Forum:Bringing Back the Usergroups: Difference between revisions

#{{Neutral}} - I'm staying out of this one for now. Both sides make good points.--[[File:Emblem 1.jpg|20px]][[User:Rusty-112|<span style="background:blue; font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:white;">''' Rusty '''</span>]][[User talk:Rusty-112|<span style="background:blue; font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:red;">''' - '''</span>]][[UserWiki:Rusty-112|<span style="background:blue; font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:white;">''' 112 '''</span>]] 19:46, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

#{{Oppose}} - As I may have mentioned before, usergroups are ''not'' the only way to help improve articles. As it may be, usergroups are also not the ideal solution, at least for this wiki. The general problem in having a usergroup is the difficulty of maintaining it. I know the feeling because I was once a group leader myself; and trust me, the idea isn't as easy and "cool" as it looked. The problem with our usergroups, as CT said, is the lack of interest. Along with that comes another issue: the '''lack of "permanent residents" to our wiki'''. Yes, by this, I mean editors who stay here to edit for more than just a while. That number has been decreasing a lot recently, notably for me, since the end of last summer (IIRC). Some have left, while others are not as active as they used to be. We have others taking their place, but the number of such editors is still not as it used to be. Most of our editors are users who may stay for some time, make good/bad edits and then leave. Its a cycle, one that's always been happening, and is what makes up at least half of the wiki's activity if not more (and that's not an exaggeration). The problem with this is that you can't make up a usergroup with hit-and-run users. You need a sufficient number of long-term editors, and for 4 individual usergroups, its not easy. Editors can be Lone Wolves, or work with their colleagues as a team. You don't require a usergroup for that. This is what happens in other wikis that may have less activity than us, but are several times bigger (I'd use the [http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/EverQuest_2_Wiki:Main_Page Ever Quest 2] wiki as an example). That's why you don't tend to see usergroups or something similar to that on such wikis. Their editors know how, what and when to edit. We need to carry out the same. We have articles that we need to improve for the next [[Halopedia:Featured Article|FA]]; usergroups are not going to help if there's a lack of interest or editors. For all these reasons I've stated, I feel what the others opposing above me feel: that they will eventually have the same fate. To sum all this up, we're a wiki. You can add, remove or replace a factor, but you're always going to have problems, because you can't totally control what's going on. You have another 200 to or users who also have free access to editing, so the contents are always changing. You can only do your bit of editing to make improvements of your own, but a usergroup isn't going to exercise much difference in control. - [[File:Major.png|20px]] [[User:Nicmavr|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod; font-weight:bold; font-family:Arial">Nìcmávr</span>]] ^{<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">(</span>[[User Talk:Nicmavr|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod; font-weight:bold">Tálk</span>]]<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">)</span>} 06:48, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

:I'm with Jugus on this one. In my opinion, a link in the sitenotice to something like a notice board would suffice. - [[File:Major.png|20px]] [[User:Nicmavr|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod; font-weight:bold; font-family:Arial">Nìcmávr</span>]] ^{<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">(</span>[[User Talk:Nicmavr|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod; font-weight:bold">Tálk</span>]]<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">)</span>} 16:36, June 16, 2010 (UTC)