MAST ARCing

Summary:

A small proposal regarding archiving non-fiction pages

page 1 of 212next »

MAST ARCing

Riemann 17 Jan 2021 21:40

Currently there is no well defined process for ARCing articles, nor for what the ARC designation actually is.

When we think of ARC, we think of fiction - tales and SCPs that are preserved for their significance to other articles.

The ARC process exempts articles from deletion and marks them with a special designation. But take a gander at the list of archived pages:

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/system:page-tags/tag/archived#pages

You'll notice something peculiar - there are a lot of non-fiction pages there. Old guides, essays, hubs, the like.

Historically, the process of ARCing has covered a range as broad as it is undefined - in the distant past, it had been done similarly to deletion votes or admin fiat. More recently, it has been done with a staff wide vote.

But - this proposal is not concerned with the tales and SCPs that have been ARC'd. While I do believe that these should be discussed, here we discuss those non-fiction pages.

MAST's mandate is to maintain these pages, and in light of a lack of guidelines for archiving in general, I propose that:

We differentiate ARCing fiction and non-fiction pages. We leave ARC to designate fiction pages, and a new category, archived, for non-fiction pages.

The archive process (defined by the removal of the rating module and movement to the archived: category for a non-fiction page) for those pages tagged with admin, guide, and essay be handled by the MAST Team in the following process:

In the case of an updated guide or essay being approved via an 05 vote, the previous version will automatically be archived.

Should something else in this category (admin, guide, or essay) need to be archived for any other reason, the MAST captain must approve the archiving.

Any staff OS+ may make an objection to the archiving by contacting the MAST captain. This objection will be discussed by the relevant parties before responding to the staff member who has submitted the objection.

In the case of an update guide or essay going up for an O5 vote, we should take care to make note that the previous version will be archived as part of the approval process.

This discussion thread is open to all OS+ and JS with Captain's approval

Edit: After discussion with TSATPWTCOTTTADC, I've elected to changing some of the language on this. I am suggesting that we have "ARC" only refer to fiction pages that were archived, whereas non-fiction pages that are archived will be referred to as "archived". This change has been propagated to existing non-fiction pages on the site, and hopefully should clear up some language going forwards.

ARC: fiction pages only.

Archive: non-fiction pages only.

Edit 2: making it clearer what the ARC process is at the moment of writing this proposal.

Last edited on 19 Jan 2021 20:41 by Riemann Show more

Re: MAST ARCing

UraniumEmpire 17 Jan 2021 21:53

I'm of the opinion that no fictional articles should be -ARC'd ever again. I'm firmly against any policy that allows such a thing, and will vote against any such proposal regardless of anything else.

I'm also strongly against the continued maintenance of non guide/essay/admin -ARCs, but not to the extent that I'll necessarily vote no if we decide to keep them.

---

… and I'm not Robert Frost.

Re: MAST ARCing

Riemann 17 Jan 2021 21:59

yeah - let me be clear, this policy only covers non-fiction articles specifically. We're leaving the fiction ARC discussion till further down the line.

Re: MAST ARCing

UraniumEmpire 19 Jan 2021 18:12

In that, case, I have little problem with the proposal, except, as gee0765, I don't think they should have their rating module removed. Historically, the rating module has only ever been buried on pages that faced significant negative feedback from enough users (e.g. Decomm, Protected), wherein the only way to ensure they stuck around was through removing the module.

---

… and I'm not Robert Frost.

Re: MAST ARCing

gee0765 17 Jan 2021 23:14

I disagree with the removal of the rating module here. I understand the necessity of some form of archival for guides which have become obsolete, but removing the ability to vote on them and giving them the (somewhat controversial) ARC designation seems like it doesn't really solve any problems that the already-existing warning at the top stating the guide is outdated does.

Beyond my issues with the specifics of the archival, I have a few questions about the process by which a page is archived:

• When the MAST captain is choosing to archive something, will this be publicised before it happens (I'm assuming so, or no staff would be able to object). And would this be on 05, or in staffchat? (I think I prefer the former.)
• How long would staff be told in advance before a page is archived?
• Would there be any way to reverse an archival, or is the assumption that any staff who object mention this before the archival happens?

Re: MAST ARCing

Riemann 18 Jan 2021 15:23

This is supposed to be a reply to gee0765 :(

So - made some edits for a language thing to distinguish the process between fiction and non-fiction pages.

I disagree with the removal of the rating module here. I understand the necessity of some form of archival for guides which have become obsolete, but removing the ability to vote on them and giving them the (somewhat controversial) ARC designation seems like it doesn't really solve any problems that the already-existing warning at the top stating the guide is outdated does.

I think this is fair, but on the other hands, guides (and to a much smaller extent essays) never lived or died by the rating in the same way that fiction articles did. While archiving them does remove the rating module, I think it's worth remembering two things:

1. Unlike ARC-ing, this will end up being a voluntary action made by the MAST team to change things they feel are in need of update. This does stand in pretty sharp contrast to ARC-ing, which has been inconsistent and used for articles that are clearly in danger of being deleted.

2. I don't think the rating matters here, honestly? I don't expect the outdated guides to get any traffic. So in the case of this incredibly narrow set of criteria, I would imagine the difference between having this rating module and not is a handful of votes.

Onto the specific concerns:

The fiat archival exists to cover any fringe cases that I couldn't think of here. My idea was that there would be relatively little announcement from the MAST captain, but there'd be no upper limit on when staff got to voice their objection to an archival. The MAST captain would be able to reverse this fiat archival as easily as it was archived. I think this combination of "no announcement"+"easy de-archive" functions similarly to a long announcement time and a difficult de-archive process.

I don't particularly think this option will ever be used, but given its very narrow scope I feel it an appropriate tool just in case we have to archive thread or the like.

Last edited on 18 Jan 2021 15:24 by Riemann Show more

Re: MAST ARCing

gee0765 18 Jan 2021 16:00

I think this combination of "no announcement"+"easy de-archive" functions similarly to a long announcement time and a difficult de-archive process.

This probably actually functions even better than a long announcement time. It's always good if things like this are easily reversible.

As far as the rating modules are concerned, I think we're arguing from different viewpoints. I personally don't think a rating module should be removed unless there are clear and apparent massive benefits from its removal, not just evidence that it won't necessarily be a bad thing. The guides are unlikely to receive significant traffic, but I don't see what is gained from making it impossible to vote on them and making them immune to deletion.

Re: MAST ARCing

aismallard 20 Jan 2021 00:24

I guess my question is, what's the benefit in having them be vote-able? I thought archive: was just a place for old pages to rest, and thus that disabling voting on the category itself would make sense. If they fall below -10 do we delete it? Does it really affect anything?

Re: MAST ARCing

gee0765 20 Jan 2021 01:32

I guess my question is, what's the benefit in having them be vote-able?

Since the vast majority of pages on the wiki are votable, it makes more sense to me that removing this ability is what should have to be justified, not retaining it. Not removing it doesn't need additional justification beyond it being what every other page does, even including archived fiction.

If they fall below -10 do we delete it?

To me, yes, ideally. I just don't see why outdated guides are historically significant to the point where we need to disable voting and exempt them from deletion, while similarly old pages that are still used do not get these protections.

ETA: I realise none of my comments make it very clear that I think the archival is unnecessary, my suggestions for how it is done are assuming it's something that's definitely happening.

Last edited on 22 Jan 2021 00:55 by gee0765 Show more

Re: MAST ARCing

MalyceGraves 18 Jan 2021 15:29

I am generally in support of archiving outdated guides in an easier fashion. As the engine rolls forward on updating some of the hilariously out-of-date guides on the wiki, having to do a staff-wide vote to both accept the NEW guide AND archive the old on every single one seems counter-intuitive and unnecessarily slow.

However, having some form of back-check with requiring the MAST captain to sign of off on each archiving ameliorates my concern that things will just get archived willy-nilly.

So, support. I have no particular opinion on the rating module. Archiving removes the item in question from the deletion process, and most staff-purview things are immune from deletion already. This changes little overall aside from being passive upvote generation for the author.

EDIT: added clarity.

Last edited on 18 Jan 2021 15:50 by MalyceGraves Show more

Re: MAST ARCing

taylor_itkin 19 Jan 2021 14:35

These are my sentiments as well.

Re: MAST ARCing

The Pighead 19 Jan 2021 08:03

While I have my own opinions about ARCing fiction works, I will not express them here, it will be for another discussion at another time.

Anyway, I will personally gladfully accept everything that can help doing the things easier and because this proposition is a part of this "everything", of course, I'm all for it! I would personally be for the removal of the rating module, simply because a rating module on outdated things seems pretty unnecessary to me. Like, when you archive a page, I don't think rating matters anymore.

Overall, support.

Re: MAST ARCing

Nagiros 19 Jan 2021 15:51

As the person who plotted implementation for the archived: category I support. This folds well into MAST's responsibilities and is easily reversible if there's some kind of error.

I was also involved in the decision to disable ratings on archived: (idea originally proposed by aismallard by the looks of it) and was in support, but a recent Tech conversation about un-rating the fragment: category has changed my mind a bit. I would like for archived: to be ratable; assuming that pages exempt from the deletion process should be automatically stripped of ratings seems arbitrary and needless.

Re: MAST ARCing

Riemann 19 Jan 2021 19:41

There seems to be some good amount of support for not removing the rating module - I want to ask those who support keeping the rating module, do you also support exempting these archived articles from deletion?

Do we want to:

1. Exempt the articles from deletion but keep the rating module visible

or

2. Simply move these articles to a new category and not exempt them from deletion at all

The second option doesn't really need a policy proposal and can be done now. I'm hoping to get some clarity on this front!

Re: MAST ARCing

gee0765 19 Jan 2021 19:58

Ideally 2. I'm under the impression that this is intended to be a substantially different process to -ARCing fiction, and there's no real arguments in favour of exempting these pages from deletion. None are under any real threat of being deleted, and if they ever are, it would only be because that's what the community wants.

Re: MAST ARCing

Nagiros 19 Jan 2021 21:26

I would prefer the first option but I would be amenable to the second — I do not anticipate any of these pages facing deletion in the near future, and they were archived not to save them from deletion but to be superseded by another page.

The reason I would prefer the first is because the spirit of archival is to preserve historical pages (we don't need to keep old versions of guides, really, but we've chosen to) and putting them in a position where they could be deleted seems to run contrary to that spirit.

Re: MAST ARCing

OCuin 19 Jan 2021 20:45

Overall support - this is a good way to handle archiving guides, essays, and other non-fiction articles where they are being replaced or have been otherwise made redundant.

In terms of the rating module, I'd also rather they were not removed, and that the articles not be exempted from deletion. I see no benefit to it, and like Gee I think the reasoning behind the removal of the rating module and exemption from deletion should be clear and apparent benefits, rather than simply a lack of downsides. It's not a particularly major deal to me given the generally small scope of this proposal and the lack of traffic these pages will receive, but similarly, none are under any real threat of deletion and if they were it would be the result of the community's decision like Gee said.

Re: MAST ARCing

TheMightyMcB 19 Jan 2021 21:42

Definitely supporting the simple -ARC process coupled with a simple repeal process. As Malyce said, needing to have multiple 05 threads for rewriting the same guide is just essentially tying up my job in needless red tape for a symbolic rubber stamp from the rest of staff.

As for the rating module, the whole point of archiving is to preserve old and outdated pages. It should logically follow that things we archive probably shouldn't be deleted after we archive them. That would kind of defeat the entire purpose of archiving them. If we have a simple process to de-ARC something, I see no issues with removing the rating module to make -ARC'd articles ineligible for deletion.

Re: MAST ARCing

WhiteGuard 19 Jan 2021 23:51

I do not have much to add other than I second this sentiment. I like the current proposal, and I see value in removing the rating modules. If something is archived, then there is no point in voting on it further. If it is decided later that it should not be protected by the archived status, then we can simply de-archive it and allow it to meet the standard deletion procedure if things come to that. Maintaining the module for a page we wish to keep, especially for a page that may end up in deletion range, would confuse the userbase as to why we are not removing it.

page 1 of 212next »