Editing User:Raidarr

Somewhere, deep in the Tropical Wikis, past the land of Orain, southwind of Miraheze and east of the dilapidated kingdom of Wikia, in the MAW of Fandom beneath the Sky from which wikimedians Shout, there is an Oasis...

==So you want to make a wiki farm==
Alright, here's my attempt. I'm writing this because the farm is getting its start mainly by duplicating Miraheze elements without thinking about them, and because there is a desire to be community driven but there is no hand on the steering wheel. Both of these are fatal and will doom this farm to be viewed as a hotbed of CIR outliers off the Miraheze or Skywikis tills.

My recommendation is to step back, take a beat, and run through the basics. You want democracy, any democracy is the product of founders who sat down to figure it out, even the boring stuff. You want a farm, have a clear vision. You want progress, have a roadmap. Here's some stuff to consider.

* '''Global groups''': reform based on strictly what is needed. You do not need global patrollers at all, you might not need anything besides steward for the time being. Simplicity is probably best on this, a refreshing change from the absolute jungles that are Wikipedia and even Miraheze.
* '''Teams''': a chance for WikiOasis to be original. It has a Tech, T&S, stewards. Perhaps the system can become team driven. Wiki creation team, if you insist on it at this stage; tech team, T&S team, build around having core groups of people with clear sectors of responsibility. Zippy, as the tech executive, is frankly probably best leaving moderation decisions and the like to the steward group, which could either be part of an executive team which has collective authority over all groups (zippy could still be here as chief tech/financer/owner), or simply lead community/cvt. These could be different groups, perhaps community has a focus on outreach, support, discussions, and cvt is what it says on the tin. This is not fully thought out, I could think of more if desired, maybe a proposal. At least it should be considered.
* '''Normalizing reason''': already several discussions have suffered from vapid voting behavior. This is the death of meaningful change. The right attitude must be the default. What is the right attitude? Rational, thought out positions. Asking questions. Modifying proposals, making changes before they enter a final voting stage. People willing to act as Deem does on Miraheze: possibly opposing the majority if there is a good case. Frown on poor or no rationale. The only way consensus works is if its members are open minded and educated. If this can't be done then perhaps another system is necessary.
* There's more but I'm off to work. Catch you later.
*
*
*
*