I am trying to start up a "Suggestions Team" for articles posted to the Archive. The team will be made of site authors who have demonstrated proficiency in a particular area; e.g. grammer, syntax, flow/sentence structuring, concept, execution, dialogue, imagery, lore, etc. The goal of the team will be to make suggestions to maximize article quality, as far as permission is given by the original author.
Hopefully soon, I'll attempt to start compiling members, which is what this post is about. If you are interested, please familiarize yourself with the gist, quoted in the collapsibles:
Von directed me to post a suggestion here. Copy & pasting so slight text wall warning:
As you might know, I came to RPC from SCP, and I don’t think it’s controversial to say that our current content quality is nowhere near theirs. But competitively I want it to be so I am very invested in the RPC being a more impressive product on the whole. I am happy to be doing my small part; trying to write good articles, but (1) a year+ out I think we still have a unique opportunity to create something much improved here, and (2) there are feasible methods of action to this end that aren’t currently being enacted.
The general census both off site and in Discord is that the average RPC writer is somewhere between acceptable and relatively lacking, but that these authors would be open to getting suggestions/corrections on their published works.
I understand that this is somewhat the purview of the curation team; making sure articles have the required crit and that they don’t have glaring issues, like formatting or grammatical errors. But this is basic, lowest-common-denominator quality control (it doesn’t say anything of those criticisms’ quality), and this effort would focus more on intermediate/advanced writing ambitions.
What I’m envisioning and proposing is a team that is made up of post-publication critters that specialize in areas of writing they have demonstrated proficiency in — e.g. grammar, sentence/paragraph structure, storytelling/concept, lore, and css/visual style. In other words, we have a cast of reputable site creatives dedicated to improving the wiki on an article-by-article basis.
We would further differentiate ourselves from SCP this way. While they front-load the quality and grooming process (greenlights), we would back-load it. There is a potential for plasticity here that a wiki should have and that I think will avoid pitfalls of the SCP.
The team would nominate articles that could be improved, obtain permission regarding changes with the original authors, and enact those changes transparently with posted rationales. My poster child example and would-be initial attempt would be the current 002, if the author is agreeable. The metric for success would, of course, have to be the rating. If it worsens; the article is reverted.
This is similar but more structured to how the SCP was in its formative years; a more collaborative product that is not as motivated by and centered on individual accomplishment. Essentially a given article can be a collaborative effort by the community, but be filtered in a controlled and accountable manner via this team - whether it be a shoot-off of the curation team or just a more expanded function of it. The original author is left intact and the community helps elevate them to a more acceptable quality, as opposed to SCP which is the negative corollary of this procedure. It’s also demonstrative and so educational to the author, hopefully reducing the need for repeat procedures per author with time.
Think of it like the Mass Edit but take out the fiat deletions and spread it out over time; instead make it a standard, ongoing process.
There is a lot more to cover here but this is the gist that I’d like to propose.
Regarding the Suggestion Team again. Here’s a first draft charter with possible specifications, or more fodder for debate. Another wall of text warning:
1. Preserve the original work as much as possible, or to an extent determined by the original author. The goal is to fortify the author’s voice, not replace it.
2. Author permission is necessary for any and all changes. This applies retroactively too — if an author changes their minds after the fact then they are free to revert with total authority.
3. A deleted account relinquishes its ability to contest the suggestion(s) of the team, unless authorship can be reasonably demonstrated by one claiming ownership.
4. An article’s rating will not solely determine the team’s targeting. Rating is not synonymous with quality; a highly rated article may be improved (e.g. 002) and a low-rated article might not be improvable.
5. Lower-to-mid-rated articles represent the most likely candidates, the authors likely having more incentive to accept suggestions, and get a better-received article to their name out of it.
6. The success/permanency of an edit will be dependent upon subsequent reception, per the rating system, or the discretion of the original author.
7. An article is nominated to the team, which hears the case presented by the individual bringing it. The team considers the candidacy of the article. It is either approved or denied by debate and majority vote.
8. Those of the pool willing to participate for a given article are organized and given specific roles.
9. Suggested changes are posited to the team, then the original author, for approval or modification.
10. Any article decided upon with the original’s author’s blessing will get a comment explaining the involvement of the team and another/edit at the project’s completion.
11. All suggestions will be collapsed with corresponding rationales in the article’s comments.
I also want to re: @Garbear because these are good concerns.
The quality issue is undoubtedly with the rater-based system. There are just as bad of surviving articles at SCP as there are here and just as many relatively low-quality submissions there as here. The difference is more get through to the main page here and for longer; we aren’t as apt at deletions as SCP is.
If you look at SCP, older low-quality articles are being increasingly downvoted, deleted, or rewritten. In Roget’s words, this is because the site is getting better at appropriate deletions; nowadays it takes less time for bad articles to be rated appropriately and gotten rid of.
It is likely that given this site’s continued existence, our issue with our own articles might correct itself too. The point of the team’s operation is to accelerate this; why wait 5 years when we can anticipate it now?
The idea of refitting a variety of articles to the idiosyncrasies of a select few authors is a concern. This process takes place albeit more subtly in the alternative though, a process like greenlighting; articles are shaped by a brainstorming/crit team to fit a similar set of idiosyncrasies. The difference is that this occurs upstream to the articles there, as opposed to downstream here.
The effect of putting this process upstream at the more formative time of an article’s conception and development may mean a more dramatic conformity to a set of established expectations than downstream, where the idea is at least more independently realized. That independence is treated as a starting point here.
I can’t guarantee any outcome but I think this is a project that doesn’t have a lot to lose and could be a procedural chance at helping form our own way.
or see the discussion here:
https://discordapp.com/channels/477193389738295311/486343512204509184/669574329964691508
If you are interested, please use the application below and send me a PM. We'll try to organize a team (or teams, if there is enough participation) and get started on a pilot article, hopefully within the week.
What component(s) of an article do you feel like you would be good at revising or making suggestions for?
Please provide links to any crits of yours you'd like to showcase:
Would you be able to participate in Discord discussions regarding a given article?
Please list any articles that you have written or helped write for the RPC:
How would you feel if your article was nominated?
> **What component(s) of an article do you feel like you would be good at revising or making suggestions for?**
>>
>>
>>
> **Please provide links to any crits of yours you'd like to showcase:**
>>
>>
>>
> **Would you be able to participate in Discord discussions regarding a given article?**
>>
>>
>>
> **Please list any articles that you have written or helped write for the RPC:**
>>
>>
>>
> **How would you feel if your article was nominated?**
>>
>>
>>
>
Also please take this post as opportunity for further discussion, concerns, or questions.
