[DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

Summary:

featuring dante from devil may cry

[DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

EstrellaYoshte 27 Aug 2023 14:29

This is a draft to formally put everything regarding Canons, as well as proposed change to the canonization process and the Canon Hub on the wiki into written words.

Definition

A canon is a defined set of elements/materials underlying involved articles, typically by sharing a setting, themes, events, etc.

A canon on the wiki has the following requisites:

• A sufficient body of work (at time of writing, a minimum of 10 works by at least 5 authors). This threshold may be changed by Staff-wide decisions.
• A tag definition on Tech Hub Tag List/Tag Manifest.
• A hub, in which:
  • It lists all works related to the canon (either manually or by ListPages.)
  • It contains a description of said setting, outlines how to write and contribute to it, and way to add entries to the hub, if done manually.

A series with a defined Series tag may request to become a Canon if it fulfills the abovementioned.

Restrictions

Once a canon is officialized, the following applies, in addition to the above:

• The canon is always open to new contribution.
• The canon's hub may not de-list or exclude articles tagged with the canon's tag (with exception of the hub itself). Canon creators may instate additional rules that dictate the hub's structure, and how/where articles can be moved or placed.
  • The hub can opt not to list a collection of works if it already lists an intermediary (e.g. linking to a series hub)
• If the hub is not a collaboration page with a clear explanation of how to add works to it, it must contain a ListPages module that lists all pages tagged with the canon's tag for navigational accessibility, or have an alternate solution arranged with the Curation team.
• Canon status cannot be revoked and turned into a Series, barring exceptional circumstances.
• The hub must be parented to Canon Hub.

Custodianship

Canon custodians are to be the maintainer of the canon's hub, and should be considered the point of contact for queries related to the canon.

If applicable, the canon will be assigned a custodian, or multiple custodians, if such an arrangement is agreed upon among them and the Curation team. At the onset of canonization, the role defaults to the creator of the canon and its canon hub.

Creator may designate additional custodians to act alongside them, or in their absence.

If the creator is no longer a member of the Wiki, is inactive for at least a year with no response to a good faith attempt of contact, or otherwise unreachable, they will no longer be considered a canon custodian (per standard Curation procedures.) They may also willingly relinquish the role (but otherwise retain editorial rights of the hub.)

For canons without a custodian, one may submit a request to become one to the Curation team. In the case of returning canon creator, they may regain custodianship if so choose, in addition to pre-existing custodians. In such cases, creators can not remove extant custodians from their role.

Non-creator custodians can be removed from the role if they can not be contacted for custodial duties for prolonged periods of time (a year or more.); or by voluntarily resigning. Canon creators may make an appeal to the Curation team for removal of extant custodians, but the Curation team must make the final decision.

Hub editorial rights

Canon (hub) creator retains almost full autonomy of the hub. They (and any other custodians) may not violate the abovementioned requisites and restrictions, but the creator is otherwise free to modify the page.

Non-creator custodians are allowed to make minor edits as needed, and major edits to the hub within reasonable bounds and with Curation oversight (See Author Will Policy.) Canon hub creator can choose to override these edits.

Canon Hub

The Canon Hub delineates maintained and unmaintained canons - unmaintained canons are those whose hub has uncontactable or inactive creator, and no other assigned custodians. These will be moved to the Unmaintained section* at the bottom.

*Restoring unmaintained canons

If an unmaintained canon has received both new work and request for Staff to move it to the main section, it may be considered for return to regular placement — regardless of custodianship status — for a year, or until it no longer receives new works regularly, whichever comes later.

---

Proposed changes

See: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/quikngruvn-sandbox

• Hub visual is de-content-panelified, and made slightly more in line with modern styling
• Implemented activity markers, with parameters as follow:
  • Active and very active canons are those that have at least 5 and 15 works in the last 24 months, respectively.
  • Large canon are canons with at least 75 works
  • Green markers are automatic, star needs to be manually added.
• Allow custom canon block styling
  • Custodians may make cosmetic changes to their entry block on the Canon Hub by appending style="" to the canon-block div and adding small header image, within reason.
    • No non-inline CSS may be added by custodians, by means of additional CSS module, or modifying extant CSS module(s).
    • Tech reserves the right to alter or revert these changes if deemed too disruptive or in violation of CSS and Technical Content Policies.

Example:

+ show block

The mockup displays separate section for unmaintained canon, as defined above¹ (Current list of unmaintained canons is for demonstration purpose only - will be re-assessed.)

Easy-to-parse opinion poll:

||~ Change ||~ Yes ||~ No ||
|| Hub visual overhaul? || X || X ||
|| Implement canon activity markers? || X || X ||
|| Active=5, Very active=15 per 24 months? || X || X ||
|| Large=75? || X || X ||
|| Allow custom canon block styling? || X || X ||

Concerns

• Current definition of active, very active, and large — Is it usable?
• Define situations in which canon status can, if ever, be revoked.
• Should definition and delineation of unmaintained canons be stricter? Looser?

---

The discussion will last for 7 days, after which the policy section will be put up for vote, and the hub overhaul will be implemented unless serious concerns are raised. In the event of negative or split opinions on a proposed items, it will not be implemented.

Footnotes

1. The separation of maintained and unmaintained canons will only be implemented if that section of the policy passes voting, and is in abeyance for this phase of discussion.

Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16294627/discussion-canon-policy-and-canon-hub-update-proposal

Last edited on 06 Sep 2023 05:49 by EstrellaYoshte Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

OriTiefling 27 Aug 2023 14:35

Current definition of active, very active, and large — Is it usable?

Seems fair, I can support it.

Define situations in which canon status can, if ever, be revoked.

Any canon who applies posting rules that go against the posting rules established above (i.e. requiring greenlights, not being open collaboration, etc.) immediately loses canon status until in compliance again. I don't think this is unfair- I think it's being honest to the fact that if a canon doesn't follow these rules it isn't a canon by site definition.

Should definition and delineation of unmaintained canons be stricter? Looser?

I don't think this is a big enough problem to be stricter or looser with myself.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

psychicprogrammer 27 Aug 2023 15:20

I disagree with immediate loss, a short grace period for staff to communicate with the custodian would lead to less arguments while making sure that a satisfactory outcome occurs.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

Prime Girl 27 Aug 2023 15:13

Speaking of definitions (which you listed in concerns) there are a few terms I would like to see defined or elaborated upon when this goes up for a vote:

Canon status cannot be revoked and turned into a Series, barring exceptional circumstances.

While I think the policy benefits from not defining these circumstances (avoids potential loopholes, edge cases, rule lawyering, unanticipated consequences etc) I think it would benefit from defining who makes the decision that it's an exceptional circumstance.

Is it just an admin fiat? Can the Curation Team captain make the call? How many people have to agree? Can Disc Team compel it if they see the need (massive amount of alts writing to create a canon for instance)

While this shouldn't be over defined I think there's merit in deciding this before it happens, since otherwise you could get some confusion with someone revoking status when not everybody agrees they had the right to or agrees that an exceptional circumstance has popped up.

If the creator leaves the site, is no longer involved or otherwise uncontactable

I think it's important for us to decide what "uncontactable" means, as well as "no longer being involved" because those are pretty subjective.

No longer involved with what? The site? The canon? For how long?

Uncontactable for how long? A week, a month, a year? How are we trying to contact them? Is just a Wikidot DM sufficient even if they're very active on the official Discord or another platform? How many times should we attempt to contact? How many people should try?

When I've seen staff attempt to reach out to an author it's always seemed in good faith, but this has the potential to be pretty easy to phone in and decide in such a way that it's favorable to staff rather than the canon's creator.

And one final important question: if the creator comes back and has lost custodian rights can they take back all control from the currently assigned curator?

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

EstrellaYoshte 27 Aug 2023 15:48

I guess admin fiat for emergency scenario, like the canon being based on a previously undiscovered non-CC material and is now a legal threat to the wiki (although being a canon would be the leas of its problem,,,). Ultimately given the broad possible range, the jurisdiction will have to fall on whichever the exceptional circumstances involves (Disc or Licensing or Tech or whomever).

That said, I think two potential defined cases for revoke would be violation of the requisites and restriction with no effort to remediate, and the number of works somehow falling below canon requirement after canonization.

I think it's important for us to decide what "uncontactable" means, as well as "no longer being involved" because those are pretty subjective.

No longer involved with what? The site? The canon? For how long?

I intend this to be in line with Rewrite/Curation/Author's will policy regarding hub, which is one year of inactivity and a good faith attempt of contact. If this needs to be defined further, I think it'd be beyond the scope of this proposal and in the realms of redefining staff convention.

No longerinvolved with the site, bc they're no longer a site member due to being banned, or voluntary departure or deleted their account with no other known alias.

And one final important question: if the creator comes back and has lost custodian rights can they take back all control from the currently assigned curator?

If the creator comes back, they can become a custodian again if they so choose. They can't remove currently assigned custodians; but they can revert changes made as per their right of author autonomy — Unless we make it so that the hub's community function override that, which is a can of worm I'm leaving up to Curation/Rewrite.

Last edited on 27 Aug 2023 15:57 by EstrellaYoshte Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

Prime Girl 27 Aug 2023 16:00

I would preferably like to see the "uncontactable" bit state that it's as defined in the author will policy, and link to it if that's the case.

And I would like to see the intention in the third point explicitly laid out in the policy when it goes for a vote .

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

LORDXVNV 28 Aug 2023 23:34

It's my view that we're codifying something that's largely been the wild west. No matter what happens someone will be left unhappy. That said:

We're changing the rules underneath a lot of people. So regarding the canon revocation thing — would it be too convoluted to give the original canon originators a 1-time chance to make their thing no longer a canon but a series, with the stipulation that it's permanent — once you go from canon to series you can never again apply for canon and anything that entails including hub placement and openness. The trade off is pretty obvious — either you get top billing but everyone gets a chance to contribute or you get full creative control.

A change in canon policy, I feel, is an exceptional circumstance.

I worry that the belief that lack of quality will cause a piece to be deleted may be relying on some other assumptions — I'm operating on the assumption that you're allowed to downvote something because it doesn't fit the canon. I can recall at least 2 articles that were deleted for such reasons in the past few years or so but my memory isn't that great but I'll disclose them in private so as to not put the authors on blast on 05. Still my point is that it *should* be kosher to tell your friends highly invested in a canon that a piece absolutely doesn't fit even if you know that they'll likely downvote as a result.

Regarding ori's "should be revoked once it's not eligible" — what if instead non complaint canons lose the right to self style their css and instead get a mandatory red "out of compliance" css styling with a date from how long they've been out of compliance? Then after a month or so they get moved to the bottom of the page, the same way canon custodians could probably consign works they don't approve of to a similar low billing on their hub pages While still presenting them in good faith.

I think the activity markers for a canon won't hurt to have. The one downside is that readers might skip over less active canons in order to read more active ones, but from the point of view of discoverability I think that's actually what the readers would want.

I think the baseline of the policy is fine.

How do we feel about modifying the hub requirements so a hub can state a clear list of things that the canon cannot include, and if a work includes those the canon can be closed to those elements specifically? Obviously editing the hub post hoc in order to exclude drafts you hear about before they can be posted would be shenanigans of the highest order or an obvious rule 0 violation.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

EstrellaYoshte 30 Aug 2023 05:44

I'm ok with allowing canon creators to convert their canon into an open entry Series.

Regarding ori's "should be revoked once it's not eligible" — what if instead non complaint canons lose the right to self style their css and instead get a mandatory red "out of compliance" css styling with a date from how long they've been out of compliance? Then after a month or so they get moved to the bottom of the page, the same way canon custodians could probably consign works they don't approve of to a similar low billing on their hub pages While still presenting them in good faith.

A bit too complex, I'd rater not involve more wrinkles to the CSS, personally.

How do we feel about modifying the hub requirements so a hub can state a clear list of things that the canon cannot include, and if a work includes those the canon can be closed to those elements specifically?

I'm against codifying any policy that gives de facto blanket permission to exclude works for any potential reason on a canon hub. Curation factors aside, this is simply against good conducts of navigation. It's also very abuseable to a certain degree - and given that canons are the most escalated form of open collaboration nexuses, I'm not inclined to restrict it on a policy level specifically.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

LORDXVNV 31 Aug 2023 03:22

I'm against codifying any policy that gives de facto blanket permission to exclude works for any potential reason on a canon hub. Curation factors aside, this is simply against good conducts of navigation. It's also very abuseable to a certain degree - and given that canons are the most escalated form of open collaboration nexuses, I'm not inclined to restrict it on a policy level specifically.

I think this may be an optics issue — I think the current language is too subjective and too open to a judgment call

The hub must, in good faith, display all articles within that canon.

I think this is too wishy washy — needing to define "good faith", "within" and "display". What about:

"If the hub is not a collaboration page with a clear explanation of how to add works to it, it must contain a listpage that lists all pages tagged with the canon's tag for navigational accessibility".

Concise, future-proof, to the point. Extremely explicit instructions.

I've been keeping an eye on the mainsite mirror. Here are a few things people hold as nonnegotiables imo. Please correct me if I am wrong.

• You believe that not listing works tagged with a canon on that canon's hub is a navigational issue.
  • My suggestion is to require all pages tagged as both a hub and a series/canon tag to either list all works with that tag or include a listpage for all works with that tag. Isn't this as big a navigational issue for series, regardless if they're open to new contribution? And obviously that would be an onerous requirement for smaller series, hence why it only applies to those with a tag.
• You believe we should not officially enshrine in site rules any practice that could be considered gatekeeping.
  • I'll return to this later.

Concerned authors believe:

• That this is an overstep/overinterpretation of the existing canon rules.
  • I was under the impression that this was a codification/documentation of the de-facto treatment of canons and such as agreed upon by staff as opposed to a dramatic change. Since this is an open discussion thread I'd like to see how many staff disagree. If this is in fact merely a codification I think it's necessary that we write down exactly what the expectations for a canon are both now and moving forward. Some of our users seem to be operating with a different definition of what it means to be a canon than the staff consensus, and if push comes to shove, my feeling is that staff would enforce their de-facto consensus instead of theirs. Personally, I think a lot of users are already operating within this framework, at least with respect to the biggest canons on the site and canons without custodians.
• That this will utterly strip authors of their ability to curate.
  • More on this later.

Look, here's what I think about the whole gatekeeping vs curation issue:

The site rules already enshrine gatekeeping. Gatekeeping, in the form of downvotes and a deletion threshold, is what keeps this site alive and unique from every other open writing site on the internet. But crucially, it's a democratic form of gatekeeping. Everyone gets one vote to cast according to their preference. Anyone who tries to abuse this system by making sockpuppets to jump their votes up or down either way gets banned because it's a perversion of the system. Everyone gets an equal voice — that, to me, is implicit in banning of sockpuppets and the treatment of sockpuppetry as a permabannable offense.

Additionally, the misuse of deletion privileges, either by accident or for the purpose of getting rid of works that you don't like, earns one censure at best, permaban at worst.

Our actionable record as staff is clear, if unspoken: gatekeeping has no part in official staff operations. Or, as someone said on the previous canon discussion, "staff are not tastemakers".

(We can open the question of "are staff second-order tastemakers" — as in, do they have the right to give others the ability to gatekeep/curate. And to some extent, yes — we ban vandalism, and give people the right to write whatever they want provided it's not copyrighted by someone else. But beyond that we don't give users the right to dictate the contents or organization of others work except through a single downvote per user and the various social connections throughout this site.)

Now for curation:

Should the canon authors have the ability to reject contradictory lore?

• I think throwing it in a "inspired by" section and emphasizing on the hub that "these works are inspired by but contradict" is a workable solution. The "No Return" hub already does this with its "Alternate Interpretations" section.
• They can downvote. There's a concern that people aren't downvoting enough these days. I don't have the data to know whether this is true or not. Personally I've seen some remarkably mediocre work from all eras of the site that's highly upvoted and not downvoted enough. However, what is true is that the current requirements for a canon are 5 authors — halfway to the deletion threshold. 5 people invested in the shape of a work all downvoting something intended in bad faith to torpedo it is how the site should work. That said, I do have another thought on this I'll save for the end.
• Philosophically, I think if having a canon means being open to contributions, the way you control the content within it is by talking to people. Ask on your hub for them to come to you if they want to contribute, tell them the elements you want to include aren't canon, and if they persist, downvote them. If you don't want that, that seems like the natural role of an open series or even a closed series. If you're restricting contributions on a level that isn't transparent, explicit, and implementable by a third party, nobody will contest your right to do so if you have a series tag as opposed to a canon tag. It's just that little word in the definition of a canon, even the current definition — "cannot be closed to new contributors" — that leaves room for negotiation.
  • In an ideal world, tale discovery and navigation will be good enough that the only difference between a canon and a series will be openness, not discovery or advertising. And we've already made important strides in that direction with the recent reworks to the series page. We don't live in that ideal world yet, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  • I think in the previous discussion there were claims that canons were being treated like merit badges or prestige achievements? I can kind of see why people would be proud of their work — but people should be proud of series as well. I don't know, I guess it feels weird to give tech the power to sign off on "these 5 people have the right to prevent everyone else on the site for writing discoverable things with this tag".
• Tightly-curated canons are, to my knowledge, anomalies. I'm not sure I would even need two hands to count all of them. If we're codifying these rules instead of making new ones, we should go with how the site at large is treating canons as a whole.

So personally I don't think the situation is remotely as dire as the mainsite mirror fears it could get — despite the changes to the rules, I think authors will largely retain autonomy in presentation and curation if the rule for "display all articles" is reworded to focus on its navigational utility as I suggested above, and be sufficiently protected from bad actors.

Speaking of which, the elephant in the room: "bad faith" contributions to canons as a unique form of vandalism:

There's one alleged example out of 48 or so canons and about a decade, so I will assert I believe that one example is an anomaly: it had exceptional circumstances as a belated response to the then-unresolved November 2022 Disciplinary Incident, which is logged excessively elsewhere on 05. Canons have been nominally "open" for the entire duration of their existence so technically this kind of "canon vandalism" was already possible, and I think if the action was truly judged to be malicious staff has other vectors for author protection — Rule 0 violation comes to mind. There's no real "you have no recourse". If someone is actively trying to vandalize your canon (as opposed to writing work you don't like for it) then it's vandalism — which, I believe, is against site rules.

Obviously, I'm not completely impartial. I consider the author of that example a friend, so I want to believe that if the canon runner had gone "hey, I'm really invested in this thing I'm working on, so I'd really appreciate if you didn't write this/took it down/made it its own thing", the author would have done so — but I also know that didn't happen, won't be happening given the disciplinary consequences of the Incident, and that "asking politely" wasn't the course of action taken during the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident for a much more minor violation.

My last point regarding this concern is that in my opinion most people care about their own shit far, far more than ruining the ideas of other people. Creatives are narcissists in that way, a point I believe I've made before. I think it's a misplaced fear for the general case and this anomaly arose, in part, from the November 2022 Incident having a disconnect in the understanding of canon in the heads of senior staff at the time from other users, which can and should be rectified by writing it down and codifying.

Frankly, as staff, we should be encouraging open lines of communication and collaboration. I view the response and the spirited discourse on the mainsite mirror, despite its disagreement with my own views, as a largely positive thing, and a sign of how far as a staff institution we've come in terms of openness and communication. Pre-2021 or so I bet this policy would've been discussed solely in an echochamber of staff with no outside opinion and I'm glad this site can foster a healthy level of discourse. Like I'll be honest here — that whole November 2020 Disciplinary Incident mess, from a certain point of view? it all started because someone was protective of a canon when the rules already stated that canons should be open to new contributions and couldn't be closed. We absolutely need to clarify or explicate the rules and expectations, because at least one user got in trouble , kicked off of staff, almost censured for taking the rules at face value. The November 2020 Disciplinary Incident to me is a sign that our canon rules should protect and foster the authorial rights of the average user, that no user should fear disciplinary action or some other disproportionate response for contributing to a canon or using Creative Commons elements from a canon, and that users largely already act with that freedom so forcefully deforming our rules for the few over the many would be a disservice to our users and inimical to the collaborative spirit of our site.

But I think there's a parsimonious answer that balances the built-in gatekeeping of the downvote with the desire for authors to have the right to canon curation.

I propose a non-binding amendment to the canon tag from "Canons: 10 articles by 5 authors." to "Canons: 10 articles by 5 authors. It is recommended that you have xx articles by 10 authors."

I think that a nonbinding recommendation like this would fundamentally change nothing with regards to canon approval nor give undue unregulated power to members of the site beyond what other members have. I think this wouldn't fundamentally change anything with regards to assessments of activity or interest in a canon. I don't think we should give any subset of users the right to gatekeep beyond their ability to downvote. I think if you've got a group of 10 authors who invested time and effort into building a canon and they saw someone who shat on their work they'd be well within their rights to downvote, each individually and independently. I think that would be enough to ensure a work's deletion unless it was truly exceptional.

I think if users choose not to follow suggestions/recommendations when making a tag request, they would do so aware of the consequences.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

EstrellaYoshte 31 Aug 2023 15:27

"If the hub is not a collaboration page with a clear explanation of how to add works to it, it must contain a listpage that lists all pages tagged with the canon's tag for navigational accessibility".

I am amenable to rewording that bullet point. I do think a canon hub should exert more efforts than just a ListPages module when applicable, but that's ultimately my opinion and not something codifiable as policy.

My suggestion is to require all pages tagged as both a hub and a series/canon tag to either list all works with that tag or include a listpage for all works with that tag.

No, because some hubs have sub-hubs in them, and it'd be troublesome to distinguish them — Something like Grigori's New Faces series has both hub and resurrection, and obviously that shouldn't list all Resurrection works ever existed.

Isn't this as big a navigational issue for series, regardless if they're open to new contribution?

Maybe? It's outside the scope of this policy specifically, and there are some other nuances to touch on. Well, and we don't have the manpower to worry about all Series right now.

I was under the impression that this was a codification/documentation of the de-facto treatment of canons and such as agreed upon by staff as opposed to a dramatic change. Since this is an open discussion thread I'd like to see how many staff disagree.

I'm also of the position that everything I've listed is general Staff procedures, put into words formally. While there might be changes in phrasing and stuffs, the thing about canon needing to list all entries tagged with that canon's tag is something we've enforced before (with Third Law if I'm not mistaken? I'm not clear on the specific details).

I'll elaborate on my stance on two fronts: mechanical and principle.

Mechanically, a canon hub is an index of contents about, involving, within, some other words here, that setting. The most basic function of a hub is to serves as a nexus of navigation and discovery. Bad structuring of extant information is one concern, but at the very least, it should be complete in its indexing.

By intentionally excluding contents, even if those contents would qualify for the tag otherwise, one compromises that function, and reduce complete navigation mapping to the System Page Tags and Crom Tag Search. Content discovery by tag alone is not inherently bad, if the system was built around maximizing and structuring that metadata effectively (like Ao3) — Wikidot, in its feeble glory, is decidedly not that. Crom Tag Search is great, but it's a sandboxed system that's context-agnostic and partial to few outside info.

Ultimately, if it's come to the point that those two are the only method of comprehensive listing, it's a failure state of navigation and discoverability.

Principally, I disagree with the notion that any work that has enough elements to qualify for that canon tag, and is not in negative rating, can be considered invalid or non-canon to the point that it does not even merit a place on the hub.

One of the few agreements the community as a whole have come to is that "there is no canon" (or as the Hub puts it: "It's that we have a multitude which touch, cross, and dip into each other"), and that authors are free to write and mix whatever, canonicity be damned. This is the modus operandi of the site, and more than a few canons are themselves spun off from existing content. If I write a, say, Daybreak/Nightfall crossover article that contradicts the foundational basis of both those canons, but it is positively rated, I do not believe it's unworthy of even an "Alt interpretation/Splinter canon/Work incorporating the setting" listing.

Tightly-curated canons are, to my knowledge, anomalies. I'm not sure I would even need two hands to count all of them. If we're codifying these rules instead of making new ones, we should go with how the site at large is treating canons as a whole.

Anecdotally, I've asked both HarryBlank and Grigori Karpin about the inclusion of their CanRenCon entries on the main Resurrection list. Harry was unaware of what conduct regarding editing the hub is, and thought only the original canon creators are allowed to add to it.

It wasn't until a fair bit after that contest that they talked to Moose and added a splinter canons section to be added to (and even later afterwards, a section for standalone tales.)

If a reputation of a canon is such that it's basically "closed" when absent any reasonable contact with the original creators, it shows an imbalance in how open it actually is when de facto curational power of canon creators is assumed, much in opposition of the ideals espoused by the Canon Hub.

I propose a non-binding amendment to the canon tag from "Canons: 10 articles by 5 authors." to "Canons: 10 articles by 5 authors. It is recommended that you have xx articles by 10 authors."

Maybe. Again, something to discuss later/when Curation team is done established.

Last edited on 31 Aug 2023 16:48 by EstrellaYoshte Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

Jerden 31 Aug 2023 09:41

Exactly what it means for a Canon to be "open" seems to be a matter of debate - I would lean towards it being a matter of fitting the core premise of the Canon, which should take the form of a few basic criteria. That said, it is very hard to litigate, it does seem like we either give veto power to the canon creators, or we just allow anything authors say is part of the Canon to be listed. Both have their issues, I feel like having multiple sections for different storylines is probably the only way to go if there is a need to emphasise continuity. It does make me feel like "Setting" would have been a better term than "Canon", but arguing over semantics never really helps anything.

Change	Yes	No
Hub visual overhaul?	X
Implement canon activity markers?	X
Active=5, Very active=15 per 24 months?	Unsure
Large=75?	Unsure
Allow custom canon block styling?	X

I'm not really sure about the need for a curator and the resulting division into two sections - I think the markers do a decent job of indicating which canons are active and which are not. I'll admit it is currently a very long list, but I'm not convinced that we need to divide it up in this way now that large, active canons are to be clearly marked.

Possibly there could be two size indicators, I suppose 75 is a good bar for being very large but if 50 is equally reasonable that could also be marked. Unsure on the exact definitions of active and very active, seems pretty subjective so remain open to input on those I suppose.

I am a big fan of the redesign and of allowing custom CSS, it allows the entries on the page to serve the same advertising function as the cover of a book. Given the prevalence of custom themes on the site, I think most authors could manage to contribute something for their new canons.

Last edited on 31 Aug 2023 09:48 by Jerden Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

EstrellaYoshte 31 Aug 2023 16:59

I'm not really sure about the need for a curator and the resulting division into two sections

It's basically a matter of interest management — Some canons garner more attention than others, that's an unavoidable state of matter, but they should at least remain in the scope of interest, be it from readers, authors or the creator themselves. A canon without a contactable) hub maintainer/custodian is a significant measure (if only in parallel) of the state of the canon itself, and if compounded with a lack of contribution, should warrant likewise placement.

Additionally, two paths are open for unmaintained canons to return to regular positions, in gaining a new maintainer or receiving new works and request, because those indicates active interest in the canon, mostly agnostic of activity level.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

thedeadlymoose 31 Aug 2023 23:20

I'm not sure about some of these modifications.

The canon is always open to new contribution.

I think we should stick with the current, original rule: "Your canon cannot be "closed" to other, new contributors." This is crucially different because "always open to new contribution" is potentially significantly broader. (This is why the original phrasing was chosen, to my recollection.)

It can not refuse new works for that canon.

This is a significant expansion from the current rules ("Your canon cannot be "closed" to other, new contributors." and
"Your canon cannot be "finished."), and I'm not sure why. Historically, curators have been able to exclude certain works from being listed on the canon page based on judging them to be significantly inappropriate (though they couldn't reject them from being written for the canon, having the canon tag, etc).

Now — as a curator myself, I tend to include everything but categorize it differently (hence the "Splinters" section in Eschatology, etc). And I could easily see issues arising with excess exclusion (and due to my lower activity levels, it's possible this has been happening and I don't know it) that is overly broad but doesn't break the current rule. So I'm ambivalent about this. I'd rather not see a blanket "cannot refuse new works for that canon", though.

About custodianship: I'm kind of iffy on this. Previous intent (which, in fairness, may long have changed) was that custodianship would fall to staff if a creator vanished, and would be given to Rewrite (now Curation) by default, and returned to the creator if they came back upon request UNLESS the creator intended to be excessively destructive or bad-faith with the custodianship. This wasn't special to canons — this was how it worked with any significant article or series.

This, by contrast, very much lays out a path for someone to become a custodian who specifically opposes the intent of the original curator or curators. [EDIT: I missed that the creator would otherwise retain "creator" rights & abilities, which significantly lessens this issue — see below]

It seems more sensible to me to, at minimum, give Curation more explicit oversight over this sort of situation (and many other ambiguous situations).

Honestly, my real big issue with this proposal is that none of the changes are really explained. That's been an issue a lot in recent years, so it's hardly unique here (and I don't mean to overly highlight this proposal by pointing it out here), but it impacts my issues above.

Also, I have to be honest. I like the desire to create good, updated policy. But a lot of this does read as potential needless overstepping to me, and I'm not sure how much of that is down to ambiguous phrasing throughout. Is canon maintenance creating enough of an issue that there's a call to create these many new rules & restrictions on top of the existing ones listed in the Canon Hub?

Last edited on 03 Sep 2023 00:50 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

EstrellaYoshte 01 Sep 2023 02:05

I think we should stick with the current, original rule: "Your canon cannot be "closed" to other, new contributors." This is crucially different because "always open to new contribution" is potentially significantly broader. (This is why the original phrasing was chosen, to my recollection.)

I'll be frank, the original wording is not exactly what I would've chosen. Why is "closed" in quotes? What's the limit for "closed" here? What does this in "We're not going to split hairs on this." refers to specifically?

If we're choosing to formalize this into policy, I'll go with the most open standard afforded to the site, as explained above.

Historically, curators have been able to exclude certain works from being listed on the canon page based on judging them to be significantly inappropriate (though they couldn't reject them from being written for the canon, having the canon tag, etc).

This is news to me, given that we've previously enforced ruling that canon (and its hub's rules) can not reject new works or instate additional rules that would contradiction's canon's openness to be included on the hub page.

I categorically disagree with the notion that a canon hub can choose to exclude works entirely written for that canon, for reasons I've elaborated on in my response to LORDXVNV.

In short, if current conventions allowed for canon creators to curate canons by removing works from the hub (which they don't, to my knowledge? Again, staff never writes these things down in clear terms), it creates a failure state for navigation and discoverability, despite canons being the second/third biggest thing on the site, and easily among the most organized and visible content nexuses.

Imagine if you had chosen to exclude both New Faces and Old Foes to be on the hub (and according to you, would be within your right as canon curator), it'd end up displacing a large number of works from a discoverability standpoint, and establish an unenviable position of works written for Canon Renaissance being alienated by the canon they're renaissance-ing.

I also think it's an absurd state of being that a work can be written for a canon, has recognizable elements of the canon, gets the canon tag, and be denied a place on the hub against all practical and procedural reasons. It sends a very apparent message that one's work is considered invalid for that canon, despite canons not being "closed", as it were, and is ultimately against the spirit of collaboration and innovation.

(To my knowledge, there are at least one recent instance of canon hub excluding works from themselves.)

I'd rather not see a blanket "cannot refuse new works for that canon", though.

I'm open to softening up the wording, but the core of the matter is that if a work is determined to be qualified for a canon tag (typically by taggers, but it's a you'll know it when you see it situation), that work gets a place on the hub by principle of navigation. Doesn't matter where*, but it's gotta be discoverable by the canon hub it's tagged for.

It's mostly freeform after that, and canon creators/custodians can still curate the contents by establishing sections for "main" and "other" and whichever, like your Splinter Canon, or No Return's Alternative Interpretation, or EoD's Stories for other, non-incorporated works. *I'm only interested in preventing canon custodians from displaying works in a bad light e.g. "Section for stinky poopoo bad works" (or not displaying them at all).

---

This, by contrast, very much lays out a path for someone to become a custodian who specifically opposes the intent of the original curator or curators.

How? I specifically laid out that canon custodians can only make minor edits as needed, and major edits with Curation team' permission (or the original canon creator, I guess, if applicable), and that canon creator till has ultimate final say if they return. In fact, most of what I laid out here, I believe, is in line with current Curation policy.

The only part that might be in conflict is that returning-from-absent canon creators can not remove extant custodians, because that both creates an unfair situation and would override Curation's decision-making.

It seems more sensible to me to, at minimum, give Curation more explicit oversight over this sort of situation (and many other ambiguous situations).

This is already established in the hub-related amendment of the Author's Will policy and would be considered the default behavior for hub, canon hubs included. I'm only building on it additional process to ensure smooth running of canons that wouldn't overextend staff's efforts.

Is canon maintenance creating enough of an issue that there's a call to create these many new rules & restrictions on top of the existing ones listed in the Canon Hub?

The Definition and Restrictions are solidification of existing procedures, Custodianship is to ensure some process that allows canon to stay reasonably visible/active/maintained after the creator's long departed from the site.

Of the 40+ canons we have, 9 have banned creators (some temporary, some permabanned, some has other co-creators), 3 have deleted accounts, 2 have steadfastly departed from the site, 5 has inactive creators/still trying to contact, 3 pending creator decision (Of the rest, there are 6 canons whose creators who affirmed continued maintenance, but are difficult to contact/have low to no on site activity.) I've spent the last week trying to get into contact with everyone to confirm their status, excluding banned/deleted accounts.

Some of these have pre-existing trustees or custodians, but it's clear that if a canon is to persist beyond creator's time on the site, there's gotta be a process in place to ensure a point of contact and maintenance for these canons that isn't entirely Staff (Rewrite doesn't rewrite every rewriteable article, for example.) I'm sure you would agree that absent or difficult to contact canon creators can make things run a lot less smoothly.

---

Honestly, my real big issue with this proposal is that none of the changes are really explained

That's what the Discussion is for, no? Most of this is extant conventions I'm finally putting down as actionable, recorded policy, as I said abovetop.

Last edited on 01 Sep 2023 02:30 by EstrellaYoshte Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

thedeadlymoose 03 Sep 2023 00:44

Your response does help clarify a lot — thank you.

I'll be frank, the original wording is not exactly what I would've chosen. Why is "closed" in quotes? What's the limit for "closed" here? What does this in "We're not going to split hairs on this." refers to specifically?

You're right — the original wording has issues. (I'm now rethinking how much I prefer the current phrasing to yours, and will elaborate more if/when my thoughts are better in order.)

I can answer your questions on the current policy, though, because I am one of the two co-creators of the original canon hub & current canon policy (though I didn't draft the rules myself, so the phrasing isn't mine).

Explanations

Generally staff at the time understood the intended meaning (because of truly endless staff chat discussions about it), but it's clearly ambiguous to the point that reasonable people in the future understand it very differently. (This is an issue with a lot of old and new policy alike.)

The limit for "closed" was intended to mean: no permanent or indefinite closure. (Time-limited hiatuses were a thing at the time and for years afterward.) The words "closed" and "finished" are in quotes because it was referencing common jargon for a "closed" or "finished" series.

The meaning of "We're not going to split hairs" was intended (and widely understood at the time to be): don't abuse the exact meaning of the canon rules to go against their spirit, such as closing them indefinitely, or putting unrealistically high bars to contributing.

The full original sentence was: "We're not going to split hairs on this either. Remember: collaboration and innovation. That is the purpose of these creations." The last sentence got cut somewhere along the line, which makes it more confusing IMO.

Your policy proposal is certainly an improvement in some ways over the current policy, which I neglected to add in my original post (apologies). This kind of language will always be dated within a few years by sheer dint of staff turnover, and should be updated just as you are finally doing a decade after. That's a good thing.

This is news to me, given that we've previously enforced ruling that canon (and its hub's rules) can not reject new works or instate additional rules that would contradiction's canon's openness to be included on the hub page.

This would be a new staff modification and (perhaps deliberate) expanded interpretation of the original rules, then. Of course, given this was created in 2012-2013, "new" could be pretty old at this point.

This is NOT an endorsement of the original rules — I'm just clarifying what has factually occurred. (And either way, if effectively most or all works were being excluded, that would go against the original canon policy — it would be "splitting hairs," see above.)

Imagine if you had chosen to exclude both New Faces and Old Foes to be on the hub (and according to you, would be within your right as canon curator), it'd end up displacing a large number of works from a discoverability standpoint, and establish an unenviable position of works written for Canon Renaissance being alienated by the canon they're renaissance-ing.

I completely agree with this! But in fact, I specifically went out of my way to include New Faces and Old Foes into the Resurrection Hub. The default situation would have meant that they would not be included, and indeed they were not included for some time.

I didn't like that, for exactly the reason you lay out here. And I DID think it potentially could've undercut the entire Canon Renaissance, and I wanted to support that project in particular, which was 50% of what prompted me to go out of my way to reorganize the Res hub to include and highlight those two stories. (The other 50% is that I just think it's the right thing to do.)

I also think it's an absurd state of being that a work can be written for a canon, has recognizable elements of the canon, gets the canon tag, and be denied a place on the hub against all practical and procedural reasons. It sends a very apparent message that one's work is considered invalid for that canon, despite canons not being "closed", as it were, and is ultimately against the spirit of collaboration and innovation.

I definitely philosophically and practically agree with this, especially given that last I checked, the Tales page is still broken severely and ultimately people don't really use the canon tag for story discovery effectively.

Where I'm coming from here is knowing that over the years there's been the occasional push to try to creatively "smear" a canon by writing works that are very much part of the story, but are almost exclusively aimed to shame anyone writing for the canon by saying that this story sucks, and you should be embarrassed for writing for it. Resurrection was nearly-but-not-quite targeted for this, so it's something I'm especially conscious of. The unofficial "original canon" DID get targeted by a few of these stories, but there's also no hub or tag for that "original canon" because the creators rejected the idea of that canon through the same process that nearly eliminated all canons from the site until Troy & I created the Canon page in the first place to deliberately bring them back.

I don't think it's unfair to exclude those stories from a canon hub, given that they could be both artistically valid, worthy of inclusion on the wiki, but still written for the purpose of discouraging authors from contributing further to the canon, or mocking the original authors in some ways (we see a lot of this as well in extant stories on the wiki, which I also maintain is artistically valid too, but can still demoralize authors writing for the mainline of the canon).

But maybe I'm wrong on this .. I mean, after all, I very much WOULD include those stories (if they wished it) on any hub page I controlled as a curator, literally unless they included the kind of material I'd advocate for removing from the site anyway). Like, if such stories HAD been created for Resurrection (in fact, it's plausible some actually did get posted that I missed), I would link them on the Res hub page if the creators wished.

Just as I have kept stories on the Res hub that I feel very uncomfortable with, without labeling them as "bad stories" or anything (I'm not gonna say which, though it will probably be obvious to most people). There's really nothing I would personally choose to exclude.

My question is really: is it up to staff to decide this for canon creators/custodians?

The argument, for a very long time, was "No, creators can decide so long as they limit exclusions, because a reader can click on the dedicated tag to see everything."

I wrote my original post from the POV of "No," (though I don't really find the tag argument convincing, especially now), and TBH, some of what you're saying is swaying me to "Maybe.")

I'm open to softening up the wording, but the core of the matter is that if a work is determined to be qualified for a canon tag (typically by taggers, but it's a you'll know it when you see it situation), that work gets a place on the hub by principle of navigation. Doesn't matter where*, but it's gotta be discoverable by the canon hub it's tagged for.

It's mostly freeform after that, and canon creators/custodians can still curate the contents by establishing sections for "main" and "other" and whichever, like your Splinter Canon, or No Return's Alternative Interpretation, or EoD's Stories for other, non-incorporated works. *I'm only interested in preventing canon custodians from displaying works in a bad light e.g. "Section for stinky poopoo bad works" (or not displaying them at all).

I like your explanation here, and I like this as a solution approach — obviously, since I created these solutions (with Eschatology & later Resurrection) and am personally biased towards them lol. ("ALternative Interpretations" is really good, by the way, better than some of my own phrasings.) And I also feel uncomfortable with allowing for a "Section for stinky poopoo bad works."

How? I specifically laid out that canon custodians can only make minor edits as needed, and major edits with Curation team' permission (or the original canon creator, I guess, if applicable), and that canon creator till has ultimate final say if they return.

This was my mistake. I somehow missed the second part of the Hub Editorial Rights section.

I wasn't the only person who misread this based on my discussion with others, but I should've still read more carefully. That's fixed easily by defining "custodian" earlier in the text, and potentially adding "They will otherwise retain canon creator rights as a normal" after "[Creators] may also willingly relinquish the role [of custodian]." Or a similar edit.

I still think it's worth adding something like "Creators can ask the Curation Team to consider removing an existing custodian, but the Curation Team must make the final decision." or similar. I think this is technically implicit in your current draft, but IMO worth making explicit.

This is just based on the principle of trying to avoid making non-staff people (in particular) not have to work with people they don't get along with, without violating the fairness principle.

(Or anything weird like … as as happened in the past, albeit rarely … people trying to take curatorship of the works of people they don't like to try to signal to those people "you can't come back unless you do it on my terms by working with me now". Giving Curation explicit oversight of this would probably nip any issue in the bud without going against the spirit of being fair to all custodians.)

That's what the Discussion is for, no? Most of this is extant conventions I'm finally putting down as actionable, recorded policy, as I said abovetop.

Not quite. Your (excellent) writeup in response to my "is this an issue?" question is supposed to be in the first post of the thread along with the text of the proposal. Otherwise, you get a lot of really good stuff in the thread mixed in with tangents and peoples' personal confusion (like you needing to answer me missing an important paragraph).

Really no worries on this, though. Even admins have been messing this up for years, and I could've made this critique for the majority of the policy proposal threads I've read in a very long time.

And your response clarifies most of my points of confusion. This is definitely much less of an overstep than I feared, though I still have some concerns.

(To my knowledge, there are at least one recent instance of canon hub excluding works from themselves.)

Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning?

And is this policy in part being written as a reaction to this? (If so, that is NOT necessarily a problem at all — as we say in the policy-making guide, *most* policy is reactionary. Just asking for context.)

Last edited on 03 Sep 2023 00:51 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

EstrellaYoshte 01 Sep 2023 15:07

Extended timer by 5 days.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

Cyvstvi 02 Sep 2023 17:24

Everything suggested by this policy is excellent, and the changes further provide towards the collaborative nature that the site has always prided itself on.

Change	Yes	No
Hub visual overhaul?	X
Implement canon activity markers?	X
Active=5, Very active=15 per 24 months?	X
Large=75?	X
Allow custom canon block styling?	X

Definitions:

The definitions are clear and unambigious. I don't really have much to comment on here.

Restrictions and Custodianship:

I don't have any major concerns with the wording of any of the restrictions since I believe they're entirely fair and represent the best interests of readers and authors alike; especially in regards to newer authors who might be interested in contributing to a Canon.

It can not refuse new works for that canon.

I think the wording of this could be changed a little to make its meaning clearer to the custodian, authors, contributors and readers. There are several existing Canons which feature internal subcanons where works can be sequestered from the main branch. This is an issue for navigational aspects and visibility as it would allow the user responsible for the hub to curate works in a manner that seeks to circumvent the restrictions imposed upon a Canon. Whilst I don't have any major gripes with a prospective custodian wishing to ensure there's some aspect of uniformity within a shared setting, I still think it's important to enshrine the fundamental collaborative nature of the site.

Therefore, I'd also propose a slight change to the restriction which follows:

If the hub is not a collaboration page with a clear explanation of how to add works to it, it must contain a ListPages module that lists all pages tagged with the canon's tag for navigational accessibility.

To:

The hub must contain a ListPages module that lists all pages tagged with the canon's tag for navigational accessibility.

The final point links into the primary definition of a Canon wherein all of its works are listed (either manually or by ListPages), but would not be presented as Staff taking upon the role of curators or gatekeepers. Anything that is tagged as part of the Canon should be listed on its Hub. If a work is determined to not fit, it is the responsibility of others users to upvote or downvote the published work.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Canon Policy and Canon Hub Update Proposal

Ethagon 07 Sep 2023 13:10

Change	Yes	No
Hub visual overhaul?	X
Implement canon activity markers?	X
Active=5, Very active=15 per 24 months?	X
Large=75?	X
Allow custom canon block styling?	X

I also feel that Large could do with 50 as well.

Given how negative opinions on it are on the mainsite mirror I do feel like the issue of if articles can be excluded from the hub should get its own vote and maybe discussion. Although I personally don't see there being much of a choice than how we're currently effectively doing it and how it is outlined here.

Also not sure why this was posted in the Voting subforum, but that doesn't matter much.