User:JediRogue/Identity classwork

I use GuildWiki alot for class Course website for some background stuff

Blog posts relating to Guild Wars and Guild Wiki

 * first blog post on subject of rules on gwiki
 * nature of gwiki as a community
 * online games as a third place
 * uh oh the beerocrat

for my midterm!
In class last week I asked you to identify an example of a group that had made rule changes in response to an event or individual. Using either that example, or another one of your choosing, discuss the development of rules in a specific online community or forum, and the relationship between identity and that system of rules. It’s very easy for me to discuss the development of rules in GuildWiki because I was one of the people involved in making the rules.

The first thing, I should explain is that these are not actually rules but “policies” or guidelines for users. These guidelines cover things from the correct formatting of articles, to policies that describe how to resolve conflicts and policies that expand on the rights of admins.

Changes to these policies are proposed in a variety of ways in a variety of places. Wikis have a talk namespace where users discuss content separate from the content itself. Discussions on formatting may arise from a user complaining on a talk page about how information on that page is presented. Discussions may also begin on the talk pages of users involved. Discussions also arise on the talk pages of the issue being discussed.

The way issues are discussed is common to all policies. But the course of the discussions varies based on the issue in question.

Formatting policies are very specific. They are all sub-policies of a large policy: Style and Formatting (http://www.guildwiki.org/GuildWiki:Style_and_formatting). It is designed to ensure that the information presented on the wiki is presented in a clear and uniform manner.

Discussions on formatting vary greatly. One long-standing issue was the format of armor screenshots in the armor galleries. The Elementalist Canthan armor page (http://www.guildwiki.org/Elementalist_Canthan_armor) is a great example of the standards we hold ourselves to in creating a gallery and how we have galleries of both poses.

Armor in Guild Wars is separate from function. Armor is also only available from crafters. Since it is expensive, players like to see what the armor will look like before they buy it. Our galleries are where people usually come to see it. We show the armor from all sides, on both genders, and a sample of what sections of the armor are dyable.

Early creators of the galleries felt that presenting the armor screenshots from an /attention posture would show the armor clearly and make sure that no parts would be harder to see because of the different stances of the classes and genders.

Many argued that showing the /attention posture was misleading because it does not show the armor the way it will actually hang on the characters in the game. This topic was discussed several times until it was eventually “Don't have any animations active, such as skill animations or emotes (including "posed" emotes).” And “You may notice a number of galleries that use the /attention emote. At one time this was the preferred pose for armor galleries, but it has since been decided that the pose is unacceptable for being too unnatural and for causing excessive clipping of the armor, especially the hands into the leggings for skirt/robe-style armors” was added to the policy. The second part was added to clarify so new contributors would understand why some of the content that existed didn’t match the policy and how the decision to abandon the /attention pose was made.

In researching this I found that many of the discussions included people pointing to a discussion on the talk page of a user. The practice of tying new discussions to existing ones is a simple means for preventing things from being repeated and keeping arguments in one place. http://www.guildwiki.org/User_talk:Bexor/1#Pose_for_Armor_Images

The interesting thing is the way the user became tied in to the policy. Many of the discussions about how to format the images took place on the talk pages of the contributors who were most active in building the galleries. New users turned to the old hands to inquire about the format and get tips on taking screenshots.

Many discussions begin in the user space. The talk page of an individual user is a public forum for things associated with them. Discussions of content and policy alike become tied to the talk pages of the users who are involved with them.

Discussions are frequently calm and reasonable. Seasoned users have learned that they can more easily influence things with calm logical arguments and know that simply yelling an opinion without arguments will get their comments dismissed. And this is true for any discussions on the wiki.

We have policies that guide how we interact with each other. The front of the wiki is the “main space” which holds that encyclopedic content but behind it is the “talk space”. All pages have talk pages where users discuss the content on that page. On GuildWiki, the talk space is what makes our community more than just an encyclopedia. It’s where the interaction occurs. And it is more than just discussions of the content (as it traditionally is on Wikipedia). It’s a place where we socialize and connect.

Policies that deal with user interaction therefore also exist.

One of the earliest policies I worked on started out in direct response to actions taken by some of the other users. Vandalism would occur and instead of simply dealing with the vandalism, some users would challenge the vandal, giving them attention. (http://www.guildwiki.org/User_talk:172.214.112.129)

Understanding that many vandals are acting because they desire such attention, I started to write up my thoughts on how we should be dealing with vandals. I didn’t initially expect it to become policy, and simply wrote it up in my userspace (a section of the wiki where I can put my own content).

It began as a simple rant about how we spend too much time dealing with vandals. It wasn’t written as a policy, just my own musings on the subject. However, people began to notice it and someone suggested it be moved to a public namespace (GuildWiki namespace holds policies and proposed policies) and rewritten as a policy.

It was then moved into public namespace and others began to add more to it. It was meant to be broad, covering things like trolling, returning vandals, and even where to post discussions on the bannings of vandals. My thoughts were developed maintaining the original spirit of the policy while clarifying and expanding them.

Points were discussed, making sure people agreed on the wording and the validity of points. This occurred on the talk page. This particular policy was not particularly controversial and was moved from proposed to accepted policy with ease.

Other times policies take longer to become accepted. Sometimes it takes a long time to hammer out the wording. Other times people argue over the need for the policy at all. And plenty of times policies are revisited as new users join the wiki or situations unfold that lead us to realize that a policy is lacking.

One interesting thing about QDV is that it specifically addresses one of the ways that policies are tied to user identity: “When reminding other users to QDV, please do so on their own talk page, instead of the (potential) vandal's talk page.” Whenever a user is perceived to be going against a policy, others may choose to point it out on the page where the offense occurred or on the talk page of the person they are speaking to. Where this discussion occurs is tied to the nature of the policy and how closely the discussion is to a discussion about the original topic and how much it’s really a separate issue to be taken up with the user. Because QDV is specifically about denying attention to vandals, any discussion of violations should be tied to the identity—and therefore talk page—of the offender.

As with most articles, and as observed by Shirky (see book c5) in regards to wiki participation, only a portion of the users participate. There is an imbalance with the amount of participation put in by all contributors. Some write great lengths discussing wording, interpretation and meaning, and others merely drop by to correct grammar.

Administrators are frequently among the highest contributors to policy discussions for a couple reasons: admins often have an in-depth understanding of the wiki as a whole. Admins often are the users who will be dealing with the policies, “enforcing” them.

However, many regular users contribute as well. Often policies are contributed to by the people who have a vested interest in them. The armor gallery section of the S&F guide was drafted by the users who worked on the galleries. The policy regarding use of signatures is largely contributed to by users who feel strongly about signatures. Etc.

However, when it comes to policy discussions, rarely are the voices of anonymous users heard. Anonymous users are users who have not logged in to contribute. Their contributions are logged under their IP addresses (in actual fact, because we have their IP address and we do not see the IP addresses of logged in users, anons are sometimes thought to have a lesser degree of anonymity). Such users generally contribute sporadically. They are generally less likely to become involved in GuildWiki internal affairs.

Some policies apply more to different groups. Some policies are policies that are directed towards the administrators. Policies such as “Administrate users not content” (AUNC) are meant to deter admins from using their status as administrator to make decisions on content. And on the other end of the spectrum, is “You Are Valuable” (YAV). YAV is meant to discourage new or casual users from self-deprecation. The goal of these policies is to prevent the identity of a contributor from influencing decisions about content.

Although policies are created by, followed by, and enforced by the users, many policies exist to separate the users from the content. “No Personal Attacks” (NPA) is meant to prevent content disputes from degenerating into personal fights between users. YAV, AUNC, and “Administrators” (ADMIN) are meant to remind everyone that all contributors have an equal say when it comes to content. From anonymous IPs to newly created accounts to old hands to admins.