Help talk:Rules

Awards

Proposal

I am considering making a change to site policy regarding Awards (see "Awards" subheading). Currently the policy reads:

• We are NOT recreating the Order of Precedence, feel free to list preferred title and major points, but awards listing are best left to the OP.

I do not know the genesis of this rule, but I know Kolfinna regularly enforced the rule by removing awards lists as they were added. I suspect the rule was created at a time when all the editing was done by a few editors, and she wished to avoid having to maintain awards lists -- a task which would be monumental, never-ending, and redundant.

The site has since been opened up to a wider editing membership, and most populace pages are written by the person they are about or a friend. Naturally, everyone is very proud of the awards they have received. The tendency is to include a list of all awards the person has received, rather than just "major points".

At a minimum, I believe the policy should be clarified, to give the populace a reason why we have the rule and make it clearer what they may or may not do. I am thinking of changing the first part of the rule text to:

• We are not recreating the Order of Precedence. We make no guarantee that awards described on populace pages are correct or up to date. For complete awards lists for any Caidan, please visit the Caid Order of Precedence.

Which leaves the second part. If we are to maintain the status quo, I suggest clarifying it thusly:

• Full awards lists are not appropriate here, though feel free to list preferred title and major points (either highest precedence award or award that means the most to the recipient).

My questions:

1. Should we continue to discourage awards lists on the populace pages? Please explain why you think "yes" or "no".
2. If discouraged, should awards lists be removed when discovered?
3. Do you believe the first revision above is clear and helpful? Do you have suggestions on how to make it better?
4. Do you believe the second revision above is clear and helpful? (assuming that awards lists continue to be a discouraged practice here) Do you have suggestions on how to make it better?

--Lachlan 21:51, 16 November 2009 (PST)

Thank you all for your well-reasoned responses. I find them extremely helpful (perhaps even more helpful than I had hoped...). I suspect I will be requesting commentary again in the future.--Lachlan 17:12, 24 November 2009 (PST)

Responses

Add your response here. Please be sure to sign your post.

• Something to consider is that if awards are listed on some populace pages but not included on others it might seem unfair to those who don't maintain their own pages and may question the Wiki's impartiality. I don't think anyone would think to ask if it was the Wiki staff that entered the information - they would just see that the information is there on some pages but not on others. On the other hand, if people maintain their own pages and award listings, especially those awards they are proud of or want to highlight, I would feel horrible if I had to go in and delete those awards if we have a policy against it. I agree that there should be a revision to clarify the policy, primarily to explain why the rule is in place. I believe you are correct in that Kolfinna felt that maintaining an award list on the Wiki was redundant since the official OP listing is maintained seperately. Award listings would also take up a great deal of space on the server/database. There's also a matter of insuring correct information on each individual page and not being able to guarantee the accuracy of the information being listed. Not sure if my comments are helpful or not but as one of the editors I do agree with the wording of the proposed revisions to the policy. --Valdis 22:45, 16 November 2009 (PST)

• I like the revision. I think it makes the policy clearer. I especially like the link to the OP.

1. Yes, they should be discouraged. I would rather someone spend their time and effort in expressing the energy and enthusiasm that led to their receiving awards rather than in trying to precisely duplicate what the OP already does, listing all the steps along the way. I would rather know who someone is, and what excites them, rather than a recitation of past honors.
2. Yes, with discretion. More like edited down to the highest and/or most meaningful, as the policy suggests.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.

--James the Inconstant 22:49, 16 November 2009 (PST)

1. I agree with the policy of discouraging full award entries as it is redundant.
2. My first reaction to removing full award entries is to suggest a request to the poster first asking them to remove the extra awards, but that would probably lead to more work of following up on such requests and then taking further steps to get people to comply, rather than just taking direct action the first time.
3. I think I'd like to see a combination of the first and second wordings along the lines of:

• We are not recreating the Order of Precedence, please feel free to list preferred title and major points (either highest precedence award or award that means the most to the recipient). Full award lists are space-consuming and duplicate Order of Precedence, which can be found here: Caid Order of Precedence.

Aliskye 10:53, 17 November 2009 (PST)

• To clarify: Whenever an awards list is discovered, we don't simply delete the information. Typically, the highest award gets added to the introduction of the article. Info such as Queen's/King's Championships, Pentathlon Championships, etc. get added to the "Offices and Positions" list, and the remainder is removed entirely. Also, in the meantime, while I am contemplating the policy change, I have not been enforcing the ban at all, but I have been recording where I have found awards lists to deal with them later.--Lachlan 11:30, 17 November 2009 (PST)

--Malcolm Alberic13:19, 18 November 2009 (PST)

1. Yes. It is an unfortunate fact that since many awards in the SCA carry rank there are a few people out there who will claim to have awards that they do not in fact have (I have seen it). I functioned under the assumption that the main reason for the rule was that the Order of Precedence may not be perfect but it has an assigned staff to fact check and control it. This level of control is not really possible in a wiki system where people can sign up and edit their own pages.
2. Yes. With a courtesy notice giving the individual a couple of days to remove the listings themselves. *Now I understand that this discussion only refers to the populace pages. I have been listing awards given on event pages as historical note. For Example See St. Geronimus Tournament 1984. Kolfinna had definitely been checking my work and never altered those entries.
3. Change, “are correct or up to date” to read “correct, verified, or up to date”. There is a difference between a listing being correct (i.e., Harp Argent is correct, Harp Silver is not) and a listing being verified (i.e., the Harp Argent was actually given).
4. Yes.

RE: Awards lists on events pages: Kolfinna and I had a discussion about that very topic. I pointed out that, while a person's awards may change over time, the awards given at a particular event are set in stone, as it were. At least, upon verifying the list once, we can assume it will always be verified. Also, we had already opened a can of worms by listing particular awards under "Highlights". Where is the line drawn between an award important enough to be a Highlight or one that is not?--Lachlan 17:18, 24 November 2009 (PST)