Category talk:Worlds - Revision history

Usr 578aa632-439b-4c41-9266-776323ba9ad2: Text replacement - "\[\[(?!(Special:|File:|Media:))([^\|\]]+)\|([^\]]+)\]\]" to "$3"

2024-08-23T19:00:10Z

Text replacement - "\[\[(?!(Special:|File:|Media:))([^\|\]]+)\|([^\]]+)\]\]" to "$3"

Usr 6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a at 23:33, 24 July 2024

2024-07-24T23:33:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 24 July 2024
Line 67:		Line 67:
	I do not find it acceptable. I would generally allow all worlds that are out of Labs, however I know first hand that it is really simple to push a world out of labs. All you need to do is ask 10 to 15 friends to favourite your world right after release and get 150 visits by running a public instance for a day. This can be quite easily gamed, so I think going with a smart and simple Guideline like "1000 visits or 100 favourites" would make our life easier, while not inhibiting people from sharing knowledge.		I do not find it acceptable. I would generally allow all worlds that are out of Labs, however I know first hand that it is really simple to push a world out of labs. All you need to do is ask 10 to 15 friends to favourite your world right after release and get 150 visits by running a public instance for a day. This can be quite easily gamed, so I think going with a smart and simple Guideline like "1000 visits or 100 favourites" would make our life easier, while not inhibiting people from sharing knowledge.
	I pick these numbers, because that is what I found even the most unlucky of quality Worlds can get without doing promotion for it.		I pick these numbers, because that is what I found even the most unlucky of quality Worlds can get without doing promotion for it.

	However, given its only us 2 giving input on the matter here its sensible to stay at 10000 visits or 1000 favourites for now and adjust it down, once we see that only a few worlds and related knowledge is being added. So while I still think the number is a bit steep, I do agree to wait and see with the logarithmic middle we have now.		However, given its only us 2 giving input on the matter here its sensible to stay at 10000 visits or 1000 favourites for now and adjust it down, once we see that only a few worlds and related knowledge is being added. So while I still think the number is a bit steep, I do agree to wait and see with the logarithmic middle we have now.

	--[[User:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|Maebbie]] ([[User talk:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|talk]]) 23:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|Maebbie]] ([[User talk:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|talk]]) 23:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

	== Should we have community world pages at all? ==		== Should we have community world pages at all? ==

Usr 6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a at 23:32, 24 July 2024

2024-07-24T23:32:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 24 July 2024
Line 64:		Line 64:

	--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

			I do not find it acceptable. I would generally allow all worlds that are out of Labs, however I know first hand that it is really simple to push a world out of labs. All you need to do is ask 10 to 15 friends to favourite your world right after release and get 150 visits by running a public instance for a day. This can be quite easily gamed, so I think going with a smart and simple Guideline like "1000 visits or 100 favourites" would make our life easier, while not inhibiting people from sharing knowledge.
			I pick these numbers, because that is what I found even the most unlucky of quality Worlds can get without doing promotion for it.
			However, given its only us 2 giving input on the matter here its sensible to stay at 10000 visits or 1000 favourites for now and adjust it down, once we see that only a few worlds and related knowledge is being added. So while I still think the number is a bit steep, I do agree to wait and see with the logarithmic middle we have now.

			--[[User:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|Maebbie]] ([[User talk:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|talk]]) 23:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

	== Should we have community world pages at all? ==		== Should we have community world pages at all? ==

Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b: /* Qualifications for world pages? */

2024-07-24T22:50:09Z

Qualifications for world pages?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 24 July 2024
Line 59:		Line 59:
	* Worlds featured by VRChat (Spotlight and special event categories such as VKet and Jams)		* Worlds featured by VRChat (Spotlight and special event categories such as VKet and Jams)
	* Worlds that meet all of the following notability criteria:		* Worlds that meet all of the following notability criteria:
	** Worlds that have made it out of [[Community_Labs]]		** Worlds that have made it out of [[Community_Labs\|Community Labs]]
	** Worlds with at least 10,000 visits or 1,000 favorites		** Worlds with at least 10,000 visits or 1,000 favorites
	The main changes are that I've replaced the "recognition" criteria with one about getting out of community labs, and I've reduced the visit/favorite metrics immensely from the previous 100k/10k down to 10k/1k which should allow for the majority of worlds to qualify. If we decide we want to loosen this further, I'd simply request we wait until after release to do so to assess how it's working out. Does this proposal sound acceptable?		The main changes are that I've replaced the "recognition" criteria with one about getting out of community labs, and I've reduced the visit/favorite metrics immensely from the previous 100k/10k down to 10k/1k which should allow for the majority of worlds to qualify. If we decide we want to loosen this further, I'd simply request we wait until after release to do so to assess how it's working out. Does this proposal sound acceptable?

Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b: /* Qualifications for world pages? */

2024-07-24T22:49:29Z

Qualifications for world pages?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 24 July 2024
Line 54:		Line 54:

	--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 07:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 07:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

			Given Tupper's guidance, I'm content with a looser notability standard. For now I'm going to lift the moratorium and change the notability criteria to the following:
			* Official VRChat worlds
			* Worlds featured by VRChat (Spotlight and special event categories such as VKet and Jams)
			* Worlds that meet all of the following notability criteria:
			** Worlds that have made it out of [[Community_Labs]]
			** Worlds with at least 10,000 visits or 1,000 favorites
			The main changes are that I've replaced the "recognition" criteria with one about getting out of community labs, and I've reduced the visit/favorite metrics immensely from the previous 100k/10k down to 10k/1k which should allow for the majority of worlds to qualify. If we decide we want to loosen this further, I'd simply request we wait until after release to do so to assess how it's working out. Does this proposal sound acceptable?

			--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

	== Should we have community world pages at all? ==		== Should we have community world pages at all? ==

Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b: /* Should we have community world pages at all? */

2024-07-24T22:32:31Z

Should we have community world pages at all?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 24 July 2024
Line 85:		Line 85:

	--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 07:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 07:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

			Given Tupper's guidance, I'm content with considering this particular discussion resolved. Community worlds are in scope, and it's up to us to determine the notability guidelines.

			--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 22:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

	== Should World Authors be allowed to edit their own pages? ==		== Should World Authors be allowed to edit their own pages? ==

Usr 681ab43c-99d7-4e40-92ba-956d9d8d66e7: /* Should World Authors be allowed to edit their own pages? */

2024-07-18T22:16:31Z

Should World Authors be allowed to edit their own pages?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 18 July 2024
Line 93:		Line 93:
	--[[User:UcmV5nZNs3\|owlboy]] ([[User talk:UcmV5nZNs3\|talk]]) 03:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:UcmV5nZNs3\|owlboy]] ([[User talk:UcmV5nZNs3\|talk]]) 03:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

	We had a lengthy discussion about it on the past 2 check-in meetings and text. We got a clear from Tupper that there is no problem that the primary source of a Community Page is contributing to such page. Of course quality standards need to be retained no matter who edits a page.		: We had a lengthy discussion about it on the past 2 check-in meetings and text. We got a clear from Tupper that there is no problem that the primary source of a Community Page is contributing to such page. Of course quality standards need to be retained no matter who edits a page.
	It was also reaffirmed that no one "owns" the page, so the primary source remains under the same scrutiny as any other editor.
	--[[User:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|Maebbie]] ([[User talk:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|talk]]) 22:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)		: It was also reaffirmed that no one "owns" the page, so the primary source remains under the same scrutiny as any other editor. --[[User:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|Maebbie]] ([[User talk:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|talk]]) 22:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

			:: [[User:UcmV5nZNs3\|owlboy]], this was a topic of great discussion over the last week. Ultimately it is up to the community to determine the extent of these policies. The current iteration of this policy as it is being developed is [[VRCWiki:Conflicts of interest\|available here.]] 🍞 [[User:Usr 681ab43c-99d7-4e40-92ba-956d9d8d66e7\|dorktoast]] ([[User_Talk:Usr 681ab43c-99d7-4e40-92ba-956d9d8d66e7\|talk]]) ∙ [[Special:Contributions/Usr 681ab43c-99d7-4e40-92ba-956d9d8d66e7\|contribs]]) ∙ [[File:VRLogo.png\|16px\|link=https://vrchat.com/home/user/Usr 681ab43c-99d7-4e40-92ba-956d9d8d66e7\|User profile on VRChat]] 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Usr 6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a: reply

2024-07-18T22:01:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 18 July 2024
Line 92:		Line 92:
	Just thinking out loud here.		Just thinking out loud here.
	--[[User:UcmV5nZNs3\|owlboy]] ([[User talk:UcmV5nZNs3\|talk]]) 03:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:UcmV5nZNs3\|owlboy]] ([[User talk:UcmV5nZNs3\|talk]]) 03:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

			We had a lengthy discussion about it on the past 2 check-in meetings and text. We got a clear from Tupper that there is no problem that the primary source of a Community Page is contributing to such page. Of course quality standards need to be retained no matter who edits a page.
			It was also reaffirmed that no one "owns" the page, so the primary source remains under the same scrutiny as any other editor.
			--[[User:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|Maebbie]] ([[User talk:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|talk]]) 22:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

UcmV5nZNs3: /* Should World Authors be allowed to edit their own pages? */ new section

2024-07-18T03:50:04Z

Should World Authors be allowed to edit their own pages?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 18 July 2024
Line 85:		Line 85:

	--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 07:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|Prismic247]] ([[User talk:Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b\|talk]]) 07:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

			== Should World Authors be allowed to edit their own pages? ==

			There are rules on Wikipedia about editing your own pages or the pages of your products. It seems like maybe that should be a rule here too. It would also address some of the issues around pages being posted as acts of vanity. Same goes for people and groups, I would say.

			Just thinking out loud here.
			--[[User:UcmV5nZNs3\|owlboy]] ([[User talk:UcmV5nZNs3\|talk]]) 03:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Usr 6b189dbf-f096-47d0-afbd-136782d7014b: /* Should we have community world pages at all? */

2024-07-12T07:45:43Z

Should we have community world pages at all?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:45, 12 July 2024
Line 78:		Line 78:
	--[[User:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|Maebbie]] ([[User talk:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|talk]]) 14:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|Maebbie]] ([[User talk:Usr_6909a532-22e9-49f7-81e3-e964fe7dc00a\|talk]]) 14:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

	I am certainly proud of my worlds. I'm also extremely apprehensive of making wiki pages here for them because naturally I'm inherently biased toward them, and that is not a good foundation for any wiki to be built upon. I don't want there to be any appearance or actual occurrence of bias in my involvement on this wiki project, and we should hold everyone who contributes in any area to that same standard. Even if I could rationalize there being some value in having a place to display information for my worlds here, I would prefer to take the cautious approach, focusing on the health of the wiki and it's purpose over my own vested interests. By having community worlds at all, there is both great the potential of and clear motivation for them to be used for the wrong reasons, which I believe could outweigh the good if we're on careful. On one extreme end of that stance, simply excluding community worlds avoids those concerns outright, and I feel would be one potential valid approach (see above list of reasons).		I am certainly proud of my worlds. I'm also extremely apprehensive of making wiki pages here for them because naturally I'm inherently biased toward them, and that is not a good foundation for any wiki to be built upon. I don't want there to be any appearance or actual occurrence of bias in my involvement on this wiki project, and I believe we should hold everyone who contributes in any area to that same standard. Even if I could rationalize there being some value in having a place to display information for my worlds here, I would prefer to take the cautious approach, focusing on the health of the wiki and it's purpose over my own vested interests. By having community worlds at all, there is both great the potential of and clear motivation for them to be used for the wrong reasons, which I believe could outweigh the good if we're on careful. On one extreme end of that stance, simply excluding community worlds avoids those concerns outright, and I feel would be one potential valid approach (see above list of reasons).

	But I do concede there is the potential for value in someone who is new to or researching VRChat being made aware of existing worlds that are commonly referenced in the community at large. To me, the best example I can think of that we ought to follow is Wikipedia's many articles on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) people], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books) books], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) music], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) organizations], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_notability_guidelines etc]: they are not a comprehensive list of all things of their categorical type, nor are they intended to be. If we were to make a page for the Official VRC Wiki organization on Wikipedia for example, it would be deleted for failing to meet notability criteria. Is that unfair? I'd argue not, and that it's actually necessary in order for Wikipedia to be as healthy and effective in it's mission as it is.		But I do concede there is the potential for value in someone who is new to or researching VRChat being made aware of existing worlds that are commonly referenced in the community at large. To me, the best example I can think of that we ought to follow is Wikipedia's many articles on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) people], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books) books], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) music], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) organizations], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_notability_guidelines etc]: they are not a comprehensive list of all things of their categorical type, nor are they intended to be. If we were to make a page for the Official VRC Wiki organization on Wikipedia for example, it would be deleted for failing to meet notability criteria. Is that unfair? I'd argue not, and that it's actually necessary in order for Wikipedia to be as healthy and effective in it's mission as it is.