Sections that make up a charter

Jump to: navigation, search


I've also suggested a permanent workgroup for "enforcing" (I don't like the connotation of the word, though the definition is correct) the future style guidelines. You can see the thread here. I think the two purposes we've both come up with are nicely combined in a single group. It may seem like a lot of work, now, but the guidelines will be a while, and the workload would severely calm down once the initial cleanup phases are over. I've seen this implemented in WoWWiki as the "watchdogs" and I thought Wikipedia used to have a group called "the cleaners" or something like that, but I'm only finding smaller focus groups. They may have changed to that due to the much higher volume of work.


Jesse Groppi (talk)14:02, 17 July 2009
Edited by author.
Last edit: 07:15, 22 July 2009

Dear Jesse,

You are right, words like "watchdogs" and "cleaners" sound a lot like the Wiki Mafia to me (smile!) Maybe we can find a friendlier professional designation (;-))) I agree with your comments.

Pschlicht (talk)14:21, 17 July 2009

Something remnant of "help desk" or containing the word "assistant" would be good. We should try to get across that they are there to guide the authors, helping them create better content.

I've noted this team as a specified output of the style guide workgroup. I'm not sure we're ready to do that now, but it sounds to me like it's something should be collaborated on by wider range of people.

Jesse Groppi (talk)02:15, 19 July 2009

Help desk might be too general, because where does it start and end? so I think we need to be more specific. I think "Workgroup Buddy" isn't too bad and Assistant, not sure because it offers the suggestion of a subordinate role while in fact, they are taking the lead until a person is up to speed. What do you think?

Pschlicht (talk)07:18, 22 July 2009

I like "buddy" but I also like the idea of giving the impression that the author is in charge, making the decisions. If you take a look at the "Thoughts on related issues..." thread here, you may agree with us that making the contributors feel forced into following the guidelines is not a good idea, because then it becomes another hurdle for them to jump in order to share with us. I think Wayne's point (please correct me if this is isn't the case, Wayne :P) is that we want them to share first, then to conform to the guidelines. It would be the team's duty to guide them through the process.

What about "guide"?

Jesse Groppi (talk)12:53, 23 July 2009