Thread:Sannse/@comment-5785681-20191218164348/@comment-5785681-20200103160837

Dear Sannse,

Apologies for the long wait in responding...holiday madness intervened. I hope your visit with fam was enjoyable.

Thanks for responding. I think you are en pointe about terminology. I'm a word nerd and "manager" is basically a synonym for "administrator" so it made me wonder. I'm okay with whatever FANDOM decides to do, actually, although I think the term "Wiki Manager" is a poor one. Personally, I would have found "Wiki Facilitator" friendlier and more accurate a description. And for the record, TyA on the Psycho-Pass wiki has been terrific - pleasant, helpful, inconspicuous – exactly what a facilitator should be. The other two wikis I cover don't really have an active WM and that's fine by me.

As for the Community Connect post, below is the paragraph that felt misguided:

''It is an invitation only event and, at this time, we are in the process of sending out those invitations to editors we have identified as essential attendees. Fandom will be paying for these editors’ travel, accommodations, and most other related expenses. We are selecting attendees based on the sorts of viewpoints we are looking to have represented in the room. If you are not invited, it means that we believe your viewpoint is represented by another attendee. Please do not ask for an invitation. ''

Had the paragraph read: ''We realize that everyone's opinion matters, but space is limited; therefore, this is an invitation-only event. The results will be made known to the fandom when your feedback will be welcome about all aspects. In the meantime, please do not request an invitation. ''

This would have been brief but informational -- a "soft-sell" for something that some, including myself, found exclusionary. Considering the terms "essential attendees" who will be wined and dined to present "the sorts of viewpoints we are looking to have represented" might lead one to believe that those viewpoints will be somewhat influenced making this a public relations event, not a bona fide market research study. This isn't a bad thing, but this part of the presentation lacked finesse. I'm sure it's a generational perspective, but it's still true that how you say something is just as important as what you say.

And thank you for the info re: the survey. I didn't realize the parameters and am glad both formats were queried.

The only thing you didn't address was the concern I have about the future format of Wikis, in general. It looks like the platform is moving towards more pre-formatted elements that only require editors to fill-in-the-blanks. I suppose that's one way to edit, although it requires less creativity, less intelligence and less energy which may mean less long-term editors in the long-run due to editing having lost its cachet. I wonder.

I've already metioned the change of attitude since the merger with Gamepedia. It's had its upside and its downside and while there is some overlap in users/readers/whatever, I believe the differences are significant. Hopefully, this will be something the Community Connect will investigate and address fairly. Inclusivity matters in a community-based site like FANDOM - by gender, by age, by location, by sexual orientation, by topic. You name it, it matters.

Thanks for listening

Angelle