Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Rating (reviewing) wikis


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Proposal fails in the public voting stage and is thusly declined. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed by GTrang

Proposal summary: Miraheze should have a way to "rate" or "review" existing wikis.

Full proposal: With a rating system, people could make comments about any wiki, including but not limited to the following types:
 * Whether they like or dislike the wiki.
 * Whether the wiki is one of the best or worst Miraheze wikis.
 * Whether or not they recommend the wiki to others.
 * Compare the wiki to other similar websites on the World Wide Web.

Neutral
I don't think that this is a bad idea in theory, but others users have expressed concerns of the potential abuse of this rating system. Tali64³ (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Per my and other comments in the discussion section --YellowFrogger  (Talk — ✐) 22:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) No clean way to execute, limited merits, and adds a dimension to wiki creation I think would be inappropriate for the platform. --Raidarr (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree this suggestion is weak on detail, but I assumed the ratings system would be proposed for something like Special:WikiDiscover, rather than to Special:RequestWiki/Special:RequestWikiQueue? That being said, the concern I have with this isn't so much the subjectivity aspect of it, as we +1 or -1 so many things online these days, but rather the potential for abuse. Even if we restricted rating to logged in users, and limited rating to Meta Wiki, that wouldn't preclude illegitimate sockpuppet accounts from rating wikis, or, equally problematic, to vote stacking. If the proponent had argued for vetted community users or Stewards to rate wikis, my concerns would be mainly (a) subjectivity and (b) lack of volunteer resources. Overall, it's not a terrible idea in theory, but in practice, problematic. Dmehus (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  I waffled between weak support and weak oppose here, as I have to say this is a decent enough idea GTrang put forward in good-faith and with good intentions. Ultimately, though, this is where my land, per my comments here. Dmehus (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Imagine a wiki rated 0 just because someone got kicked out of it? Greetings --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 00:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While I can see the use case for it and I think some may find it nice, I also fear the potential abuse that could come about from this feature. If people from one wiki perhaps don't like another wiki, they could bombard the other wiki's rating and make it plunge into a bad score. We'd need a good moderation system for the ratings and frankly, we don't have the manpower for that.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur that this proposal is deeply problematic in spite of certain surface good intentions. --Raidarr (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Además de la parte técnica y administrativa, en la que se hacen esfuerzos para satisfacer las demandas de los usuarios, lo cual estoy muy agradecido, Miraheze podría también atraer a posibles usuarios con propuestas (wikis) de calidad, que enorgullezcan a toda la comunidad.
 * Creo que la calidad de contenidos y el buen cuidado de la wiki debería considerarse. ¿Qué prefieren? ¿300 wikis sin contenido rescatable? o ¿1 wiki con 300 artículos de mediana/buena calidad?
 * La comunidad debería premiar a aquellos que trabajan con esmero y calidad, especialmente en las wikis culturales y de educación, muy necesarias. Las wikis de calidad son una ventana muy atractiva para que editores de otros sitios vengan a Miraheze.
 * No comparto la postura de afirmar o votar si me agrada o no me agrada tal o cual wiki, eso es altamente subjetivo. Creo que es más sencillo que digamos, según nuestro parecer, cuáles aportan contenidos originales y de calidad. Desde mi punto de vista, esas wikis son las que deberían sobresalir. Creo en la meritocracia, la dedicación, la paciencia y en la elaboración de contenidos de calidad. Todas las wikis merecen la misma atención humana, técnica y administrativa, pero aquellas que aportan contenidos originales y de calidad deberían ser mostradas como ejemplos. Saludos. . Hugo Ar (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Translated by Google Translator
 * In addition to the technical and administrative part, in which efforts are made to satisfy user demands, which I am very grateful for, Miraheze could also attract potential users with quality proposals (wikis) that make the whole community proud.
 * I think the quality of the content and the good care of the wiki should be considered. What do you prefer? 300 wikis with no salvageable content? or 1 wiki with 300 medium / good quality articles?
 * The community should reward those who work with care and quality, especially on the much needed educational and cultural wikis. Quality wikis are a very attractive window for editors from other sites to come to Miraheze.
 * I do not share the position of affirming or voting if I like or dislike this or that wiki, that is highly subjective. I think it is easier for us to say, in our opinion, which ones provide original and quality content. From my point of view, those wikis are the ones that should stand out. I believe in meritocracy, dedication, patience and in the development of quality content. All wikis deserve the same human, technical and administrative attention, but those that provide original and quality content should be shown as examples. Greetings. Hugo Ar (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with promoting the wikis that offer a better image to Miraheze for their creativity, stability and content. --Raidarr (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe the ratings could be managed by the wiki's admins? Tali64³ (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In this suggestion the otus of abuse would instead fall on the admins, who I'm sure you can see have ample incentive to manage ratings in their favor. --Raidarr (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section