Forums: Index > Debates > The Future of Edit Quota

Since the proposed demotion of Meloney ,staff activity has been one of the most argumentative subjects on the wiki. For over a month I have been trying to write up a whole new policy that we could put up for voting,but it seems like most of the actual "drama" that comes from our current policy is from the Edit Quota. Our current Quota is simply not followed,and if we truly enforced it most of us would be subject for demotion. So I have come here to day in search for input of the possible steps we could take to solve this issue once and for all. If you have any ideas,information,or comments about this please voice your opinion here.

I,myself have come up with four different options by talking to different staff members and generally brain storming:

Option 1: A Department Based Edit Quota=

Basically each department has different needs,and requires different levels of activity. Human Resources & Aid and Service should generally make more edits than Claiming & R and D. In order to fix this each department would have its own edit quota set by the departments Bureaucrat (in the case of no Bureaucrat,the departments longest serving Admin would set the quota,until a bureaucrat is elected). So it would read something like this:


Claiming Edit Quota:Would be set by Kevin


Human Resources Edit Quota:Would be set by YorkieWolf


Research and Development Quota:Would be set by Brocky292


Since Aid and Service will never have a true department head,it would follow the current quota in policy.

Option 2:Abolish the Edit Quota

Im not a big fan of this option,but the idea has been floated around on chat before. Basically under this option we would measure someones activity based only on the current Demotion policy we have. There would be no required weekly edits for staff members to make.

Option 3: Keep & Enforce our Current Policy

Our current policy,could theoretically still be relevant as there is no real punishment stated in policy for not making your quota. It honestly just seems like a bad idea to keep this policy since most of our staff has at one point not followed it,or still does not.

Option 4:Forcing Quotas

Under option 4 we would have to basically write up some sort of new policy that would punish staff for missing quotas,and eventually lead to a staff members overall demotion for missing quotas. We would keep our current quota,but would add essentially a path way for being demoted for not following it.


---


In all honesty guys,I am willing to hear anyone out here. So please comment any possible solutions,ideas,or thoughts you have.I want to hear your opinion before I even think about putting something up for a vote. Thanks,have a wonderful day. Yikes o.o

I agree with Option 1. The quota for the different departments should be different because A.) the workload is different for each one, B.) some department work are a bit more tedious than the others and require loads of edits to keep up (user/chars forum upkeep, for example), and C.) some department work won't even require that much edits but still be equally important and integral for the wiki to be done as with other dept. works that require lots of edits (planning and developing activities in R&D). I also think that we should start strictly enforcing the rules for demotion if a staff member fails to make the required edits. Since we are rewriting this policy, it would really make sense if we see it through all the way and deal with all the possible agendas it might bring to the fold.
ESSig2.png "Don't be such a sourwolf." ~SterekESsig.png

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.