Guidelines for Submitting Content Revisions: Avoiding Duplication and Ensuring Quality

[ImmortalDread]

Introduction​

---

This staff thread outlines guidelines for submitting content revisions while adhering to quality standards. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the topic has not been addressed previously and avoiding resubmitting rejected content revisions within a brief period of time, typically defined as within 3 to 4 months. The premise highlights the need to avoid frustration and inconvenience while maximizing the chances of approval by staff members. Exceptions to the rule may be made in cases where higher staff members bring up important, previously unconsidered information. Overall, the draft provides practical advice for content creators seeking to create high-quality, original content revisions.

Credits: @Antvasima @Deagonx

The Draft

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X

What do you think about this?

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

Why is the "important previously unconsidered information" rule limited to only higher staff members?

 

[Antvasima]

Because they are the most trusted to be responsible enough to not abuse it and only use this option when it genuinely seems necessary and highly warranted.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Why is the "important previously unconsidered information" rule limited to only higher staff members?

As they are deemed to be the most reliable and trustworthy, they are expected to exercise great care in their use of this option, limiting it to situations in which it is truly essential and fully justified.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think there are reasons besides "previously unconsidered information" that could justify a redo. (e.g. a certain rule of our page having been ignored or flaws being found in a calc something has been based on)
I would argue if a staff member thinks for any reason that it's important to bring it up again, that should be fine.

Additionally, this should only apply for threads that received extensive debate. If a thread passes or is rejected without any significant opposition, then restricting opposition from making a point would be troublesome. It happens quite often that something passes, the character than is used in some debate, people notice that the reasoning is questionable as hell and hence make a follow-up CRT. And that happening is a good thing, because we want people that test the reliability of arguments by arguing against them.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think there are reasons besides "previously unconsidered information" that could justify a redo. (e.g. a certain rule of our page having been ignored or flaws being found in a calc something has been based on)
I would argue if a staff member thinks for any reason that it's important to bring it up again, that should be fine.

Additionally, this should only apply for threads that received extensive debate. If a thread passes or is rejected without any significant opposition, then restricting opposition from making a point would be troublesome. It happens quite often that something passes, the character than is used in some debate, people notice that the reasoning is questionable as hell and hence make a follow-up CRT. And that happening is a good thing, because we want people that test the reliability of arguments by arguing against them.

Does this work for you?

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously, except in cases where a redo is warranted due to the discovery of flaws in a calculation or a violation of a rule on our page. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member brings up important previously unconsidered information. This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Does this work for you?

I would put it more like this, if that's ok:

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I would put it more like this, if that's ok:

Wow, this is perfect yap. I will edit my OP then. Thanks for assistance, although, we need to wait for some days till Ant comes and evaluate it.

 

[Antvasima]

As usual, I am fine with DontTalk's suggested wording.

However, as far as I am aware, the word "short" refers to space, whereas "brief" refers to time.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Agree with DT's suggestions.

 

[ImmortalDread]

As usual, I am fine with DontTalk's suggested wording.

However, as far as I am aware, the word "short" refers to space, whereas "brief" refers to time.

You are correct that “short” often refers to length or distance in space, while “brief” often refers to a short duration of time.

In this context, "short period of time" likely refers to a relatively brief duration during which resubmissions are not allowed, rather than a specific distance in space.

But we could replace it with brief, but I am trying to say, they both are the same

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

OP looks good to me, though DT makes a good point too.

 

[Starter_Pack]

With DT's input, this looks fine.

 

[PrinceofPein]

where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards or flaws in a calculation

This would mean that members or users that find this things cannot even create a CRT no matter what? or they will have to look for a staff to do it for them?
I really disagreee with the part where only staffs would be able to do this, cause it makes no sense. So any member who finds a flaw in a calculation or a breach in the standard or an actual information not considered before should be allowed to make the CRT

 

[Starter_Pack]

This would mean that members or users that find this things cannot even create a CRT no matter what? or they will have to look for a staff to do it for them?
I really disagreee with the part where only staffs would be able to do this, cause it makes no sense. So any member who finds a flaw in a calculation or a breach in the standard or an actual information not considered before should be allowed to make the CRT

I would say there is an easy solution to this. Just contact a staff member, preferably one who is knowledgeable on the verse in question, for either permission to post the CRT or to post the CRT in their stead.

With that in mind, I believe this addendum should be implemented into the new rule to avoid confusion on this front.

 

[GyroNutz]

I would say there is an easy solution to this. Just contact a staff member, preferably one who is knowledgeable on the verse in question, for either permission to post the CRT or to post the CRT in their stead.

With that in mind, I believe this addendum should be implemented into the new rule to avoid confusion on this front.

This. The guideline is there to make sure that CRTs aren't duplicated unnecessarily, not to stop regular users from correcting legit mistakes altogether.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Antvasima every staff member is in favor of this guideline, can we apply it?

 

[ImmortalDread]

With DT's input, this looks fine.

OP looks good to me, though DT makes a good point too.

Agree with DT's suggestions.

As usual, I am fine with DontTalk's suggested wording.

However, as far as I am aware, the word "short" refers to space, whereas "brief" refers to time.

The OP is exactly the same as DT, I adjusted it for him.

 

[Reiner04]

Bump?

 

[ImmortalDread]

The thread has received considerable support with no dissenting views. I will wait until Ant is available online and endorses it.

 

[Antvasima]

If these guidelines have been modified according to DontTalk's instructions they can probably be applied now, yes.

Is DontTalk or any of our administrators in this thread willing to properly apply the changes please?

 

[ImmortalDread]

If these guidelines have been modified according to DontTalk's instructions they can probably be applied now, yes.

Is DontTalk or any of our administrators in this thread willing to properly apply the changes please?

Butler, Butler. I choose him

 

[DontTalkDT]

I have added it where I thought it would make sense. Tell me if you rather would have it somewhere else.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It is perfectly fine. You can close the thread. Thanks for help!

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. That seems great. Thanks a lot for helping out.

I will close this thread then. Thank you very much to everybody else who helped out here as well.