Board Thread:Wiki news and announcements/@comment-1585211-20160721020948/@comment-1585211-20160721200703

One issue with a 100 edit policy is that thread posts are counted as edits. As an example, though Menace has 1353 edits, only 62 are actually on articles. An even better example is Elliott, who has 1348 edits, and only 1 was made to an article. At this rate, I'm not sure whether or not it would allow these two dedicated users to edit the reviews as I'm unsure whether or not it counts only main pages or if it includes threads and forum posts.

As well, I don't think we even need to have reviews that can be edited by every user with 100+ edits. This is incredibly broad and, if thread posts are counted as edits, allows 84 users to edit reviews. That's the number of users with 100 edits or higher. 84 isn't a small number of potential editors by any means, and even factoring in that most of those users are inactive, it still leaves nearly all of our active thread posters as able to post/revise reviews. Bigshock, a user who has made 1 article edit out of his 219 edits, would be allowed to adjust reviews under these circumstances.

I think we should break down the topics of discussion into several categories to be able to provide a thorough breakdown and critical analysis of each individual point. As the review system upgrade has been in development hell for over a year and a half now, I'm not that willing to allow the topic to die out again like it did in January. The breakdown is as follows:


 * What happens to the pre-existing reviews?
 * Option 1: We scrap the pages and remove a review concept from Nerf Wiki. The downside to this is that many editors still enjoy reading these and it would deduct our article count by over 200.
 * Option 2: We keep the review pages as is. The downside to this is that it solves none of our problems.
 * Option 3: We adjust all review pages to now only reflect blaster performance. This would require some adjustments and possibly the removal of a "Pass/Fail" system. The downside to this is that it would be a lengthy process, as well as deciding what constitutes as blaster performance and what is classified as biased statistics (ie. Bobo's Slingfire, was it a lemon, and if so, do we count it in the review?). It's a long ordeal but possibly our best bet.
 * There are other options that may or may not have been mentioned above, or could be proposed.


 * What do we do to reflect the changes on the blaster articles themselves?
 * Option 1: We keep it the same, still featuring the "Review" button, and abandon the idea of multiple links to other sites.
 * Option 2: We adjust the template to the system I proposed in the image at the top, and feature a number of links (3 links, 5 links?) to other sites. This involves reaching out to the community and asking for permission to host links to sites we like, as well as deciding what sites to choose and what to ignore. This process could be rather lengthy but at the same time would boost our community involvement exponentially. This may also involve creating a database of links to potential sites and picking a Top 10 or so of various sites. Long process with possibly great results.
 * Option 3: We keep the Review button but also add the aforementioned changes in Option 2. This could be substituted by a link to our Review page similar to how I placed a "See a full review list here" in the image at the top. It would really be a case of one or the other, having both would be unnecessary.
 * Option 4: Someone else could propose an alternate layout or something that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm open to ideas and interpretation.


 * What other things could we add to the Review pages as part of this expansion?
 * Option 1: Provided review pages are kept, I proposed a database of sorts of as many reviews possible on a specific blaster from the sites we trust. This would feature in a table with the name of the site, a link, the score (#/10, # stars, Pass/Fail, etc.) as well as possibly an italicized summary of the review (ie. the middle column could simply state a section of the article linked, "the Doublestrike proves to be the best blaster of choice for Zombie Strike sidearms"). I could make up a mockup of what I'm talking about if this is difficult to follow.
 * Option 2: Adjusting the limits to reviews to allow other users to edit them, should they choose to do so. This could be anywhere from a selected few editors (ie. staff + Mojo, Flat, some other users). This could be done as well in a nomination form where a user proposes themselves and other users or staff vote on the position. As well, it could be adjusted to allow every user with 100+ edits, or simply every user in general, the latter I disagree with but it's an idea. The key question here: how?
 * Option 3: Whether or not we want to keep a scoring system. This is entirely optional but I personally think it might be neat to total up all the scores found in Option 1 and determine the aggregate score of the NIC, not of Nerf Wiki itself. It's a mild gimmick but in a way it's probably the most unbiased score a blaster could ever potentially get on the internet if it's been collected from 15+ different reviews and the average was determined by that. Again it might be difficult to grasp but I can produce a photoshop mockup if necessary.


 * If we do choose to host links, how would we perform the action of reaching out to the community?
 * Option 1: Private emails between our selected sites, offering them the chance for free advertising provided we are allowed to host their scores and opinions of the blasters.
 * Option 2: Go ahead and feature the reviews anyways without attempting to make any contact and hoping for the best. While I doubt anyone would have any complaints about being hosted here, I don't know if this is a good idea.
 * Option 3: We find a way to propose the idea to the selected sites on their own respective websites. Some may not respond to this (ie. any Youtuber).

Lastly, we should move towards adding a reference to every possible claim, including multiple range tests when available. I doubt we'll find much info on rate of fire or accuracy today but most reviews provide a good amount of detail at the very least on reliability and capacity.

This was a dreadfully long read but it should serve as a decent reference point as to where we can head with this. I'm glad that for the most part it seems that a push for change is unanimous here.