This page serves as a workspace for the creation of new proposals to address the ongoing Bright Works issue. This page will be used to create high-level summaries of the proposals, as part of Stage 4.
- Refine Solutions Collaboratively
- We create, ideally, between 3-5 different proposals (as a rough minimum target); each proposal does not need to address every concern or issue, but they should all be distinct from one another;
- This starts with high level summaries, with notes about how each could work, and what they would resolve;
- As smaller groups, we break out and work in parallel, with some degree of 'point person' for a given proposal - they are not fully responsible for this, they are just helping as a de facto reference individual for a given proposal;
- For each proposal, we write a high level summary version, covering:
- What the proposal is focused on resolving;
- How it wants to resolve the issues;
- The potential pros/cons of this specific proposal;
- What it doesn't address, if anything, and;
- A summary of the work that would be needed to be done for the proposal to be 'resolved'.
- For each proposal, we write a high level summary version, covering:
- Once we have a set of proposal summaries, we come back together as a team, and give feedback on the other proposals;
- For a given issue, we should contact other staff members and teams, for consultation on the issue/solutions;
- As a team, we also solicit feedback from staff, to determine what are the best proposals;
- From the set of summaries, we chose 2-3 solutions to move forward into the next stage, for full proposal drafts.
- We create, ideally, between 3-5 different proposals (as a rough minimum target); each proposal does not need to address every concern or issue, but they should all be distinct from one another;
Proposal Plans
List of Problems
Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
Rewriting Bright's Pages
Bright's Contributions to Series
The Slots
Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
Supplementary Pages
Handling Bright's Harm
Off-Site Reaction
Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
INT Translations(Near) Total Removal, Plus Context
High Level Summary:
All of Bright's pages should be unlisted, and the most problematic works should be left empty, redirecting to an updated version of the Bright List explanation page. This prioritizes removing Bright from the wiki, while supporting contextual information, so that we can acknowledge the harm caused. This should be communicated in a clear way, with a schedule and understanding from both staff, and the community.
What Issues This Addresses:
- Problematic Works Authored By Bright
- Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
- Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
- Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
- Bright's Contributions to Series
- The Slots
- Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
- Supplementary Pages
- Handling Bright's Harm
- Off-Site Reaction
How Those Issues are Resolved:
- Problematic Works Authored By Bright
- All Pages are Unlisted, but maintained for archival purposes
- Ambiguously Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
- All Pages are Unlisted, but maintained for archival purposes
- Non-Problematic Works Authored By AdminBright
- Almost all pages are unlisted, but maintained for archival purposes
- SCP-902 is not included in this resolution
- The 2kcon page is not included in this resolution, rather, it is reattributed to Staff
- Bright's Co-Authored Page(s)
- SCP-902, Bright's only Co-Authored page, is left posted
- The attribution is changed to 'TheDuckMan'
- Bright's Contributions to Series
- We contact series runners, and keep them informed; they can make the choices they want
- The Slots
- All 'problematic' or 'ambiguous' slots are redirected to the Bright List page
- An updated version of the page is created, to address the harm caused, etc.
- All 'acceptable' page slots are left untouched, and released per standard process
- All 'problematic' or 'ambiguous' slots are redirected to the Bright List page
- Off-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages / Slot Shock
- All 'problematic' or 'ambiguous' slots are redirected to the Bright List page
- An updated version of the page is created, to address the harm caused, etc.
- All 'problematic' or 'ambiguous' slots are redirected to the Bright List page
- Supplementary Pages
- SCP-902's splash page is left alone, as 902 will remain
- Document 050 would be unlisted, regardless, as a page authored by Bright
- Handling Bright's Harm
- Removes Bright From the Wiki
- Off-Site Reaction
- Create statements in advance, coordinate with CO, and post them once a decision has been made.
High Level Plan:
- An updated version of the Bright List page is drafted
- This should not only cover what the problems with the content were, but also the harm done
- It should also talk about the failures staff made in not acting more promptly
- SCP-902 is reattributed to 'TheDuckMan'
- Contact Series/Canon runners, to give them a heads up
- All of Bright's Pages are Unlisted
- Those pages also receive the code patch to conceal the content further
- Edit/post the Bright list page, with the draft
- Create redirects for the noted problematic/ambiguous pages
- Update the community, both on site, and off-site
Pros and Cons:
This proposal prioritizes removing Bright from the SCP wiki, as the content is not meaningfully important, in the larger sense. It is more important to remove the harm, and to prevent this harm from happening in the future.
Pros:
- This removes Bright from the wiki, in all but one instance, and obfuscates their presence there. This means that Bright is not able to continue to influence the wiki, based on having works posted.
- By redirecting the majority of the slots to the explanation, we can control the optics, and address the harm caused.
- The pages are maintained internally, for archival purposes, but cannot be accessed publicly
- Outside of drafting the updated page, this is a relatively lightweight plan, and could be implemented promptly
- By not distinguishing between the problematic, and the non-problematic,
Cons:
- Removing the pages does not allow for the wiki to remain as a single source — however, given the nature of the works, they are not a major loss
- The other released slots are treated normally, which could create a rush — however, these are only 9 slots, 7 of which are in series 1
- This does not preserve the highest-rated pages — however, given their content, it is more important to remove them, than to preserve them
- The unlisted pages will generate many broken backlinks — however, that is something we will address in the next effort, on tier 2
- May not accommodate off-site, given the popularity of some of Bright's worst works — however, our priority is reduction of harm, and removing these pages are critical.
What This Doesn't Address:
- Rewriting Bright's Pages
- Issues Regarding Staff Mass Deletions
- INT Translations
- Bright's Contributions to Other Pages
- On-Site Works that Backlink to Bright's Pages
- Related Works that Unperson Bright (Shaw, etc.)
Relevant Teams:
- Tech
- RE: Getting the code for concealing the unlisted pages
- CO
- RE: the statements to be posted on the socials, when resolved
Single Source of Truth
High Level Summary:
Part of the potential issue is that if we remove Bright's works from the wiki, readers will go to alternative sources, and bypass any attempt we have to educate people and control the narrative. To avoid this, we keep all of Bright's works on the wiki — but we add a disclaimer at the top, explaining exactly the circumstances, and then have the actual content of the article in a collapsible below. This would ensure that the narrative is controlled, while still hosting the works directly on the SCP Wiki.
What Issues This Addresses:
- In bullet point form, this should detail all of the noted 'issues' that this proposal would address.
How Those Issues are Resolved:
- For each given issue, this section should explain what resolution is done/what the overall plan is for those component issues. This is also in bullet point form.
High Level Plan:
- This section should list, in bullet points, all of the work that would need to be done. This will be expanded upon in the next stage.
Pros and Cons:
This section should have a more detailed depth to the benefits of this overall proposal, and the negatives of it, as a whole. This can be a combination of the pros/cons from the solutions, but should also address this proposal as a whole.
Pros:
- 3-5 Sentences, about the benefits for this resolution.
Cons:
- 3-5 Sentences, about the downsides for this resolution - also mention what offsets this con, if anything.
What This Doesn't Address:
- In bullet point form, list any problems or issues that are not addressed by this proposal. This should be pulled from the previous page, and doesn't need major details.
Relevant Teams:
- This section should list, in bullet point form, what teams would be involved, or would need to be consulted for the solution, if any. These groups will be consulted during the review, and while creating the complete proposals.
Minimal Staff Intervention in Removal
High Level Summary:
Rather than making large changes to the wiki, through the will of staff, we identify the worst offenders for pages created by Bright. Only these pages would be removed from the wiki, with their pages redirected to the updated Bright note. All other pages authored by Bright would remain, to have staff intervene as minimally as possible, for the safety of the site.
What Issues This Addresses:
- In bullet point form, this should detail all of the noted 'issues' that this proposal would address.
How Those Issues are Resolved:
- For each given issue, this section should explain what resolution is done/what the overall plan is for those component issues. This is also in bullet point form.
High Level Plan:
- This section should list, in bullet points, all of the work that would need to be done. This will be expanded upon in the next stage.
Pros and Cons:
This section should have a more detailed depth to the benefits of this overall proposal, and the negatives of it, as a whole. This can be a combination of the pros/cons from the solutions, but should also address this proposal as a whole.
Pros:
- 3-5 Sentences, about the benefits for this resolution.
Cons:
- 3-5 Sentences, about the downsides for this resolution - also mention what offsets this con, if anything.
What This Doesn't Address:
- In bullet point form, list any problems or issues that are not addressed by this proposal. This should be pulled from the previous page, and doesn't need major details.
Relevant Teams:
- This section should list, in bullet point form, what teams would be involved, or would need to be consulted for the solution, if any. These groups will be consulted during the review, and while creating the complete proposals.
Adapted Deletions Threshold (Community Driven Deletion)
High Level Summary:
Rather than making determinations as staff for removal of specific works, we instead adapt a system the wiki has long-since used for deleting pages: rating modules. For each Bright page, we create a new page, with a rating module, that will be accessible for a set duration — during this time, all wiki users are able to vote on these pages, upvotes or downvotes. At the end of this period, all negatively rated pages would be removed, and the positively rated pages would remain. In this way, we allow the modern community of the wiki to decide the fate of these pages, rather than the historical sense of accumulated votes.
What Issues This Addresses:
- In bullet point form, this should detail all of the noted 'issues' that this proposal would address.
How Those Issues are Resolved:
- For each given issue, this section should explain what resolution is done/what the overall plan is for those component issues. This is also in bullet point form.
High Level Plan:
- This section should list, in bullet points, all of the work that would need to be done. This will be expanded upon in the next stage.
Pros and Cons:
This section should have a more detailed depth to the benefits of this overall proposal, and the negatives of it, as a whole. This can be a combination of the pros/cons from the solutions, but should also address this proposal as a whole.
Pros:
- 3-5 Sentences, about the benefits for this resolution.
Cons:
- 3-5 Sentences, about the downsides for this resolution - also mention what offsets this con, if anything.
What This Doesn't Address:
- In bullet point form, list any problems or issues that are not addressed by this proposal. This should be pulled from the previous page, and doesn't need major details.
Relevant Teams:
- This section should list, in bullet point form, what teams would be involved, or would need to be consulted for the solution, if any. These groups will be consulted during the review, and while creating the complete proposals.