Problems with the Wiki

[nvrspk4]

You don't give people who edit wikis "positions" as such. You just give normal users rollback abilities and go from there. Is the Wiki not being treated independently from Habbox? Because that might be the problem and would explain why it seems to be a Habbox Wiki rather than a general Habbo Wiki, hence barely any interest outside the Habbox ecosystem.

I don't necessarily think that's true. A Habbox base of strength is both good and necessary for launching, but I also agree that the ecosystem does need to spread past Habbox for it to be a big success. I think admin staff at the top are needed and that's where Habbox officials come in but yeah I also agree that a large non-staff contingent would lead to rapid growth. Though I guess those people don't yet exist

[lawrawrrr]

You don't give people who edit wikis "positions" as such. You just give normal users rollback abilities and go from there. Is the Wiki not being treated independently from Habbox? Because that might be the problem and would explain why it seems to be a Habbox Wiki rather than a general Habbo Wiki, hence barely any interest outside the Habbox ecosystem.

For the same reason HabboxLive isn't - because we're one organization with four different arms.

All Habbox staff members have a certain code of conduct and level of work we expect from them, if we allowed people to have permissions there is a certain risk because they could *technically* do anything. It's a matter of trust.

If we did do what you suggested, nothing would change anyway. This thread started because of an issue with someone editing, the problem was eradicated within half an hour, and the roll backs were mainly done within 2, although I did have to stop to sleep.

There are 6 people capable of rolling back, at the moment, and that is MORE than enough, there is no need for any more arbitrary promotions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GommeInc]

Gomme seems like they already implemented something similar to your suggestion from the getgo - from earlier in the thread seems like all AGMs didn't have access to reverse changes and as a result of this they and some managers got the privileges. Though I guess not specifically for the rollback feature.

...

But I think Gomme's initial point is a good one -trying to build a user-centric base instead of needing to hire a formal staff to maintain it. If you give 100 users (example) who are known forum members (and thus have a clear disincentive to not screw around - a forum ban for deliberate vandalism), you have pretty wide-ranging protection as any one of them can hop on and revert issues. Nobody's going to risk a ban on the forum just to put silly content up on the Wiki.

...

Furthermore, I dunno if this is possible but as a method for further protecting the Wiki - require that to be validated by an admin for editing privileges users have a forum account for at least 3 months or 250 posts (I obviously threw those numbers out there randomly, it's really just a non-zero commitment that proves some investment.)

If you think that a substantial contribution comes from non-forum members or new members, make edits available to the public but require that all edits by individuals below the threshold be approved by an admin. After x number of valid edits, users could be upgraded into the edit-capable group even if they don't have the requisite forum credentials.

Anyway I think he has a point that you could use normal users to have a large enough crowd that vandalism isn't worth the effort. Even if it's hard to get users amped up about the Wiki, if you can make it a status game (which people love, see post count and rep reductions) it could have an effect. Especially if there were Wiki admin/rollbacker awards But even if the community doesn't latch onto the Wiki, if you give Gomme (just an example of a well-known member, he may not appreciate my volunteering him ) and 20 other well known Habbox members rollback capability, even though he may not edit the wiki ever, when something like this happens a member can ping him and I'm sure he'll have the decency to remove the animal-in-blender image via rollback. Of course this is all predicated on Gomme's argument that the various levels of privileges have little to no ability to cause lasting damage even if one of them goes "rogue" which seems pretty plausible given the extensive versioning that comes with Wikis. Just a different way of looking at the problem

I figure its worth putting in here since the old conversation seems to be much concluded...but can start a new thread on it if you want

Technically rollback privileges to ordinary editors just means they can bypass the "undo" function. Instead of the usual editing page coming up where you have to click "save changes" you just click rollback and it will do it instantly. It's quick and surprisingly more effective than just undoing changes manually despite there being minimal effort. It wouldn't give them a power buzz as they're still basic users, so if they abused it it would be a quick fix. It wouldn't be like deleting entire pages, for instance.

For the same reason HabboxLive isn't - because we're one organization with four different arms.

All Habbox staff members have a certain code of conduct and level of work we expect from them, if we allowed people to have permissions there is a certain risk because they could *technically* do anything. It's a matter of trust.

If we did do what you suggested, nothing would change anyway. This thread started because of an issue with someone editing, the problem was eradicated within half an hour, and the roll backs were mainly done within 2, although I did have to stop to sleep.

There are 6 people capable of rolling back, at the moment, and that is MORE than enough, there is no need for any more arbitrary promotions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They *technically* can't do anything. They're just rollbackers. They wouldn't need to go through the boring pages of Habbox Conduct as the Wiki, I hope, already has a page saying that users should only undo changes (which is all a rollbacker is doing) for x reasons. They wouldn't need to be actual staff as they're not actual staff and shouldn't be treated as such. Again, this seems to be an issue with Habbox trying to do a tried and proven task and doing a strange, inadequate twist on it.

Also, if you're treating the Wiki as one of Habbox arms no wonder it's not doing anything these days other than being used a place to edit pages based on Habbox members and deterring new editors who have no incentive to edit... 6 capable rollbackers is not enough. On a small wiki I'm a bureaucrat on there are 16 users with rollback privileges, and unwanted edits are almost non-existent and dealt with almost instantaneously. And they're just ordinary editors who are only interested in editing and the ability helps them keep their pages clean if they're big-time editors as well as help them deal with problems if they notice something if an admin is not around. Furthermore, it keeps them interested which seems to be an issue with the Habbox Wiki.

[nvrspk4]

Technically rollback privileges to ordinary editors just means they can bypass the "undo" function. Instead of the usual editing page coming up where you have to click "save changes" you just click rollback and it will do it instantly. It's quick and surprisingly more effective than just undoing changes manually despite there being minimal effort. It wouldn't give them a power buzz as they're still basic users, so if they abused it it would be a quick fix. It wouldn't be like deleting entire pages, for instance.

Then I think it's a hugely rational suggestion, and currently the bog is over the framing of the issue of "why wasn't this done in the past" rather than a potential improvement going forward. Laura - given that rollback doesn't seem to be a privilege with much damage-potential (I assume undoing a rollback is fairly simple) is it feasible to make rolling it out to known users outside of staff a part of whatever solution is found for the wiki?

[-Nick]

How many people try to destroy and ruin HabboxWiki? Hardly 10 (we think) out of the est. 7.046 billion (2012) people on the earth. Why does everyone need access to rollbacks? Within an hour the issue is normally resolved by people who already have access. Theres no need for unnecessary risks of people abusing these privileges.

[nvrspk4]

How many people try to destroy and ruin HabboxWiki? Hardly 10 (we think) out of the est. 7.046 billion (2012) people on the earth. Why does everyone need access to rollbacks? Within an hour the issue is normally resolved by people who already have access. Theres no need for unnecessary risks of people abusing these privileges.

Well it depends on the future of the Wiki. If access to edits is given out widely (which may be needed to make the wiki a success) it could be more common. What's the risk of giving people rollback ability? Especially since Gomme mentioned its really just a faster version of something that someone with edit privileges would be able to do anyway?

[GommeInc]

How many people try to destroy and ruin HabboxWiki? Hardly 10 (we think) out of the est. 7.046 billion (2012) people on the earth. Why does everyone need access to rollbacks? Within an hour the issue is normally resolved by people who already have access. Theres no need for unnecessary risks of people abusing these privileges.

If you think you can abuse a Wiki with rollback privileges you do not know what it is. It's a convenience tool to undo edits without being greeted by the undo changes page, nothing more. Also, as I've said - it's an incentive for ordinary members to edit. If you have a usual promotion system, regular editors can strive for rollback privileges, then after this possible admin privileges and so on. You shouldn't need an application system, but a standard promotion page where editors can be nominated or nominate themselves and from there on other editors can agree or disagree. It's a clever system that keeps people interested and creates a small community which works surprisingly well on successful wikis.

[-Nick]

Well it depends on the future of the Wiki. If access to edits is given out widely (which may be needed to make the wiki a success) it could be more common. What's the risk of giving people rollback ability? Especially since Gomme mentioned its really just a faster version of something that someone with edit privileges would be able to do anyway?

The risk of the rollback ability is people abusing it and people using it on edits which are well written and contributing well to wiki. Which means someone who is sensible/mature enough to rollback the rollback. Which is just not needed at the moment.

[nvrspk4]

The risk of the rollback ability is people abusing it and people using it on edits which are well written and contributing well to wiki. Which means someone who is sensible/mature enough to rollback the rollback. Which is just not needed at the moment.

If you're only giving rollback to people who would have edit permissions in the first place, how is there any more of a risk of defacing a wiki? Sure it's not needed at the moment because the wiki is inactive and locked down, but assuming that HxWiki starts to thrive, it would be more useful. Wouldn't it be better to have the groundwork and system in place?

[-Nick]

If you're only giving rollback to people who would have edit permissions in the first place, how is there any more of a risk of defacing a wiki? Sure it's not needed at the moment because the wiki is inactive and locked down, but assuming that HxWiki starts to thrive, it would be more useful. Wouldn't it be better to have the groundwork and system in place?

When the wiki does start to thrive a little more, I suppose Laura and Joe will maybe put something new into place. However as the Content department is on a low at the moment, I cannot see the wiki starting to have a 100's of edits daily to have a rollback system in place for the public to use. Content staff don't use the rollback system daily, the first time I used it was last tuesday and I've been in the department for nearly 7 months with a small break.