[DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

Summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventual_consistency

[DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

OptimisticLucio 05 Jul 2022 12:17

Mirror mirror on the wall

---

I want to talk about a common mindset that seems to rear its head in most of our processes, both public-facing and not: The idea that it is imperative to have nothing bad ever happen.

At first you might go "of course we wouldn't want bad things to happen, what's the issue?" but that's not quite what I'm referring to. The issue is the thought process that if nothing bad ever happens, it is preferable to any other system where something bad may happen. For example: Our greenlighting system is designed to ensure no bad articles hit the critique threads. Our joining process, in particular the passcode, is designed to ensure no users who join have skimmed the rule pages. Sticking on IRC was done, among other reasons, due to IRC having a higher bar of entry (seriously). All of these processes ensure something "wrong" never happens in our systems.

Unfortunately, all of this comes at a price: less good stuff happens. Just because something isn't bad it doesn't mean it is good, and designing our systems around loss prevention makes us forget to use our systems to improve the user's enjoyment of the site. We kept the sandbox under lock and key because of one troll, while sacrificing the usability of the sandbox for hundreds of users. We've stayed on IRC to not have more annoying users on the official platforms, and made it so that no one wants to use our official chat platform other than a handful of users. We've made dozens of guides "required reading," leading to new users feeling like the site is impossible to join and incredibly elitist.

We need to drop this mindset wholeheartedly, and start using systems that allow bad situations to happen, maybe even a lot of them, if they give our userbase a net gain.

This mentality of "take risks if it'll help overall" can be seen everywhere: in system programming (as linked in the thread description), in competitive games (such as fighting games or magic the gathering), and almost anywhere else that deals with risk/reward. There are of course certain areas where avoiding any bad situation is preferable, but that's only when any loss is so great it cannot be afforded. I do not believe having a coldpost reach -10 is critical to the site's functioning to such a degree we have 30 preemptive systems to avoid such an occasion.

This thread is here to discuss my post here, see what people think, and hopefully move onward with a stronger idea of what we want to see from our site.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

(account deleted) 05 Jul 2022 13:55

We've made dozens of guides "required reading," leading to new users feeling like the site is impossible to join and incredibly elitist.

A lot of these guides are outdated and I don't think much has been done about it. "How to Write an SCP" is the best example of this. This guide was created 11 years ago and it hasn't evolved in proportion to the articles' evolution, it's been stuck in a 2010-2013 mentality that tells a 2022 user how to write a Series II article that doesn't have anything to do with a Series V article.

These guides need to stay there to teach a new user how to do the most basic things in the Wiki without breaking the rules, but they need to teach an user how to do these things right. And some guides and essays aren't exactly doing that, while others are. By the other hand, I think it is an user's responsibility to read the most basic guides at least. And some users just don't do that.

This is the same reason there's a lot of backlash and discomfort when it comes to the greenlighting system. A lot of users believe the greenlighting system is obligatory to write an SCP, when it's not. A lot of these issues and the lack of comfort are caused because these users are being misinformed as to how to do many things right.

I know that if all new users knew the greenlighting system isn't obligatory, they wouldn't use it that often. But at least that would give them much more confidence and hope, and they would feel much more comfortable in the Wiki. They wouldn't feel forced to go through a system that takes away their motivation.

---

That being said, I think we should begin changing our mindset and strive to make things better, even if they mean risking something.

There's things we should risk removing or easing. The age limit, much like other people have said, should be lowered to 16 years instead of 18. I know 2 cases of staff members that have been kicked for being underage. Like, think about it. Out of the 100 members there are in staff (By that time there were less), 2 are underage, and there could be even more without even knowing so.

And what about the userbase? Approximately 59.000 users have joined the Wiki since it was created. A lot of these people could perfectly be breaking the age rule and lying about their age just to be a part of it, just to write and chat with other people. And what if some of these people are sexually harassed? They would need to reveal their real age in exchange of being banned or simply shut up about it.

Risking the current age threshold would make the Wiki much more open to a bigger userbase, knowing that a lot of the off-site fanbase is comprised by people between the ages of 15 and 18. This would make a lot of people much more open and reliable, and a lot of people just can't stagnate themselves on a feeling of insecurity and unreliability.

---

We need to stop being scared of change. I know sometimes we may think changing stuff can have unexpected results that may or may not contribute for the better, but we need to give another shot. Echoing this line:

We kept the sandbox under lock and key because of one troll, while sacrificing the usability of the sandbox for hundreds of users.

Just because something happens, we can't sacrifice a thousand of chances; we need to keep going and improving. By the end of the day, we'll already have dealt with our problems.

Last edited on 05 Jul 2022 13:59 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

alexpine 06 Jul 2022 23:21

On age - to quote MrAnakinSpecter from the Age Unraising thread about a year back -

if someone comes out and says "hey, guys, actually, I'm 13!" And if they are actually thirteen, are a contributor to the site, mature in chat/on the forums, and nobody ever figures out they were lying, was there really ever a problem?

This thread really isn't about age unraising, though.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

(account deleted) 07 Jul 2022 00:37

Exactly.

People are just too latched onto the idea that underage users are immature and that they can't behave like an adult (Thus worsening the community's atmosphere), which I won't digress with.

But looking at a brighter side, a 16 year old teenager isn't the same as a 13 year old kid. A 16y old is far more similar to a 18y old.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

Pedantique 05 Jul 2022 13:59

I don't think that's the intent of the greenlight system, but that's a different matter.

Accepting more risks is a reasonable approach to any system, but any benefits are inherently going to be offset by an increased number of fires to put out. Considering the trouble staff has had in the past with keeping people active and engaged, this seems likely to overwhelm people (even if the most bureaucratic systems are scaled back or removed). That seems like the problem you need to solve first and foremost before you open the floodgates in any given area of activity.

And please, for the love of god, keep the age limit at 18.

Last edited on 05 Jul 2022 14:00 by Pedantique Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

Zyn 06 Jul 2022 07:41

I don't think that's the intent of the greenlight system

Confirming this, and providing some context if that's alright:

The staff discussion regarding the initial greenlight proposal is here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-10622425/forum-crit-policy-two-tweaks

Some of the driving factors behind introducing the greenlighting process included:

• reviewers feeling increasingly demotivated and burnt out from constantly reviewing drafts that needed significant conceptual reworking
• reviewers being ignored when they told authors to get their concepts reviewed before continuing to revise a draft
• authors spending hours working on drafts that ultimately needed to be rewritten because the core idea needed overhauling first
• authors not being aware that the Ideas Critique forum was present and could/should be used

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

UraniumEmpire 09 Jul 2022 00:39

Seconding all of this, and especially the call to keep the age limit at 18.

---

… and I'm not Robert Frost.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Changing Our Mindset

Scorpion451 06 Jul 2022 12:41

We need to drop this mindset wholeheartedly, and start using systems that allow bad situations to happen, maybe even a lot of them, if they give our userbase a net gain.

This is where the whole argument falls apart- these safeguards and hurdles have been put in place over the years to prevent net loss situations after such situations have happened.

For instance, the majority of ideas not getting greenlit in the ideas forum is evidence of the system working. Speaking as a person who creates stuff for a living and enjoys teaching others, this lesson is one of the hardest to teach people: creativity is like mining; finding one good idea requires you to dig through and discard mountains of bad ones, and even gems tend to look like funny colored rocks when you first dig them out.

Last edited on 06 Jul 2022 15:19 by Scorpion451 Show more