Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

page 1 of 212next »

Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

SoullessSingularity 06 Apr 2020 00:43

There was a recent discussion in SSSC today that had some disagreement on the following:

1. Under what circumstances, assuming any such circumstance exists, should staff be able to determine the degree in which an author may move an article under their purview from one slot to another slot? (Ie. changing the URL and title, not deleting and reposting in another slot.)

2. Under what circumstances, assuming any such circumstance exists, should a user be allowed to move custodianship to another user of an article they have custodianship of? (A gives custody of SCP-XXX to B and leaves the site. Can B give custody of SCP-XXX to C?)

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 00:58 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

taylor_itkin 06 Apr 2020 00:51

1. Under what circumstances, assuming any such circumstance exists, should staff be able to determine the degree in which an author may move an article under their purview from one slot to another slot? (Ie. changing the URL and title, not deleting and reposting in another slot.)

As long as they aren't overwriting another article and they're not actively fucking with the site, we have absolutely 0 purview on this. Does it make you a shitty person if you keep moving your article every day? Yeah, yeah it does. And I think we should only be able to take any action in this circumstance if it is constant and becomes disruptive to site function. Otherwise, just because it's shitty to continuously move your articles doesn't mean that the name of it is the content of the article itself, especially in the case of an SCP where it's literally a number. The ONLY circumstance I can see us having any kind of power over this is on article slots that are awarded from contests, such as 5000 or other similar slots.

2. Under what circumstances, assuming any such circumstance exists, should a user be allowed to move an article that they have custody over (meaning that they are not the original author).

This one is in a much larger grey area. Personally, I don't think that if you are not the original author of an article you should be allowed to move it. I hold this opinion from a moral standpoint but from a policy one I am not entirely married to it.

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

Modulum 06 Apr 2020 00:52

I think in the majority of situations slot moving is not an issue - if there's consent between both authors involved, if it only involves one author, or if you're moving to an empty slot, this is all okay and has been often done. However, I do see the issue with a slippery slope towards possible monetization of slots and the like, so I'd like to offer this proposal for policy: Article slots and/or URLs cannot be offered via a monetary or otherwise material incentive. In all other situations where this cannot be proven, I am fine with moving article slots. In the specific case which prompted this discussion, I think there is no issue.

I'm not going to comment on the custody situation at present (as it is a gray area that I don't feel qualified to make a judgement call on). However, my impression is that if you leave your articles to someone you know what you're getting into - you trust that person with your articles. As much as it privately discomforts me, under that arrangement an author would be allowed to do what they wished with articles they had custody over.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 00:57 by Modulum Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

N_Aepic_Fael 06 Apr 2020 00:53

Regarding point one, this doesn't feel like it should be under staff purview. There's nothing in the rules that strictly prohibit the simple action of doing so, and making an extra rule seems more trouble than it's worth. Concerns about backlinks aren't inherently a staff thing to take care of - that's something that a writer should worry about. Like Procy said, slot numbers aren't content - literally the only time I can think of this actually being the case is 173, and that's because of the implication that there were 172 other SCPs out there - something that is eschewed depending on whether someone headcanons skipping slots or not.

Regarding point two, custody implies that the original author already gave permission to the new owner whatever they want to do with the article. The only way I can see this as not being the case is regarding old anonymous articles imported from EditThis.

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

DrBleep 06 Apr 2020 01:05

My only point of contention with your statements is:

Concerns about backlinks aren't inherently a staff thing to take care of - that's something that a writer should worry about.

Staff are responsible for a large number of crosslinks as a part of the wikiwalk initiative. It is our responsibility to fix those links should they be broken by movement of articles. That said, said fix is relatively easy since we have a catalogue of every crosslink we made as part of that initiative. I think it's important to note that distinction though.

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

A Random Day 06 Apr 2020 00:56

1. This should be wholly outside staff purview.

2. If User A’s articles are passed into the custody of User B, and then User B leaves the site, then User A’s articles should be passed into staff custody. User B’s articles should be passed to User C’s custody if such a user was designated.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 01:18 by A Random Day Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

Elogee FishTruck 06 Apr 2020 01:05

Seconding this.

EDIT: Clarifying that I still second this with the recent update to the original post.

---

Mm Mm Good

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 01:29 by Elogee FishTruck Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

TheMightyMcB 06 Apr 2020 01:03

I am of the opinion that allowing the movement of articles between SCP slots is not worth the hassles that it generates, and as such, it shouldn't be allowed at all.

The aforementioned hassles include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The free movement of SCP slots has potential to alter the content of other authors' pages in that it may result in incorrect crosslinks. While this is also an issue that may be generated by our deletions rules, I still believe that there is merit in seeking to alleviate this problem, especially given that staff are responsible for an incredibly large volume of crosslinks in the SCP series via the Wikiwalk project.
2. The free movement of SCP slots has the potential to confuse causal viewers and audiences, specifically those in off-site communities like Reddit, DeviantArt, and YouTube. Old posts and content may contain references to SCPs that no longer exist under their original number.
3. The free movement of SCP slots has the potential to tacitly allow authors to move existing posted articles to a more preferable SCP slot after the deletion of an established work. I can think of at least one occasion where staff have told users that they are not allowed to do this (most recently being when The Mewts was deleted)

If there are explicit and tangible benefits to the free movement of SCP slots, I personally cannot think of anything more specific than the general freedom of an author over the work they have written and the number they choose to identify it with, a freedom that staff already curtail with the restrictions of the SCP series itself, such as limiting posts to extant series and not allowing two articles to have the same SCP number.

As for ownership transfer, I believe that ownership should be transferred first to respective co-authors, then to the specified curator (if any), and then to staff, in that order. Altering my opinion after having read the opinions of others. If a person entrusts the curation of their articles to a person, then said curator has absolute authority on what to do with the article. If that curator then leaves, the articles entrusted to their care should fall under staff remit, as the original author has not consented to a change in curation.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 01:11 by TheMightyMcB Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

gee0765 06 Apr 2020 01:12

This comment accurately represents my opinions on the first issue, with the additional point that I am also concerned about a possible slippery slope towards some form of monetisation of slots. Frankly, none of this is any more of an overreach than existing restrictions on usage of SCP slots.

As for the second point, I'm currently somewhat unsure. I may edit this comment if I come to a more coherent conclusion, but I don't know if entrusting someone with your articles necessarily means you trust whoever they choose to give control of their articles to, especially if a situation with multiple steps of this arises (i.e the example in the main post, but C gives custody to user D, who gives custody to user E etc.)

Edit: On further thinking, my opinion on point two is essentially identical to Modern_Erasmus' below.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 01:14 by gee0765 Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

Modern_Erasmus 06 Apr 2020 01:09

I have no strong opinions on the first point, aside from feeling that slot transfers are a massive pain in the ass that exclusively occur for petty reasons and have zero benefit. Despite that, I’m not sure staff should legislate it or not.

The second point is more clear cut and was part of this discussion at my request: should custodianship be automatically transferred indirectly? (Eg if author A gives custodianship to author B and author B gives custodianship of their stuff to author C, does/should C have custodianship of A’s stuff?)

As rewrite Captain, I recommend the answer to this new grey area be a resounding no. Custodianship is between an author and another user specifically earmarked by them, and does not include a future third party that the original author may not have known or approved of. In lieu of the original author contacting to approve the new custodian or explicitly saying in their original custodianship declaration that it applies to future individuals who may have custodianship of their custodian’s works, I strongly suggest that custodianships not indirectly transfer.

I feel that this both fits with the letter and spirit of our current policy on the subject, and am comfortable fiating it as such if there are no objections. If there are, I’m happy to hold a vote on the subject at a later date.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 01:18 by Modern_Erasmus Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

Yossipossi 06 Apr 2020 01:18

I was going to write something longer here, but I believe that I can simply summarize my point:

Staff should not interfere with how authors chose to position their articles within the series, since slots are simply that: slots. We have no right to police these. Nonetheless it is staff's right to help ensure that users, who may not be aware of the transfer, are aware of the transfer. I am of the opinion that if a work that has been on the wiki for a month or longer and two people decided to pull a switch-a-roo, the author should be required to point out that there was a different article in the slot beforehand, and point out where it went to. The same applies to staff-deleted articles (think 2510), though pointing out it was deleted instead of moved.

Otherwise, staff should not interfere with article transfers. We're here to help, not police.

Regarding the second point: I believe that B should be able to give custodianship to C if A states that they allow it. I'm not 100% settled on what my opinion is regarding if A does not state anything, but since M_E pointed out to me that usually author rights are opt-in only, it seems to be that if A did not explicitly state their permission, it would not be allowed.

Those are my two cents.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 01:24 by Yossipossi Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

aismallard 06 Apr 2020 01:29

1. Determining and renaming a page's URL is covered by author autonomy, provided it is done with respect towards existing policies (e.g. not posting out of range, posting outside of _default). If users are being spammy or disruptive with their changes, that is a separate matter.

2. When an author chooses a custodian for their articles, they are asking another user who they trust to take ownership and make decisions about situations the original author could not have forseen. In my view, this includes determining who would serve as an acceptable substitute custodian if they are no longer able to. If the original author does not wish for indirect custodianship to exist, they may specify as much.

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

cybersqyd 06 Apr 2020 14:51

I find myself generally agreeing with aismallard here on both points.

Granting someone custodianship of your articles implies you trust their judgements on what to do with them in future, which in turn means the custodian should have the original authors trust to e.g, transfer the custodianship to other folk or delete the article if it ages badly.

I'm somewhat hesitant to have multiple ways of handling custodianship based on whether the original author opts of out of it being transferable though, as it makes figuring out what should happen with an article more complex both for staff and the custodian; but I don't necessarily hard disagree on that point.

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

ProcyonLotor 06 Apr 2020 03:29

I have a LOT to say but perhaps it is best I not say it and keep it simple.

1. This is author autonomy. Pure and simple. This is not something we're allowed to mess with unless far better reasons are presented. I do not believe they will be. If an author can delete their work at their own choosing, there is absolutely no reason they should not be allowed to move it, and I've not seen any argument addressing that that isn't facially ridiculous.

2. As I see it, a custodian assumes ALL rights to an article, up to and including deletion without consultation. Authors should not choose someone who they feel will be irresponsible with their work. It is not incumbent on staff to monitor an author's choice of custodian, be it good or poor.

I would also like to sincerely recommend that all those who are in favor of a policy on point 1 here have a long and honest think about what they feel staff's duties and responsibilities to our userbase are, and how they can justify this overreach¹ in light of those.

Footnotes

1. Specifically regarding Point 1, while I disagree anything needs to be done regarding Point 2 I am happy to say it is a very fair question.

Last edited on 06 Apr 2020 03:39 by ProcyonLotor Show more

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

Croquembouche 06 Apr 2020 13:55

Agreeing with this re: article movement. I have a lot of opinions here but they are not relevant to and should not inform staff policy.

Re: Custodianship and Staff purview over article movement

TheMightyMcB 06 Apr 2020 20:50

Given that staff have deemed it fit to introduce crosslinks into articles, it is, at the very least, worth discussing the merits of mitigating a practice that has real potential to make official staff edits to articles make no sense.

Just because that hasn't happened yet as far as we know does not mean it is none of our concern, and I think at least opening a discussion on the matter is warranted.

page 1 of 212next »