the user has good intentions or bad intentions. I can't even count how many times users have swore, openly insulted, and spammed because they couldn't get their way. It hasn't happened, recently, like you said, but I always think that you can't get too comfortable. Just because it hasn't happened in a while doesn't mean it won't happen again. Better safe than sorry.
And this is just a personal preference, but if the underedit rule is gone, then that means anyone can join the chat. Along with many users joining only for the chat with the possibility of us turning into a social wiki as opposed to an informational wiki, there'll be random users on the chat popping up everywhere. I like it better when everyone knows everyone and it isn't like the MLP wiki chat, when there's 20-30+ people there all the time. This reason is irrelevant, but something I prefer. It's not a real reason to oppose this.
All in all, I think there will be very many downsides if the underedit rule was removed. If we must, I would suggest we reduce the amount of edits needed. I wouldn't go with 25 edits and 10 mainspace, however. I suggest 50 edits and 25 mainspace, or anywhere around that area. MetalMickey272
- 50 edits and 25 mainspace is a plausible amount. I'm okay with that. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 03:25, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
*ahem* I agree, there is absolutely no point in keeping the rule at this point. And to look at the current reasons why it's there...
- It keeps spammers out: How, may I ask, does it accomplish that? Yeah, sure, the filter helped a tad, but that was removed. So how does that rule help? It doesn't. Flat out simple.
- So we can trust people: How many edits somebody makes does not effect how much I trust him or her, and I doubt it does for very many people.
- To not flood chat with a bunch of people who don't contribute: Hey, guess what? Quite a few people get the needed edits, and not edit much afterwards.
- To encourage people to edit: Only until a certain point. Then they likely stop. Also, I've seen instances where people started editing because of discussions on chat. Most people aren't encouraged to edit to get on chat really.
Also, there are some negatives that come from the rule which I shall list here.
- Tends to make people unwelcome: Because people warn users, often time threats of banning, people sometime feel unwelcome in the community. Thus making it smaller than it possibly could be.
- Causes the wiki to be infamous: I've been to a few chats, and often times I see mention of this chat wiki's chat. Do I hear good things? Hmm, let me think... no. I hear how bad that rule is, I never see anyone saying it's a good idea. Heck, a VSTF said he thought the rule was pointless.
- Causes the community to look jerkish: Often times the ways in which we warn underedits make us look rather jerkish, as if we do not want any new users to the wiki.
If we don't remove it entirely we should at least reduce it by a good bit GraveEclipse567 03:37, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, let's go back to the original reasons that the rule was set up:
- "If this rule is going to be activated, it needs to be activated ASAP, as most of our problems are with random users who have 0-5 edits, and a good fraction of the number of users on chat have 0-100 edits, I think this rule should be activated ASAP, as only members of the community should chat, not users with 0 edits. And if all else fails, and they are still a lot of fights, get rid of the chat entirely." -- Bullet Francisco, 23:22, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
- "This needs to be activated now. We just had 2 whole wikis come and spam our chat, this needs to be activated now." -- Bullet Francisco, 22:41, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
So the chat rule had a purpose: to prevent fights, to prevent spam, and to ensure that the chat was for the use of the SNN community rather than a separate community in itself. Did it prevent spam and fights? I assume so, since people think it now doesn't happen. There are, of course, problems with the rule, although many of them are to do with the users who enforce the rule (as Spyro says, these users are "jerkish") and not the rule itself.
But maybe the rule isn't necessary any more. We can't know until we get rid of it, or reduce it. So I'm happy for people to do that. -- Supermorff (talk) 08:07, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I hardly know where to begin with this as there is just so many things with what you just said.
- Prevents spam? Like I said before, how does it do that? Spamming and and edits are different rules, you don't need the edit rule to ban spammers as it is a different rule entirely. Does the edit rule stop spammers from coming on? No. Do you think a spammer,someone who spams which is obviously against the rules, will not go on a chat because of an edit rule? ...If you think so, I have no idea what to say to you.
- Prevents fights? Don't you mean causes fights? A good portion of the underedits that come one, we have to spend quite a while explaining, and sometimes leads to fights, especially when a mod or admin is not offline to kick or ban the underedit.
- Also, why are you quoting Bullet? The quote doesn't say why it's needed, but saying it should be added at that particier moment, and it doesn't get your point across. And besides, it's not like his opinion is the end all be all of opinions. GraveEclipse567 03:28, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
Normal don't check these but if it's a problem or people don't like it remove it.
Sonamyfan666 Follow me inside, outside, through the stratosphere...
Couldn't agree more with Metal. My thoughts exactly. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 12:39, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
I am more for getting rid of the rule entirely than reducing it. Many wiki's that are (dare i say) better than us do not have this rule, but i want a change ether way. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 14:57, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with the rule as it is right now, as stated before the users who willingly try to achieve 100 edits 50 mainspace show their dedication to helping the wiki. This goal is clearly achievable, we've had many new users within the past day or two to be able to chat now. Also, I very much dislike overcrowded chats, so this is a good way to keep the number of people on chat minimal. --Sandra the Porcupine"Either you do or you don't." 17:47, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's right to encourage editing sprees. We should slice the amount of edits required to use chat in half, and allow for a 'chat trial' of sorts so users can settle into the community easier. Your personal disdain for crowded chats is a nonsensical reason for opposing this, at least in my opinion. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 18:35, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going with lowering the amount of edits. True people who want to belong to the community will just edit and edit and reach the amount at their own will. Those who wish to really join the community, will actually go on editing sprees. We can't remove the rule ever. Thus it has been spoken of trolls, too. I'll just go with lowering the amount of edits... User:XxTinkaStarxX/Signature3 21:24, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
Personally, like everyone else I would consider the edit-rule be reduced to around 50. But we must know that a wiki is PURELY for editing, not just socialising. --Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am? What do you want? What do I do? 03:40, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
Supermorff > Yeah, I have to agree with Spyro. The entire contents of your post just make you look uninformed. Then again, you don't use the chat, so you aren't really a witness of these events.
Mystic Orb > No. It's not just "purely" for editing. That's our main priority, but the purpose of this site is not just for contributing to articles. The interface is designed to support a social experience as well. Perhaps your purpose here is editing, but do not generalize everyone into the same category. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 03:54, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting point raised here, I'm actually all for reducing the edit count, not scrapping it completely, but reducing it to say 50. The chat mods are there for most of what the rule is for anyway. --Psyche the Hedgehog 07:14, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
I love that two people criticised my post despite the fact that I was agreeing with their position. -- Supermorff (talk) 23:03, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
- I love it when users are sarcastic in a serious thread. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 23:15, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
- I love how a person is complaining about people calling the person out on their mistakes. GraveEclipse567 23:20, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
