I had this idea last night, and it got positive reception, so I'm gonna post it here for more in-depth discussion.
To start, here are some logs of when I first had the idea and its discussion in Area 14 and in the staff chat.
http://pastebin.com/Cm3GBTUc In Area 14
http://pastebin.com/GFjBMpW4 In Staff chat
Basically, what I'm proposing is the following: Upon creation of a page or at any time thereafter, the author of an article can click a button on the article and add up to 3 or 4 members as "advisors", or some other moniker. This is the author's way of saying that these people, while short of being considered an author of the article, contributed significantly to its creation in some manner, and deserve formal recognition.
This would, of course, be part of the new site if it were done. I didn't want to lump it in with Clef's proposal or any of that shit since it's not vital to anything proposed there, and it could stand alone if none of those changes passed.
Some features that I would want to see, but are up for debate:
- If we choose to go with either, being listed as an advisor or listing someone as an advisor will not affect Karma, nor will it affect Contributor status.
- This feature will be listed in one or more of the required reading guides, along with guidelines indicating how it should and should not be granted:
- Advisor status should be granted only to someone who contributed significantly to the writing or content of an article.
- Listing someone as an advisor is something that is fully the decision of the author(s). It is considered impolite to ask someone for advisor status.
- Granting advisor status is not to be done in exchange for anything other than significant contribution towards an article, much in the way that voting should only be done on a work's merits and flaws. "Trading" advisor status is not accepted.
- Each member's site profile will contain, along with whatever other information is there, the articles that they are contributors on, along with who they have listed as advisors on their work.
Here are some advantages that I think this feature would give us:
- Users will be able to thank people who helped them with an article in a tangible manner. Likewise, significant contributions that fall short of full authorship will be tangibly recognized. It'll feel nice for all parties involved, if only because it'll grow their E-Peens.
- By looking at someone's profile, one can get a better picture of their contributions to the site. For example, Echo helps a lot of people with stuff, but has relatively few articles to his own credit, mostly in the form of collaborations. Our current means of tracking contributions does not, in my opinion, always fully capture a person's value and contributions to the community.
- Along those lines, talent scouting. This will lower the odds that really helpful people will fall through the cracks without getting considered. Really, anything that helps us accurately judge someone's contributions the site can only help with the vetting process.
- Encouraging good feedback via positive reinforcement. Really, who wouldn't try harder and more often with feedback knowing that, if it's successful, they might get their name on it? If people feel their efforts are appreciated and acknowledged, they'll try harder.
Some problems there might be:
- Recognition is entirely up to the author, meaning that one author might list people for relatively minor contributions, while another author might not list anyone as advisors. I don't see much in the way of helping this beyond general guidelines, so if it's a dealbreaker, it's a dealbreaker.
- Technical difficulties. I don't know what, if any, there will be in doing this. I'll want Mackenzie's input here; if it's not doable or would be more work than it's worth, then it won't happen.
- Other things that people smarter than me will think of.
So, what thoughts do people have on this idea?
if your reading this your gay
