Create/Change rewriting rules?

Create/Change rewriting rules?

Drewbear 18 Sep 2012 13:11

I'm splitting off a tangent in the deletion threshold thread, that started here.

I wasn't able to find anything written down in the rules about rewrites, which have always been kind of an informal thing. As rewrites become slightly more common, I feel that it would be in the best interest of the site to make an explicit set of rules that we can point to if someone wants to do a rewrite. Something along the lines of:

1) Rewrites require permission from the author. They might just want to see the thing fail, they might be working on a rewrite themselves, they might have given rewrite permission to someone else. You don't know without asking. If you can't get permission from the original author within a reasonable amount of time, or if the original author is no longer active on the site, you have to get permission from a member of Staff. We recommend that you make this request in the comments of the article in question.
2) Rewrites require attribution to the original author. If you post the rewrite in a "clean" slot, you ABSOLUTELY MUST post a comment on the rewrite explaining that it's a rewrite and state who the author of the original article was. This is a CYA under Creative Commons, and will be enforced.
3) Rewrites are subject to the same voting process as the original article. What this means is that people are free to re-downvote the rewrite, if they don't like it for the same reason they didn't like the original. This seems obvious, but people have been butthurt before because they thought that a rewrite "deserved" to get a better response than the original.

Thoughts?

Edit: Gah, this thread should probably be over in one of the categories in the SCP WIKI section. Sorry 'bout that.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Last edited on 18 Sep 2012 13:15 by Drewbear Show more

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

RhettSarlin 18 Sep 2012 13:20

I approve, though I think it should possibly be trimmed down a little.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

Drewbear 18 Sep 2012 13:34

I have no problem with rewording or tightening the language up. I was just tossing it up off the top of my head.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

TroyL 18 Sep 2012 14:50

Include something like a time limit, but not a hard one. Something like:

Rewrites will, at the time of permission, be given a specific time limit for completion. If an article is up for deletion at the time of the request (which is often the case), it will not be deleted until that time limit has expired. If the article is getting to the point where deletion is becoming a real possibility, then a deletion vote will not be started until this time has passed. Extensions are granted rarely, so use this time appropriately.

Note on "Why Not A Hard Limit": I normally give people until the approaching weekend (if before Wednesday) or the Wednesday of next week (if after Wednesday), adjusting it for people who have real life issues they bring up, etc. I don't really like "You've got a week, bitch. Get on it." sorts of rules for things like this, since article length, extension of revision, etc. are all factors that must be considered.

Additionally, I'd like to see it limited to administrators and moderators for staff permission.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

Drewbear 18 Sep 2012 15:21

Agreed on both points.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

RhettSarlin 18 Sep 2012 15:24

Everything Troy just said, I had been thinking those things since my previous post. Basically I would want people to show that they are putting active efforts toward it, but things like "I can't start till next week" deserve a stay of deletion. There's not some huge rush here, but things should still have limits. And I would never want someone coming to any random senior staff member to ask permission as they don't really have the power to get rid of articles in the first place. They should help the person with the rewrite, but not be telling them they can do one.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

Dexanote 18 Sep 2012 15:38

I back these.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

eric_h 18 Sep 2012 20:45

I agree with Drewbear's original post and the time limit.

---

SCP Wiki Senior Citizen Staff | Thank you for testing my new memetic Forum sig

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

thedeadlymoose 18 Sep 2012 21:42

Agreeing with this with Troy's modifications included. Time limit, sure, but not a hard time limit.

Revised Rewrite Ruleset

Drewbear 18 Sep 2012 22:06

1) Rewrites require permission from the author. If you can't get permission from the original author within a reasonable amount of time, or if the original author is no longer active on the site, you have to get permission from an Admin or Mod. We recommend that you make this request in the comments of the article in question.
2) Rewrites require attribution to the original author. If you post the rewrite in a "clean" slot, you ABSOLUTELY MUST post a comment on the rewrite explaining that it's a rewrite and state who the author of the original article was. This is a CYA under Creative Commons, and will be enforced.
3) Rewrites will, at the time of permission, be given a specific time limit for completion. If an article is up for deletion at the time of the request (which is often the case), it will not be deleted until that time limit has expired. If the article is getting to the point where deletion is becoming a real possibility, then a deletion vote will not be started until this time has passed. Extensions are granted rarely, so use this time appropriately.
4) Rewrites are subject to the same voting process as the original article. What this means is that people are free to re-downvote the rewrite, if they still don't like it. This seems obvious, but people have been butthurt before because they thought that a rewrite "deserved" to get a better response than the original.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Revised Rewrite Ruleset

TroyL 18 Sep 2012 22:23

This looks good. Show it to people in Staff Chat, get some feedback, and if there are no objections or major revisions necessary, we'll add it to main site policy.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Re: Revised Rewrite Ruleset

Drewbear 18 Sep 2012 23:11

Talked w/ Sort, Echo & Roget in chat. Echo favors immediate deletion, since attribution will be given anyway, but otherwise they agree with these rules.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Revised Rewrite Ruleset

thedeadlymoose 19 Sep 2012 03:15

This looks fine to me.

Re: Revised Rewrite Ruleset

Pig_catapult 19 Sep 2012 04:14

In favour.

---

Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.

Re: Revised Rewrite Ruleset

Communism will win 19 Sep 2012 21:42

I'm good with this.

---

if your reading this your gay

Re: Revised Rewrite Ruleset

Dexanote 19 Sep 2012 22:00

I like it.

Re: Revised Rewrite Ruleset

Djoric 19 Sep 2012 23:32

I have no problems with this.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

DrClef 19 Sep 2012 23:10

Support.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

Kain Pathos Crow 20 Sep 2012 14:00

I can dig it.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

Adam Smascher 20 Sep 2012 14:16

Looks solid, just one criticism.

3) Rewrites will, at the time of permission, be given a specific time limit for completion. If an article is up for deletion at the time of the request (which is often the case), it will not be deleted until that time limit has expired. If the article is getting to the point where deletion is becoming a real possibility, then a deletion vote will not be started until this time has passed. Extensions are granted rarely, so use this time appropriately.

This could be misinterpreted as, "Finish the rewrite within this window or don't do it at all," which isn't what is meant. What's meant is that the old copy will be maintained for a limited time while rewrite is in progress, so that if the rewrite is completed within the set time frame, it can be posted over the old version, retaining the number and associated data. If it isn't completed within the time frame, then they can still post their rewrite. It may need to be in another slot, and credit for the original author would need to be given in the comments since the page history will be lost, but can still be done. This ought to be clarified; that the time limit applies to reservation of the old page, and is not an expiration date for permission to rewrite.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

Drewbear 20 Sep 2012 15:35

How about:

3) Rewrites will, at the time of permission, be given a specific time limit for completion. If a page¹ is up for deletion at the time of the request (which is often the case), it will not be deleted until that time limit has expired. If the page is getting to the point where deletion is becoming a real possibility, then a deletion vote will not be started until this time has passed. Extensions are granted rarely, so use this time appropriately. If the time limit passes and the original page is deleted, a rewrite can still be posted, but there are no guarantees that the original slot will still be open, and proper attribution will have to be made as noted in Rule #2.

Footnotes

1. changing it to this, since "articles" is usually used to refer to SCPs, and Tales can be rewritten, too

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

Quikngruvn 21 Sep 2012 15:10

Question re: Rule 2: if a rewrite is posted in a new slot, and no one knows who the author of the original article was, how should attribution work here? "This article is a rewrite of SCP-XXX that was originally written by an unknown author"? I figure some sort of note needs to be put in this regard, with recommended wording or whatever.

Otherwise it looks good to me, with Drew's revised Rule 3 above.

Re: Create/Change rewriting rules?

RhettSarlin 21 Sep 2012 15:29

I suggest "this is a rewrite of SCP-XXX, original author unknown." Short, sweet, to the point.