[DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Summary:

Preservation, so we avoid devastation

[DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Queerious 23 Aug 2024 21:29

o4 Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16922351/discussion-historical-or-significant-article-rewrite-policy

Issue:

Currently, if an article does not go through standard rewrite processes, and instead through private authorization by the original author, there is the possibility that older, highly rated articles that serve as important pieces of SCP wiki history are deleted and replaced. In the effort of historical preservation, we need to enable a staff process that ensures changes are made with archival procedures in mind, so that we do not lose any historical works.

NOTE: To clarify the reason behind this proposal, this is specifically to cover situations where a random user contacts the author of a work, and the original author gives their permission to the other user to rewrite. Based on the rules as written currently, if granted by the original author, the rewrite team and staff as a whole has zero purview regarding the rewrite by the third party. This proposal would address that gap.

Solution: Integration into Rewrite

We propose that all 'historical or significant' articles, that are not being rewritten by the original author, must go through the standard rewrite process. However, in addition to the standard requirements, we would require:

• The rewrite author submits proof of rewrite authorization from the original author, in the form of a Wikidot PMs, or other verified avenues at the discretion of Rewrite.

By doing this, we can ensure that any rewrites for significant articles is above the board, and avoid situations where a work is deleted incorrectly, based on confusion or ambiguity between users.

'Historical or Significant' Articles

How do we define the purview of what we consider 'Historical or Significant' articles, to determine what would be covered by this policy? I would propose that we create a set of metrics, where, if the article meets any of the listed traits, it is considered 'Historical or Significant' for the purposes of this policy. To that end, we propose that an article is considered 'Historical or Significant' if it meets at least 2 of the following qualifications:

1. If the article is rated +500 or higher;
2. If the article is in a series below or in series X-6, where X is the current series. (For example, as we are in series 9, any article from series 1-3 would fall under this policy);
3. The article has 20+ backlinks;
4. If the article has significant offsite presence, and is considered culturally important by wiki users.

Through these standards, we can ensure that historical and significant articles are properly protected, and follow proper procedures. Point 4 is intentionally a bit looser, so that we can use staff discretion for outliers not covered by the other metrics

Do we archive 'Historical or Significant' Articles?

In situations where a 'historical or significant' article is authorized and earned the requisite approvals for publishing, we need to determine what we want to do with the original article. Standard rewrite policy states that a rewritten article is unlisted, and effectively deleted from the wiki.

Based on that, we would propose the following options:

1. Unlist the page, as per standard rewrite procedure
2. A new method for preserving the article
3. A mixture of the above two

IF we would want to preserve these 'historical or significant' articles, as per option 2, we would propose the following solution:

A 'historical or significant' article that has gone through the rewrite process is not unlisted, as per standard rewrite policy. Rather, any 'historical or significant' article should be preserved in the following ways:

1. The article will be moved, and renamed to SCP-XXXX-ARC.
2. The article will be given a new top level tag for archived versions of 'historical or significant' articles, such as archived, and the scp tag would be removed.

What's Next?

We need to discuss if we want to implement a policy like this, and if we do, which of the listed archival options we want to go with! Discussion will go for a week, and then, if there is consensus in the discussion regarding how to archive the works, it will be voted on with that solution.

Last edited on 24 Aug 2024 01:11 by Queerious Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Celeste Etoile 23 Aug 2024 22:01

With the discussion we just had about authors not being allowed to post significantly different articles without posting them as a new page, I don't like the idea of allowing rewrites of historical articles without a similar policy. I realize that's happened in the past, but a significant amount of the people who rated the original page are not going to go back and change their vote based on the rewrite. I'm sure plenty of them aren't even a part of the SCP community, anymore.

Additionally, while there are a few historical articles I really don't like, they are a part of our site's history. I feel like their should be a higher barrier to rewriting them than "the original author gave their permission". Clef's teenage succubus article, for example, had some content that was problematic and I think it was understandable why a rewrite for it was approved. Unless there are extenuating circumstances for other articles, I don't think rewrites of the site's older articles should be allowed.

Last edited on 23 Aug 2024 22:02 by Celeste Etoile Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Queerious 23 Aug 2024 22:11

So to clarify — as per standard rewrite policy, in the case of a self-rewrite, the old version of the article could be preserved by moving it to a tale category and then posting the new work as a new page in the slot. So this policy does specifically require that if we go with option 2.

I feel like their should be a higher barrier to rewriting them

To talk about this for a second, that is part of the core reason behind this policy proposal? Right now, we do not have any barriers beyond proof of authorization by the original author; without going through the rewrite process, staff has no say in when or how the page is deleted or what replaces it.

By codifying this policy, any rewrite of a 'historical or significant' article would need to go through the standard rewrite process, which includes the piece being authorized by 3 members of the rewrite staff team. In my mind, this allows for that space of allowing authors to rewrite a work if they have permission, but ensuring that anything that would replace it is a solid article that we feel could succeed.

Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Celeste Etoile 23 Aug 2024 22:43

I don't think anything new should be allowed to be posted in those slots unless there's an extenuating circumstances that requires them to be rewritten, whether it's posted as a new article or not. I think it's good to have stricter requirements in general, as you've said, I just don't think that rewrites should be allowed for any historical articles at all unless absolutely necessary.

Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Prismal 24 Aug 2024 02:53

+ philosophical yapping

I think this discussion boils down in large part to a discussion of values. Whether we do this and how we go about this requires staff as a whole to make concrete decisions on very contentious and blurry issues regarding author autonomy vs community responsibility.

To what extent do we as staff have a right to stop an author from doing whatever they like with a work of theirs, no matter how old or iconic or highly voted it may be?

If they would like to give their article to someone else to completely rewrite, or if they'd like to delete it, or modify it in some way themselves do we as staff have a right to stand in their way? if so, to what extent? What would truly be the difference between letting an author delete their work and letting an author put it up for rewrite? Should we allow one but not the other? why or why not?

To what extent do we as staff have a responsibility to the community to preserve works, regardless of the wishes of the author? Though unlikely it may be, I doubt we would delete SCP-173 regardless of the wishes of its author nor do I imagine we would be content with Xkcon winner deleting their winning work, and similarly I know there are concerns when authors wish to delete a large swath of works.

These are issues we ignore until confronted with them, and understandibly so, they are difficult questions. While technically speaking our rules on content err on the side of author autonomy and license compliance we tend to move more towards the side of community responsibility when confronted with a "know it when I see it" variety of issues such as those presented above.

I mention this because I think it is important to acknowledge how these decisions affect both our authors and the community at large and maintain some amount of middle ground rather than being fully permissive of author autonomy or ignoring their wishes in favor of the community.

+ practical yapping

Personally, I am more biased towards author autonomy, though I do think exceptions must be made for the sake of the community.

That said, I think the definition for 'Historical or Significant' Articles is both too concrete and too broad.

I think it's very difficult to define what makes an article "historical" or "significant". I don't believe it can be quantified with upvotes or series number or backlinks or age.
not as such.

I hate to say it, but you know it when you see it.

Another reason I dislike the definition as currently laid out is that it casts a very wide net. Are all 2999 of the first 3 series significant enough for us to preserve and take responsibility over despite the wishes of the authors? Absolutely not.

This should be determined on a case by case basis, and require some amount of scrutiny on the part of staff.

Somewhat ironically, I think the best starting model we have for this is how old staff decided on works to archive. Staff votes.

Now I will be the first to tell you I think old staff was much too "pick and choose" with what they chose to archive (in fact your discussion has reminded me of a vote I tend to put up to unarchive a large swath of them) but I think the issue with that system was an issue of praxis rather than the theory.

To expand on my thoughts: I think any reviving of the archival system should require a fair bit of scrutiny as to what gets archived preserved due to its significance and I think there ought perhaps be differing levels too. Ones that differ kcon winners and 173 from less significant works that may still fit the bill.

I'll leave any more in specific practicalities regarding my suggestion until it becomes relevant. For now, these are my thoughts on the current proposal discussed.

TLDR: I don't like the definition. Go whole hog on 4, become ARC votes 2.0, be very selective and safeguard author autonomy to the extent able


Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Queerious 24 Aug 2024 04:25

I think you raised a really good point, because yeah, in my mind too, this is absolutely a discussion of author autonomy vs community responsibility and how staff oversight supports that?

To that end, I did want to clarify that this wouldn't change the ability for an author to rewrite their own articles fully under their control. Instead, this focuses specifically on situations where a different author wants to rewrite it, with authorization from the original author; all this policy does is to ensure that those specific rewrites would have the same staff purview as any other rewrite? And to clarify, the focus of rewrite is evaluating if an article is capable of being successful, not based on personal opinion — in that way, I did not feel that requiring a significant article rewrite to goes through the formal process would be something that interfered with authorial autonomy?

In my mind, this proposal balances authorial autonomy, by still maintaining the ability of the author to self-rewrite, or self-delete under their control, and still allowing them to authorize anybody to attempt a rewrite of their article? The difference is that without rewrite oversight, it could be possible that:

1. An article rewrite for a 'historical or significant' article is authorized by the original author
2. The new author finishes their rewrite, and since there is no approval process, they unlist the original work, wiping the votes, and publish their rewrite
3. The rewrite fails, and is deleted. At this point, the slot would be left fully open, as based on the current rewrite rules, the old article would not be returned to the slot. At this point, the original, highly rated article would not be on the wiki, and the slot would be empty for any author to fill

Because, to me, we don't want a situation like that, and I feel like this proposal balances authorial autonomy with the existing rewrite processes that are set up to help rewrites succeed.

Last edited on 24 Aug 2024 04:26 by Queerious Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Uncle Nicolini 28 Aug 2024 19:09

i hate the old school arc policy. quite literally nepotism.

that being said, we could make it so that a new arc policy allows for us to archive older articles that are positively rated when the original author wants to replace, rewrite, or remove it.

Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

EstrellaYoshte 29 Aug 2024 09:44

so that we do not lose any historical works.

In a situation where the original work isn't already in deletion range, they would have to:

A. Ask the original author to delete or move their work, meaning there isn't any room for Rewrite to act or react anyway.
B. Likely the more relevant situation, asking Staff to move or delete the article so that the grantee can post their rewrite, in which case Rewrite can step in and invoke unlisting.

I'm of the opinion that if the original author grants rewrite permission, they do it with the implicit understanding that the original iteration would cease to exist, thus unlisting is the only appropriate compromise of that and retaining relevant historical data.

That said, Rewrite can amend the unlisting policy to add a clause where they can move pre-rewritten version into -ARC with author's permission or some such.

Last edited on 29 Aug 2024 09:45 by EstrellaYoshte Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

Ethagon 30 Aug 2024 19:03

Seconding all of this. I also agree with Pedantique, that we don't really need this as a system for a specific group of articles. If it's just something like this it can be general policy for all articles, which I'd be more comfortable with.

Re: [DISCUSSION] 'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy Proposal

FlyPurgatorio 29 Aug 2024 14:19

I think the definition needs some work, and I'm echoing Prismal in that regard. Age is not the only factor that makes a rewrite significant.

If we're erring on the side of author autonomy, I'd suggest implementing a clause that has the original author not only state permission for the rewrite, but also state whether they want their original to be moved to a tale slot (aka -ARC)?

If we're moving on the community responsibility side, I'd like a more specific definition. Con winners would fit this bill, significant pages that are more recent such as 3008 (large off-site following), the original Anthology series (connected theming + collaborative event) or maybe even an ArtEx gift the original giftee wants to keep around in the form they requested?

As for the situation you proposed earlier of a rewrite of a historical article flopping: we could suggest an alternative in the case of these "historical" pieces that they get relisted if the original flops, rather than remaining empty. As opposed to a lot of the rewrites Rewrite has under their purview atm.