Forum:Requests for splitting/one-small-wiki-favour
Hello! This is a simple request that I would like to propose. I would like to see our public Discord channel #one-small-wiki-favour be split into two. The reason for this is because sometimes the channel, particularly when both the RuneScape and Old School wikis are running tasks at the same time, can be quite quick-paced.
- This quick-pace might be a discouragement to newer editors if their message is either missed or not responded to immediately just because of the speed of messages.
- This change would allow us to follow suit for future wikis that might have this project, just as the PT-BR RuneScape wiki.
- Provides a little less ambiguity for newer editors who might join our Discord for the projects..Someone that might be working on an Old School task might get bombarded with messages all for the RuneScape tasks. This could be a deterrent for them to continue.
I don't think the organising channel would need to be split because there is less discussion in that channel.
Support - Seems like a good way to lessen confusion as to where to go for oswf stuff for new editors, best case scenario we see more activity by newer editors because they know where to go to ask coordinators for help, the only downside I can see is Cook will complain about getting pings in 2 channels instead of 1.04:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I suppose you could see Cook complaining as an upside, in which case idk if there's any downsides, maybe some other people can see some 04:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment - It's even beneficial during slower times when people come in and ask for/about tasks without being specific as to which game they're referring to. There will still be some people going to the wrong channels, but it should help alleviate some levels of unintended ambiguity.
I do see a downside to all of this, though: there are some tasks that can be completed regardless of game knowledge. A regular occurence is that OSW will have no active tasks, while RSW will have several, some of which require little to no game knowledge. And a bond is a bond, so having the two separated could deter people looking for tasks who only play OSRS, since there are no tasks for that wiki. Badassiel 05:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- To add to this, I'd love if anybody knows if any new editors have actually done this, I'm not very active in oswf channel since I don't coordinate or participate in oswf so I have no idea, Isobel said in discord somebody has requested a bond on the game they didn't edit for once at least
15:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've had one person ask for an RS bond after doing an OS task. I'm not sure how many people who do RSW tasks ask for OS bonds, but when I was asked for the RS bond it was uncommon enough that I asked to make sure that was even something we were willing to do. - Andmcadams (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment - On one hand, I agree. When both games have tasks it can get a bit clustered and confusing about who needs what, but when osrs has no tasks (which is often) there isn't really any point.13:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't you just explain the point? When both are active oswf channel is an unorganized mess, I don't really see why them sometimes not both having active tasks completely nullifies that point? 15:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Support - I can't see there's a benefit to keeping oswf for both wikis in the same channel. It gets very confusing for editors to work out which wiki conversations are relating to (and that's with it only being mainly RS3 discussion, if both wikis were running tasks simultaneously the problem would be much worse). There is very rarely cross-over in people working on tasks for both wikis so don't think that's really a consideration.
I also think that separating OSWF into wiki-specific channels would give us more chance to do some things that we can't do the the current system:
- We could make proper use of the "helper" role. The intention was always for each project to have a point of contact to oversee each task, check editors' work and add them to the list of people eligible to claim rewards; and then for any "helper" to be able to give out rewards to people on that list. In reality this distinction is never really made and people usually wait for the specific task's contact to be available to get their reward. We can't use the helper role it contains editors from both wikis who aren't all available to hand out prizes for both wikis.
- If we split the channel I'd like to also split to wiki-specific helper roles and make better use of them to ensure that people can claim their prizes quickly (shout out to the one patient guy on the opposite timezone to me who has been waiting patiently to be online at the same time as me for many days). The helper role is generally given to more trusted/experienced members of the community because it involves dealing with the money we get from Jagex and accessing the private channel which has documentation of the money etc. However there is no reason that, if the "helper" role comes into use properly for claiming prizes, that task contacts need to fulfil this sort of criteria. This would make it possible for newcomers with good project ideas to run them through OSWF.
- We could add roles for people who are interested in each wiki's oswf to be notified when tasks are updated (similar to the API and events opt-in roles). This would add a new way to attract new people to participate in OSWF/keep reminding them to come back. I can see this particularly being useful for OSRS as tasks are not run on a regular cycle, but would like to have it for rs3 as well. IsobelJ (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I do like the idea of splitting the helper role, and/or creating these notification roles for folks to receive a notification for new tasks that are released. -Legaia2Pla ᴛ · ʟ · ᴄ 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - If Oldschool OSWF was busier I'd support this, but currently, from what I can see, it'll end up becoming a dead channel.20:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why should the channel being inactive when we don't have tasks be a reason for not having the channel?
21:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because I don’t want a channel that’ll be active in short bursts. It’s the same reason we archive things like runefest channels until the time comes around. I’m very much against bloated Discord servers and ours is a pretty bad offender of it. If the tasks are as inconsistent as they are, I’d much rather do it the same the way we do channels such as runefest. 10:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Besides your personal dislike of dead channels on the Discord, do you have more objective reasoning for your opposition? Just curious if the bloat has caused issues for newer members to our Discord, etc. As for hiding the channel(s) when there are not any tasks being ran, I don't mind this, would help make it more apparent which wiki is running a task. Folks that wish to help/have an idea for a future task can always voice those in the regular -wiki channels. -Legaia2Pla ᴛ · ʟ · ᴄ 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Channel bloat is a turnoff for new users to any Discord. Take the official RS server for example. They have a gross amount of channels currently and its overwhelming. That's why they're currently reviewing it and looking to cut down on A LOT of the channels. I don't want to end up in a similar position. 15:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I'm fairly neutral on keeping them vs splitting them I think there are good arguments for both, but I do think that Isobel's idea of adding roles for notifications in discord when tasks change/are added is a great idea! She also has a good point about the helper role and paying people, but I'm not sure how we get people to use that more. Might be worth mentioning on the oswf page itself.09:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- One reason that the role might not be used more often is because it's currently set to non-mentionable. I'm not sure why, but I could understand it as generally someone would ping the specific task's coordinator(s) rather than folks not associated with the task. I wouldn't mind having it be mentionable; the folks that have it are pretty helpful and would be able to point folks in the right direction of who to contact for payment. -Legaia2Pla ᴛ · ʟ · ᴄ 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Support - James and Isobel hit a lot of points that I agree with. The most important is that having one channel causes quite a lot of confusion for organizers and editors. When I started as an editor via OSWF, it was unclear to me if #one-small-wiki-favour was the correct channel for OSW, and then people were confused as to which wiki I was editing when I asked questions. Running tasks now, people working on tasks for RSW will ask me to check their work or ask for help, which I can't provide because I don't keep up with the RSW tasks. In theory, people are supposed to ping the task coordinator, but in practice that doesn't happen and people just ping you if they see you checking someone else's work. At least I'm aware of who to ping when people ask about another OS OSWF, and in most cases I'm able to check that work myself. This has never been the case with RSW tasks for me. It's just a subpar user experience for both groups as is. I'd suggest that the channels (or at least OSW) be hidden/archived when no tasks are available, especially since OSW doesn't run tasks nearly as often as RSW. I do think that it is worth the channel bloat when tasks are actually running. - Andmcadams (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Support - As someone who runs tasks it can often get very confusing as to what tasks editors are asking about any for which wiki. This is also the case when we get the most common question - "What tasks can I help with?" I feel that splitting the channel will help the task coordinators to manage their tasks better and also help potential editors find what they are looking for and get the help they may require.12:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)