|Forums: Index → Narutopedia Collaboration → Chat room.||Post|
I noticed a couple months ago we were trying that new chat feature for like a day and it went away. Checking out other wikis who have implemented it, it seems to be a successful idea. Basically, do you think its possible for us to have a chat room feature and do you think we should?Umishiru (talk) 03:18, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
Personally I don't want a chat because I think it would just become a playground for trolls (especially seeing how the wiki pages/talk pages have them all the time). Joshbl56 03:26, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
I'm against anything that detracts from the purpose of this wiki, which is to provide information. Like Joshbl56 said, anything that is purely social is like inviting trolls in. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 00:17, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
I am not from this wiki, but i am from Dragonball wikia.There, we have a succesfully monitored chat.Trolls are apart of the internet they will get on and try to terrorize anything you have, having a chat won't stop that.Add Chat for a month see how it works,besides i think this wiki is kinda boring for a troll i'm not trying to insult but there isnt much community activity here you just edit your articles,thats iit for the most part.IronDBZ (talk) 03:44, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
- That's kind of what the whole point of allowing us to edit the wiki. This isn't something like facebook where we need to add a chat so that more people will come. We are all here to help edit the wiki. Also, look at some peoples talk pages. It's almost like a forum sometimes. Joshbl56 03:57, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
ther are no trolls on the one piece chat but dosent mean they dont exist besides ther are alot of people that can ban so trolls basically fail but i still havnt cum across one still dragon balls boy has a point--Naruto12354 (talk) 22:46, October 29, 2012 (UTC)
- It leads to an unneccessary diversion from editing and serves no purpose; atleast here on Narutopedia—
- Actually I was on the One Piece chat yesterday just to see why it was a thing. The people were using it to discuss adding new images and replacing low quality ones and possible edits and what could be changed. After seeing this, I think it's worth adding. Skarrj (talk) 16:21, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why there needs to be a big deal about trying to make a community here. The whole point of a wiki is that the community is what builds it. Many people here appear to be against it for some reason, which kinda defeats having a wiki as it's not a community building it. I personally would like to see a chat room here, it would make the wiki far more exciting that we can chat about other things and have a real time message box to chat to people quickly like someone saying "there's a mass vandal, block plz", admin comes on, blocks and reverts then posts "reverted and blocked". Makes for quicker elimination of vandalism, spam and trolls. Like someone said, there are trolls everywhere on the internet, you can't get rid of them and there's no point trying to get rid of them. As long as it's well moderated, it will work. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | My Wiki | Channel 16:38, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
The OP wiki is different from us. Decisions made on chat generally donot have a strong consensus as people from different local times edit here and so not all would get a chance to voice their opinions. Also if an admin is around, why would someone need to poke him? Can't he see the vandalism on the RC O.o?—
Decisions made on chat generally donot have a strong consensus as people from different local times edit here and so not all would get a chance to voice their opinionsHolds no water because every single wiki is like this. >_>
Also if an admin is around, why would someone need to poke him? Can't he see the vandalism on the RC O.o?The vandalism could be hidden by other edits ? This is a really poor excuse being made for not having a chatroom. It won't do the wiki harm and as long as there's many people who can moderate it, it'll be fine. I can't see why we all need to go up in arms over a really simple suggestion like this. It's like you guys don't want a community but a rigid with no fun features to keep people occupied when they aren't editing. I can assure you that this would be a much better wiki if there was a real community aspect but half the editors here don't want such an aspect. >_> --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | My Wiki | Channel 16:56, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it. If people don't want a community, they just don't have to be apart of it. It isn't like people will just go around the talk pages for big jobs. And MOST edits normally aren't big things. Like updating a picture to one of higher quality, correcting grammar, changing wording. They were discussing things like that on the OP Wiki Chat and it seemed to benefit them. If it will help the quality of the wiki in the slightest and help grow the number of editors, I'm all for it. But again, even IF there were trolls joining it they could be banned easily. Skarrj (talk) 18:34, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
- If memory serves me correctly, we actually do have a chatroom. Where it is and how we get to it however, I haven't a clue.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 19:42, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
I think TU3 is talking about our IRC channel.—
Some notes here:
- Last I checked chat is not logged, and it's definitely not organized. So it would be very inappropriate to use it to discuss making changes to the wiki. Something we should always have a reference to the history of.
- The statement about different people from different timezones not getting to voice their opinions is actually quite valid. This is not the same as talkpages. Talkpages are long-term persistent communication. Like email. When you say something someone from another timezone can chime in later and it's out in the open where everyone can get their say. While chat is short-term ephemeral realtime communication. Anyone not there at the time the discussion is being made gets absolutely no input.
- We do not need to be "exciting" nor do we need "fun features to keep people occupied when they aren't editing". Our business is being an encyclopedia about naruto that people can edit. That is what people are supposed to come here for. Being exciting and keeping people occupied when they aren't editing is the job of other websites and things; like Facebook, anime, games, ;) and Naruto. We do not need to try and pack the entire internet's purpose into our one single website.
Now even though I've had to say it again and again. There is some history to the whole reason we have Wikia disable each and every social feature they create and have policies against social discussions in the forums (in fact it's related to our Userpage policy, etc... too).
The Narutopedia once did in fact allow social discussions here. We had a whole forum dedicated to it. However over time it became a very big problem for the wiki. We had users who only really came to edit in that forum. They never contributed anything at all to the articles on the wiki. But worst of all, a number of these users were very hostile towards the actual editors of the wiki. Harassment and personal attacks were rampant. And the wiki became a very uncomfortable place to be an editor. Eventually we had a community discussion and decided to put our policies on userpages, talkpages, the forum, etc... in to place and erase all those social discussions from the wiki.
So historically our experience is not that allowing social things like general discussions, chat, fanspace on userpages, etc... helps slightly improve the quality of the wiki or grow the number of editors, but rather instead that allowing that kind of stuff doesn't improve the wiki at all and in fact ends up making the wiki very inhospitable to the editors that actually help the wiki and has the very real risk of actually causing our good active editors to permanently leave the wiki. ~ Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (Local Talk ⁝ Animanga Talk) 08:09, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
If it's so bad then why does almost every other wiki have one and it seems to work just fine? OP Wiki isn't exactly losing editors because of their chat and neither is any other wiki that has one. If the good and active editors would leave over a chat function then they just arent very committed. And I'm sure there are other features that the "editors that actually help the wiki" dislike and haven't left over.
And onto what was said about people of different time zones not being able to contribute and no logs being saved...
- The OP wiki only talks about minor edits, such as replacing images with higher quality, rewording of pages of certain paragraphs or grammar issues. 90% of the time that stuff isnt even discussed in the talk pages before it occurs.
- Major edits, changes or large scale things would still obviously have to be brought up in talk pages. People aren't just going to merge two pages at random while there is a debate on the talk pages going on *cough* gedo mazo & 10 tails*cough*.
- It could be used to encourage other editors to voice their opinions on the talk page.
- I agree that we don't need something for excitement because we are an encyclopedia, not facebook. If someone wants excitement they can take themselves to a movie theater. Skarrj (talk) 16:35, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
- A lot of wikis will add rules to their chat rooms. We could easily add one to prevent it from being used for social reasons or what ever else people are having issues with.
I think we should at LEAST run a week long trial period with it. If any of these as of now theoretical issues come up, then it could be taken down just as quickly or dealt with other ways. And a week long trial wouldn't hurt anything and would be possible to stop at any time. If you really think your concerns are valid, this is the best way to show they are. And for those of you who think this would be a helpful additive to the wiki, then it'll be a chance to see if it is. Assuming people are fine with a trial period *cough* haters *cough*. Skarrj (talk) 16:35, November 15, 2012 (UTC)