Leader

[Justin]

Guys, it has become painfully obvious that we are stuck. None of us can ever agree on anything, we're at a deadlock in most of our discussions, and we're stagnated on so many things.
This is why we need a leader. We need someone to say "This is what's going on, let's do this." If we do not choose someone to make final decisions when we're deadlocked, we're never going to get anywhere.

I elect Xizor for this task, as he has experience as a webmaster of LegendofZelda.com and is pretty good at resolving discussions. He's always one of the first to call us out when something goes wrong, as well. So far, I've seen exceptional decision making on his part, and I feel that having him in this position would benefit us.

Now, this is not a leader to enforce any policy upon the member wikis. It is only a leader in organizing the NIWA itself. Also, Xizor will not become "Supreme overlord" and take 100% control of NIWA. We, the wiki staff, will still be in charge equally. However, should something come up where we're stuck and unable to reach a compromise, he'll be there to have a final say and close the discussion.

This arose as part of a Skype discussion on leadership (yes, I know, Skype = bad and whatnot, but I have the whole conversation logs for anyone who wants to see.)

Also, if you think you know someone better suited for this role than Xizor, please name then and list the reasons why.

By the way, Xizor will not start doing EVERYTHING like FTP and graphic design. He will simply have the power to close discussions, as mentioned above.

What are your thoughts?

[Xizor]

I'm posting just to quickly say that I am willing to do this if it's asked of me. I know I am capable, and I have experience both offline and online. Know that this was not initially an idea sparked by me, and it's not an attempt to grab any power. I'm willing to help if it's wanted.

It's also very VERY important that everybody is honest. I will not take anything personally, so if you have something to say, please don't hold back. If you have a question for me, I will answer as quickly and honestly as I can.

Otherwise, I think it proper for me to take a bit of a back seat in this discussion.

[RAP]

Let's try out new things! Isn't what NIWA is all out? Grow and adapt. Let's just lead where it is.

[Melchizedek]

Well, I've known Xizor for a couple of years now, and I think he's very trustable and respectable for the position. NIWA needs someone who's neutral but also has the direction and vision to take NIWA to where it should go. The reform discussions he sparked months ago show that he knows the direction NIWA should be taken.

A "project manager" type role is needed to coordinate everyone, motivate everyone and make sure decisions are made and stuff gets done. Xizor has proven himself more than capable through working at Zelda Wiki.org and Legend of Zelda.com.

So, yeah, I support the idea for a leader and Xizor suits the job perfectly.

[Mandi]

Aye. I have no problems. I think Xizor has definitely proven himself through ZW and LoZ.com. Pretty much to echo what everyone else said above. I think he's, overall, a good choice.

[Edofenrir]

A leader, eh?

I think NIWA's problems are mostly communication issues, as well as the fact that we lost sight of what this project was originally going to be: An alliance of wikis, with each of the participants profiting from the alliance through interwiki links and such things. This mindset was slowly replaced with an anti-wikia policy which grew out of hand in a disproportional way and poisoned our project beyond recognition.

Since we obviously lost track of our original intents, we need someone who can get us back on track. Someone who isn't afraid to communicate with the other participants in this union. Someone who carries the true and original spirit of NIWA.

That's why I nominate the one who has proven on several occasions, to me at least, that he possesses these qualities. I mostly see him (and Neo) being involved with the community aspects of NIWA, so it only makes sense to me.

I nominate Axiomist for the position of the leader.

[Gamefreak75]

I too nominate Axiomist.

[Adam]

I think the idea of a leader could be just what we need to get things back on track and, crucially, keep them there.

It's a similar concept to what the leaders of each wiki were supposed to be (in the proposed model of leader and representatives), but any good project really needs to be headed by a single project manager, not a whole committee.

I'd support either Xizor (Nick) or Axiomist (Josh) for the role; they both have my full trust and confidence, and I'm certain they have the right personality, experience and qualities to effectively steer NIWA in the direction we all want to see it heading.

[Tucayo]

I support Axiomist

[Steve]

I think Xizor definitely has the qualifications and ideas for being a manager here, so I absolutely support him taking charge here.

[Melchizedek]

May I ask if anyone knows whether Axiomist is willing for the position? Seen as there are numerous people supporting him, we really need to know whether he wants to do it.

So Ax, can you express whether you're interested, like Xizor did?

[JoJo]

I agree that the project needs a firm leadership system, and things will always go wrong if there isn't a leader at the top of it all.

While I don't know many of the others well at all, I would also say Axiomist would be a good leader.

[Axiomist]

Initially I wasn't keen on the idea of a leader, as NIWA staff is composed of people already in leadership positions in collaborative projects, so the idea seemed like an oxymoron to me. But if so many people feel its worth a shot, then I'm willing to give it a go. I think I have a firm grasp on the state of NIWA, strong positive relations with my fellows here (as well as with the pending members), and a pretty solid understanding of each wikis' strong points, weak points, & personalities.

Naturally I have a few misgivings. Leader is meh... if I end up being chosen, I'd prefer the title Numero Uno Cultivator or something gardeny to match NIWA=garden. I think we've strongly overlooked that great aspect of the name and should work to actually theme NIWA more fittingly.

Secondly, for a while now, I've felt that the Mario Wiki guys seem left out. I've asked them to compile a Wish List so we could give them a hand on things where they'd like for us to. And started announcing new Shroom issues on WiKirby's Main Page, in an effort to patch up the divide with more cross-wiki projects. But no one really came to help out on the Table Guide with the goal of getting something comprehensive on each wiki for a useful feature of MediaWiki. I built it as much as I could, and was sort of distressed to see so many complaints on how NIWA wasn't living up to what it was meant to be; all while any of the projects aimed for multiwiki benefit sat around neglected.

I've also slighted what I could do on WiKirby in favor of trying to maintain and grow the organization. Now I'm not supportive of adding members as soon as they have MediaWiki installed. I still think it's up to them to create the wiki and shape it before we throw it out to the masses. Let's face it, the public is dog-eat-dog. Despite not wanting to add a wiki while I feel it's underdeveloped, I still put aside building up my own wiki to give a hand here and there. 200 articles might be too high, but the only things I really look for is

• A developed Main Page
• Policies
• Example articles for core aspects beyond stub status
• Staff activity

I do realize NIWA can help small wikis grow and that's evidenced by Wars Wiki, WiKirby, and Metroid Wiki. Wars Wiki existed preNIWA, so I felt they deserved membership before WK and MW.o. A special case if you will. WK and MW.o took two vastly different approaches. Adam and I chose to work slowly in the background and launch when we were ripe. MW went full bore head to head with a rather nasty competitor. Having Zeldapedia issues in mind while working on WK, I approached the Wikia version prior to our launch to cement the relationship and ensure plagiarism wouldn't be tolerated on WK's end. The results of the two approaches aren't totally clear as MW has more articles, members, views, etc. I constantly read complaints of the staff being the only active editors. Ultimately, I think MW.o is doing well considering the Wikitroid entrenchment, but because of a great staff, Steve's design, and whatever little help came out of the skype chats among NIWA members.

This is somewhat relevant as inducting new wikis seems to be the primary polarizing point here these days. It will be difficult to replicate MW.o's success story, using the same management style. I still feel Lylat Wiki could have worked on their Main Page, defined colors, and either added all of the redlinks to flair images in all of the templates Example (look for "FoxHeadSprite" everywhere) or removed them for later. I've messaged Tacopill and Justin these suggestions, but it seems the induction was already decided and there was no incentive to make changes. This thread is unsettling, because it seems like no one else mattered outside of Xizor, Mandi, Mel, and Justin. Anywho, the deed is done and I'm not protesting it, just stating my opinion so everyone knows my stance on the most divisive current issue (adding the startups), so they can make a fully informed decision about me one way or the other.

To sum it all up, NIWA can't help anything grow if people think it's our fertilizer and reject it on the first visit, so yeah, we ought to reject every startup application on the first submission and list things they need to do beforehand-minor things mainly. And the most important part, talk to them, and/or help them.

Sorry for the long post, but that's what I had to say.

[Justin]

Naturally I have a few misgivings. Leader is meh... if I end up being chosen, I'd prefer the title Numero Uno Cultivator or something gardeny to match NIWA=garden. I think we've strongly overlooked that great aspect of the name and should work to actually theme NIWA more fittingly.

I hardly find this necessary. It's not a leader in that you'd be the head of all of NIWA. It's more of a mediator who resolves disputes by coming up with a compromise and nothing more.

This is somewhat relevant as inducting new wikis seems to be the primary polarizing point here these days. It will be difficult to replicate MW.o's success story, using the same management style. I still feel Lylat Wiki could have worked on their Main Page, defined colors, and either added all of the redlinks to flair images in all of the templates Example (look for "FoxHeadSprite" everywhere) or removed them for later. I've messaged Tacopill and Justin these suggestions, but it seems the induction was already decided and there was no incentive to make changes. This thread is unsettling, because it seems like no one else mattered outside of Xizor, Mandi, Mel, and Justin. Anywho, the deed is done and I'm not protesting it, just stating my opinion so everyone knows my stance on the most divisive current issue (adding the startups), so they can make a fully informed decision about me one way or the other.

The main issue here is "time," not that we don't care.

To sum it all up, NIWA can't help anything grow if people think it's our fertilizer and reject it on the first visit, so yeah, we ought to reject every startup application on the first submission and list things they need to do beforehand-minor things mainly. And the most important part, talk to them, and/or help them.

This is utterly ridiculous. So if we get an app from a great wiki, we just tell them "no" instantly? That's biased and ridiculous.


Again, from the looks of your post, you misconceptions of what the leader would be. It's not a "NIWA superbeing," it's someone who helps us get things done by going "Okay, these people want this and those people want that. We're going to compromise with this. Discussion over."
I'd advise you to take that into consideration and repost.

[Mandi]

To sum it all up, NIWA can't help anything grow if people think it's our fertilizer and reject it on the first visit, so yeah, we ought to reject every startup application on the first submission and list things they need to do beforehand-minor things mainly. And the most important part, talk to them, and/or help them.

This would be a very bad idea. NIWA should already have more wikis than what we currently have. But, yet, it's that type of attitude (i.e. waiting for the "perfect" wiki to come along) that lead us to our current state. I think rejecting  a new submission to list things that they need to improve on and wait on them to reapply basically defeats the purpose of NIWA.

[SMB]

I support Axiomist. Although he might have misinterpreted exactly what the leader position would do, I still think he's qualified and that once he sees the corrections pointed to him, he'll understand.

To sum it all up, NIWA can't help anything grow if people think it's our fertilizer and reject it on the first visit, so yeah, we ought to reject every startup application on the first submission and list things they need to do beforehand-minor things mainly. And the most important part, talk to them, and/or help them.

I completely disagree with this, though. We've pretty much been doing this, and we've been trying to change it. Remember:



Immediately denying a request and forcing them to reapply is definitely too far into the red.

I still think subjective evaluation is the way to go. In that system, some will go a little far into the red and some a little far into the blue. But I think with the amount of people on the NIWA staff, the average opinion will most likely even out. It's the best suggestion we have so far, and I think it has the most support so far. It also gives way for a much more open debate and discussion about accepting wikis into our organization.

To draw from what you said, though, we can judge using this kind of rubric:

• A developed Main Page
• Policies
• Example articles for core aspects beyond stub status
• Staff activity
• The necessity for a wiki that covers a certain topic.
• Editors' willingness to work with NIWA staff

Some people will think that a simpler main page is good, some will think that a more complex and filled-out main page is better. Some will think that a wiki should have lenient policy, some think a wiki should have strict policy. Some of us have different definitions for stubs. Some of us have a different view on what "active" really means. Some have different views on the necessity of covering a certain topic. And some of us have different views on whether a wiki and its community will actually cooperate with us or not.

But these differences are what makes NIWA. If we were all the same and had the same point of view, then we'll just be a static, linear organization. But having different opinions thrown into the mix makes us dynamic and diverse. Of course we won't be perfect. We never will be. But making overly bureaucratic policies that force a certain view on the staff members just stunts our growth.

And I'll make an analogy here. We are a garden, yes? We claim that our garden grows many kinds of vegetables and fruits and crops. Yet we often find ourselves purposefully killing some of our crops because we don't think it'll sell well. NIWA is the garden. Our claims to growing diverse crops is our claim that we try to accept and help nurture any Nintendo wiki; whether it be an older wiki (such as Wars Wiki) or a newer one (such as Lylat Wiki) or whatever. Our killing certain crops because we don't think it will sell is our constant refusal of certain applying wikis just because they're a bit underdeveloped.

Once again, I find it ridiculous that WikiBound and ACWiki aren't members, or that they aren't confirmed to be joining yet. Sure, they don't meet all qualifications. But as gardeners, we should stick with our crops to the end. We should try our best to make our garden into a wealth of carrots and tomatoes and other kinds of things. It's the only way we can move forward.

[Justin]

I think Xizor would be more suited to this role for the following reasons.

We need someone who's fairly neutral and can maintain a neutral view in order to help resolve our differences. Ax often tend to have strong feelings about his opinions, and I've seen him get pretty defensive over them, sometimes to the point of being downright rude. I've seen Xizor argue over his opinions, too, but he normally tries to remain as polite and calm as possible.

Also, this position requires the ability to deal with people, even those who are sometimes difficult or unwilling to budge on their views. Ax left Zelda Wiki because he couldn't deal with exactly that. If he couldn't handle it then from one person, how can we expect him to be able to deal with the volume of people we have? Xizor, on the other hand, has expressed his ability to work with anyone, really. I'm sure he'd be very willing to accommodate all new and current NIWA staff.

Lastly, my final concern about Ax is that he's acted brashly on several occasions before, such as when he made the thread about Lylat Wiki. I'm not mad about that particular incident at all. It merely raises a concern in my head that he may just go off on someone whom he dislikes or with whom he disagrees, and that is hardly the sort of behavior I want to see from anyone, let alone someone we call "leader." I've also seen some brash moves from Xizor, as well, but he understood he was in the wrong and apologized to everyone. That tells me that he is eager to learn from his mistakes so he doesn't repeat them.

This is by no means an attack on Ax or his character. I like him, but I don't think he's quite cut out for this.

[tacopill]

So..... i actually don't understand what this graph means. is it bad to be in the RED and good to be in the Blue? if so, then why does it have a plus sign and not a minus?

if it is good to be in the RED, then going too far into it an example of a having a "too much of a good thing is bad"?

[SMB]

So..... i actually don't understand what this graph means. is it bad to be in the RED and good to be in the Blue? if so, then why does it have a plus sign and not a minus?

if it is good to be in the RED, then going too far into it an example of a having a "too much of a good thing is bad"?

No. I used this diagram in another thread.

The black line in the middle is good. The red means more of something, blue means less of something. Here's a link to the first time I used the diagram: link.

[tacopill]

Ah. Thank you for explaining that.

And sorry, i guess in my archive reading, i haven't ran into that thread yet.