This blog is a topic on the Admin Messageboard.
Please read the guidelines if you aren't familiar with them.
A framework system for handling guides was created not long ago, recently however, they've been getting a little out of hand. Now I think we need to create a more elaborate and/or strict system to conform with higher standards of quality and factuality.
One of my main concerns is the notion that guide writers take credit for their guides, which is against general wiki policy. Legally, any guide posted on this site (or any other wiki) is in the public domain, i.e. meaning that the author has no copyright or right to be credited for his work. This does not necessarily need to be followed that strictly, I do however think that some of the credit-giving is a little over the top.
The other is that many of the guides are written from a personal or subjective point of view, are not verified, or in some cases contain speculation and errors.
The existing guidelines are:
- Guides are headed with a disclaimer, see Template:Guide
- Guides are kept separate from wiki content, i.e. they do not interlink
- Guides may be deleted if another guide of superior quality on the same subject exists
- Guides are limited to relevant topics, as decided by the administrators
- Guides are subject to edits concerning spelling, grammar and structure
- Guides on the same or similar subject can be merged if they are redundant
- The content of any guide may be "challenged", meaning that one or more admins are requested to review the content of the guide. The guide may subsequently be edited or deleted
- Identifying imagery, accreditation and self-promotion is to be kept to a minimum
Guides converted to blogs? More opinions on this please.
Suggestions for additional guidelines are encouraged.