Forums / Discussion / General

Note: This poll is meant for input of opinion on a subject; avoid inflammatory or insensitive comments if you choose to debate another user

I've been thinking a bit about articles that are Deadpool then are either ascended back to submission (Researching & Evaluating) or get confirmed after extensive editing by people OTHER than the OP. Of course when I talk about articles, I mean ones that are on a valid/legit subject but are deadpooled for horrendous work done by the OP.

When a once deadpooled article gets edited by someone else and then it goes to submission or confirmed, who does the credit go to for the article overall? The OP that initially made the article or the person who touched it up? Please provide some rationality behind you answer if you choose to partake in this post.

I think the person or persons who touched up the article deserve the credit. Starting an entry is the simplest part, but actually researching the origins and spread of a meme, then explaining it in a well-written and organized fashion is where the actual work is.

So yeah, there are my thoughts on who deserves the credit for working on the type of entry in question.

I barely edit articles anymore, but I occasionally make a thread about a prospective trend where I suggest it be made into an entry. That being said, credit goes to the editors. Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story, not Deep Throat.

And Watson and Crick both shared the Nobel prize for work they took from other scientists who were not credited (Until later on… well later on).

But KYM is not like that, we work together as one.

I think.

I hope

I wish

For the credit, I commonly go with combined credit. Sure, the OP might have started the entry, but the complete result is the combined effort of all editors.

Of course, there's the question how much the OP did. Sometimes the OP just started the entry, and left it at that, 3 lines only to leave the work to others. But it also depends here on the entry itself. Sometimes OP started an entry none of us ever thought of, which then can get him credit just for the idea, as nobody else thought of that.

At times people start duplicate entries for subjects we already have. It's stealing the credit from the original idea, not really a nice thing. Judging those commonly depends on what the old OP did. If the old OP did the 3 line shitty job I mentioned above, let the new OP have the entry if that one actually did good work (if he did just as little or merely something more, merge with the old entry and hide the new one).

But let's go back to the combined effort now. Because although I don't request just as much from every editor (users commonly don't compete to mod or staff edits), I do request some work. I don't mind admitting it, as I have done it multiple times already now, but I simply remove added editors who have done rat shit. No questions needed, if you aren't willing to put effort in the entry or all you did were shitty grammar corrections, you don't deserve credit for the end result. I give no priveleges to mods on this, I have removed mods from the editor list a few times who granted themselves editorship just for a stupid grammar correction.

I treat myself no different, if I notice a grammar or html error in an entry I jump in to fix it and then remove myself from the editor list afterwards. At times I really wish the other mods would follow me in this, because way too often I see them granting themselves editorship for doing hardly anything. Our position shouldn't be an excuse to give ourselves the privelege of getting credit on every entry we want. I follow a very basic rule on this in case of editorship: Suggestions level edits =/= Worthy of full editorship.

It should be made clear from this that I disgust plagiarism. I don't ask for much, but at least do something.

I think that the editors that did work on the entry should get credit for the entry being confirmed.

That is my very simple viewpoint. If the OP didn’t do shit, then he/she doesn’t deserve credit for the entry being confirmed. If the editors didn’t do shit and the OP did all the work, then the OP deserves the credit. I don’t even think it matters how much work is put into it. If a user was willing to put effort into the entry and do even the tiniest bit of research on it, then they deserve credit.

RandomMan wrote:

I don’t mind admitting it, as I have done it multiple times already now, but I simply remove added editors who have done rat shit. No questions needed, if you aren’t willing to put effort in the entry or all you did were shitty grammar corrections, you don’t deserve credit for the end result. I give no priveleges to mods on this, I have removed mods from the editor list a few times who granted themselves editorship just for a stupid grammar correction.

I stand by your decision to do this. If I were an entry moderator, I would do the exact same thing. This is sort of why I hold back on requesting editorships. If I saw an entry with poor grammar that I could fix, I wouldn’t request editorship. It isn’t necessary to become an editor if I’m going to fix two fucking lines; I’ll just use the Suggestions button, which I think is underutilized.

I also have to admit that if I were an entry moderator, I would remove myself as an editor after deadpooling an entry. I mean, it’s just pressing a fucking button. I don’t think it’s necessary to stay an editor in an already dead entry. I’d just deadpool it and move on. It ties into “granting themselves editorship for doing hardly anything.”

Kris wrote:

I also have to admit that if I were an entry moderator, I would remove myself as an editor after deadpooling an entry. I mean, it’s just pressing a fucking button. I don’t think it’s necessary to stay an editor in an already dead entry. I’d just deadpool it and move on. It ties into “granting themselves editorship for doing hardly anything.”

The main reason why I keep myself on the entries I deadpooled is in case the OP wants to the reason behind it. I does happen at times that the OP wonders why his entry was deadpooled, and removing myself might leave him clueless on who to go to.

There is no credit for me or the OP left to gain in entries I deadpooled, it's a dead entry like you said, so I don't bother with this. If another mod or a staff pulls it back into submission, I remove myself the very moment I notice this (same for other mods on entries they deadpooled). We made a decision, it was overruled, now there's no need for us to stay.

Going to request a very simple question here:

• Are suggestion level edits (small grammar, broken vid, forgotten html code) worthy of given a person full editorship on an entry?

Whether or not credit should be brought up in the answer I leave to you. Reason I'm asking this as there seems to be some disagreement amongst mods on this, and I want some input from the userbase as this is a matter that we all might deal with. Whereas people like me find small stuff that surely didn't require the research and effort of the rest of the article worthy of an editorship, other mods said it shouldn't matter as we have limitless editorships anyway and one more for those fixes won't hurt.

I'm not asking you to answer these, but they might be follow up questions: Was I justified in removing editors who did nothing/hardly anything? And is granting ourselves editorship for small edits just part of being a mod, or should we be asked (not forced) to have the dignity to remove ourselves for these entries?

Allow me to answer, RandomMan.

Are suggestion level edits (small grammar, broken vid, forgotten html code) worthy of given a person full editorship on an entry?*

I think it depends on the intensity of the mistake. If it’s just a tiny little grammar error or something, then no, I don’t think it justifies granting full editorship to somebody. In the case that it’s such a big problem that it needs an experienced editor to step in and fix it, then I think it’s alright.

Was I justified in removing editors who did nothing/hardly anything?

I like to think so. In my opinion, being an editor of an entry means that you should put at least some work into it; I’m sure that there would be other potential editors that deserve the spot more than somebody who takes the editorship for granted and slacks on the entry. If you aren’t going to take entry editing seriously, you shouldn’t be an entry editor. It’s as simple as that.

Even if it’s a moderator, I think that it is defensible. To serve as a moderator on this site, particularly in the entry field, you have to have a reputation for making good contributions. If you didn’t do that, then you wouldn’t have been given the privilege of moderator functions. Because of this, it’s innate that moderators are expected to use their powers responsibly and sensibly. Keeping in mind that an editorship is serious business, I don’t think that taking partial credit for a completed entry despite doing something impossibly small is fair, even for moderators.

I should also point out that it might be more unfair, as I’m sure it’s usually assumed that the moderator did most of the work on the entry. If they didn’t do anything or did very little, then it’s unfair to the users without moderator functions that did do work who are overlooked and don’t receive the credit that they deserve.

And is granting ourselves editorship for small edits just part of being a mod, or should we be asked (not forced) to have the dignity to remove ourselves for these entries?

I do indeed think that entry moderating crosses this field. The job of an entry moderator, as I see it, is to ensure and maintain quality on the site’s entries. If they see an error, by all means, they should go in and correct it, but they should take the responsibility to remove themselves so that they don’t steal the credit that the editors that did work ought to have.