[Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Summary:

A restructuring of the Site Criticism Team

page 1 of 212next »

[Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Elenee FishTruck 04 Apr 2021 14:48

What is this team?

The Published Works Review and Discussion (PWRD) Team is the proposed restructuring for the current Site Criticism Team.

Currently, the Site Crit Team exists in a bit of a lull. It undergoes occasional periods of activity but, for the most part, it lays dormant. Given it has been revived several times, only to die again, me and several members of Site Crit believe the problem lies inherent in the team's current ethos (posting high quality critique on published articles). Thus, to improve the state of critique and general quality on-site (not to say it ever decreased but we can always improve it), we have broadened our goal and added new responsibilities to our team.

Our new goal? We endeavor to engender discussion of any given "finished" work's voteable elements and moderate or shepherd that discourse. This involves not simply posting high quality feedback on published articles but interacting with other users' feedback, monitoring discussion to find promising authors/critters, and mentoring JS in a close relationship to improve their critiquing skills. You may see the full breadth of our proposal here: http://topia.wikidot.com/pwrd. The rebranding serves to specify our team purpose; beyond critiquing, we're activity fostering discussion.

We believe this will, beyond providing high quality feedback to authors, improve discussion of posted works on the SCP Foundation Wiki as a whole and, consequently, improve site quality.

Please leave any comments/suggestions/concerns you may have in this thread so we can gauge whether to move forward with this intended change or not. I'd like to thank Soulless, RockTeeth, ManyMeats, McB, Gee, Riemann, and Tanhony for collaborating on this with me.

[Timer expired]

This thread is open to all staff comments, including JS.

EDIT: Noting discussion time has expired. Actions will follow swiftly.

---

Mm Mm Good

Last edited on 11 Apr 2021 20:10 by Elenee FishTruck Show more

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

DrBleep 04 Apr 2021 15:06

Strong support for this proposal. Site crit was a staple of staff activity when I first joined staff, and it's absence has definitely been felt in the past few years.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

(account deleted) 04 Apr 2021 15:28

I’ve always felt that site crit as a team was a strange one to devote staff resources to. We continuously state that the forums are where critique should be found and that all articles posted to the wiki are supposed to be finished or open to collaborative expansion. To be frank, if an article is successful enough to not be in deletion, then what is the purpose of providing critique on that article from a staff perspective? Giving an opinion or even just some feedback is different than dedicating an entire staff team to critiquing articles that are supposed to be finished.

Mentorship and all of those things I can get behind, but I suppose I still don’t quite understand the purpose of a team dedicated to providing critique on published articles.

Edit: I’ve been informed my post doesn’t quite read the way I intended it to - I was essentially trying to get a sentiment of “let’s ditch the crit side of things and embrace only the new additions”

Last edited on 04 Apr 2021 17:32 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

ManyMeats 04 Apr 2021 19:20

It's deeply useful to an aspiring author to deconstruct why a successful article is successful. It is not enough that a piece be "interesting", it must be objectively pleasant (or evocatively unpleasant) in such a way that people have a good time reading it if it is going to do well. Writing, as we all know, is a process. It's grabbing bits and pieces and techniques from people you know and ideas you like, tearing off strings you can work with, and then integrating this stuff into the Self to make your own style. As long as people need help breaking down why successful articles are successful, or what successful articles failed to do despite their success, we have a need to critical feedback on published works.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

(account deleted) 05 Apr 2021 19:44

Hadn't considered this, fair point.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Zyn 10 Apr 2021 06:32

It's deeply useful to an aspiring author to deconstruct why a successful article is successful.

This. I often tell newer authors that it's a good idea to look at the discussion threads of high-rated works that are similar to what they want to accomplish with their own writing. On the other hand, they can also look at the critique ported in the deletions announcements thread to see examples of what tends to lead to downvotes.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

The Pighead 04 Apr 2021 15:49

I 300% support this proposal. Absolutely on board with it and with no objections. I believe that broadening and expanding the goals and possibilities of the team is what is needed to break the cycle of "it's revived and then, it dies again". Not to mention that improving the discussion on the comment pages will be really, extremely efficient to undermine a now well-known mindset that become a little bit too common and which needs to disappear.

So, yes, please.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Modern_Erasmus 04 Apr 2021 16:07

While this is certainly an improvement, I can’t help but feel the additional tasks are already part of the spirit of current site crit and that hasn’t helped save it.

This may be an unpopular position, but have you considered mothballing the team and folding the resources into forum crit? I know it seems a bit extreme, but site crit has been in limbo for just about the entire time I’ve been a part of the wiki. Imo it’s time to consider focusing on what works rather than trying to force what doesn’t.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Modulum 04 Apr 2021 16:37

I share similar concerns to M_E about the forum-site crit redundancy, but I think this is at least worth trying.

To go off on my own tangent here, in my eyes, site crit is distinct from forum crit in that part of its purpose is to benefit the reader of the site as well. Similarly to movie or music reviews, I think site-specific crit has the potential to examine and write about articles in order to expand our collective understanding of what makes art good and how to evaluate it. I think that this proposal is approaching that realization, which I like - basically, I think that a site crit team should have people that are experienced in the craft of writing and passionate enough about the site to commentate on others' works for their own fulfillment, which I think the best and most legendary critters in this site's history (Kalinin, Shaggy, etc.) have in common. I'd be excited to see what a team geared around sparking discussion of articles - as the proposal says here - amounts to. In a way, perhaps the best thing we can do to revive commenting on new articles is to make it in style again to review articles, to debate them, to get people talking about them.

Edit: There are a lot of people that tried to emulate Kalinin as some beacon of the lost integrity of the site and tried to single-handedly bring back site crit by being a one-man harsh asshole band. Those people…kind of missed the point of being Kalinin, though. What made him distinct wasn't the unforgiving nature he eventually became stereotyped for and you can't bring back the spirit of critique by just being an incomprehensible dick to everyone. What you need is to get the authorbase genuinely interested in what other authors are doing, find people that are really just stoked to explain why they love articles or give takes on what doesn't satisfy them about others. No amount of structured-to-hell projects or weekly quotas (things users have attempted in the past) can substitute for cultivating the love of tastemaking and discourse about the site and the ideas attempted on it.

Last edited on 04 Apr 2021 17:02 by Modulum Show more

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

ManyMeats 04 Apr 2021 19:24

This is a great perspective and one I deeply share as a current member of Site Crit.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

DrBleep 05 Apr 2021 21:37

This nicely and succintly reflects my own thoughts which I think I failed to get across both in chat discussions and here across.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

WhiteGuard 05 Apr 2021 23:55

After reviewing the proposal, I align the most with Modulum's take here. I have always thought that the concept of Site Crit was a good one. It is incredibly useful to know why something works and how to improve on already successful works. Leaving these two core tenets out leads to stagnation which is often the death of an author.

With all of this being said, it has always been a challenge to keep Site Crit active, and I am unsure that this proposal will necessarily solve this issue. However, I believe the possible benefits make it worth the trouble of trying it.

As an aside, that team name is a mouthful and the abbreviation isn't easier to say either. I suppose it doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things, but I do think that Site Criticism still would make sense based on what this proposal presents. I am definitely not going to oppose this or any other proposals over the name though.

Last edited on 05 Apr 2021 23:57 by WhiteGuard Show more

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

ManyMeats 04 Apr 2021 19:25

This proposal has my support as is. However as a member of current Site Crit, one item I would like to see considered is to spark a discussion with Zyn et al and perhaps dedicate part of the front page to a "Reviewer's Spotlight" in the most literal sense. Perhaps a rotating in-depth review on a monthly basis; likely just a single one as a test.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Zyn 10 Apr 2021 06:39

one item I would like to see considered is to spark a discussion with Zyn et al and perhaps dedicate part of the front page to a "Reviewer's Spotlight" in the most literal sense.

I'm definitely all for measures to give our hardworking volunteer reviewers more spotlight.

Perhaps a rotating in-depth review on a monthly basis; likely just a single one as a test.

Something that I thought up on the spot… what about something like a Wikiwalk party, with a handful of team members commenting on a few pages in succession? They start with one of the pages posted recently, then "walk" from there to a page that shares an attribute tag, then walk to a page by the same author, then walk to a page that is about the same GoI as the previous page. Gives some insight into reviewers' perspectives, as well as how prior association with related material can affect the reading process. Can kind of be like a transcribed podcast.

Maybe that can be part of the mentorship? My main goal here is to try and make this more of a fun thing to do as a hobby with friends, not solely a bundle of tasks with numbers to follow.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

WhiteGuard 10 Apr 2021 07:14

This sounds like a super interesting idea!

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Hexick 04 Apr 2021 20:13

Absolute full support for this proposal. Throughout my time on staff, I've certainly noticed how the current Site Crit Team didn't really have any set goals or endeavors for the future that would really add anything beyond what Forum Crit already accomplishes. Additionally, from what I've seen, the current manifest set for members of the team has certainly led to burnout in a lot of cases. Personally, I feel that repurposing the team to moderate the discussion pages and critique therein would certainly be beneficial in that it would centralize what section of staff is responsible for that area of the site, and would take some of the more redundant work from the already busy members of Forum Crit.

And with that, I feel allowing the individuals on the team to set their own goals rather than imposing one upon them would efficiently solve the burnout issue as mentioned above.

Calling out and reporting low quality critique to the Disciplinary Team.

Per the above quotation, will the users on PWRD also be required to go searching for poor critique in the forums — essentially intersecting a big part of Forum Crit's goals, or will it be limited to the site itself as it should be? If the latter, I believe the charter should be updated to be more clear on that.

Other than that, I'm happy the see something being done to improve the Site Crit Team, and I fully support the proposed changes.

---

Hexick, SCP Wiki Moderator
Personal site: http://hexhouse.wikidot.com/
Feel free to forward any concerns or inquiries to my Wikidot inbox.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Riemann 04 Apr 2021 23:13

Per the above quotation, will the users on PWRD also be required to go searching for poor critique in the forums — essentially intersecting a big part of Forum Crit's goals, or will it be limited to the site itself as it should be? If the latter, I believe the charter should be updated to be more clear on that.

Nah - in general, we're not looking to take any responsibilities from Forum Crit. There are more than enough wonderful and capable hands on Forum Crit to handle that as is. We're focused on posted works.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Hexick 05 Apr 2021 00:27

That's what I was hoping would be the case. Thank you for clarifying.

---

Hexick, SCP Wiki Moderator
Personal site: http://hexhouse.wikidot.com/
Feel free to forward any concerns or inquiries to my Wikidot inbox.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Cyvstvi 08 Apr 2021 19:17

As a member of the Swamp Critters, I second a lot of the opinions that other members have staff have brought up in their posts; mostly echoing the concerns of a directionless team that would frequently suffer from burnout.

However, I think they have a really vital place on the site. Discussions on positively upvoted articles rarely reach above ten comments, and I'm personally always going to be more likely to dive into an article's Discussion page if it has several comments.

Feedback on posted articles is even more important than feedback on drafts, especially for users that "know" how to write. It helps inform their style and their approach to writing. Especially echoing what WhiteGuard had to say:

It is incredibly useful to know why something works and how to improve on already successful works.

Voting simply isn't enough to advance the site beyond what it already is, and having a team of users that actively seek to promote discussion around articles will only help in this regard.

I'm fully throwing my support behind this one.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

Zyn 10 Apr 2021 06:44

Definitely supporting the rebrand. Suggesting "PWRD Rangers" as affectionate nickname.

I do share the concerns about burnout, though. I feel like while it does make sense to have there be personal goals set for providing reviews, I want there to be some fun elements to balance out the weekly grind.

That said, I'd love to have a sort of "PWRD Rangers Corner" blog-style regular page that helps introduce newer readers to elements of reading on the site. The User-Curated lists are gradually getting out-of-date, and I'd love to have a more recent and involved resource to point newbies at for reading recommendations (and examples of constructive and helpful feedback!). Maybe have two or three themed pages per month, idk.

Re: [Team Restructuring] - Published Works Review and Discussion Team

cybersqyd 10 Apr 2021 07:20

I very carefully drafted out a longer response, forgot to post it and then saw Zyn has basically said everything I'd want to so uh, seconding this and offering general support of the restructure.

page 1 of 212next »