Forum:SH:Social Media manager voting

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 19:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Social Media manager voting

So in the spirit of making our site aspects more community vote carried, I wanted to bring forward the possibility of making the social media role a part of this. To my knowledge, it's pretty much the only position (outside of Discussions) left that is designated by Wook administration and review boards, and it could help develop the social media team more, notably if we wanted to restart the Facebook page after the loss of our last one. We already have a method of voting in admins for roles like CheckUser (see Forum:CT:CheckUser for DarthRuiz30). I will also follow on that and say that there's not actually any rule that prohibits non-admins from being on the social media team (Brandon Rhea and Cade Calrayn are not Wook admins); if anyone has strong feelings about that I'd rather it'd be taken to another SH as my proposed additions can happen with or without that feature.

To make my proposal clear, I wanted to introduce a means to vote in and vote out members of the social media team. This, to me, is a good measure to help us continue moving on from the former times when certain admins' pals were put in the positions of power without any support/opposition from the rest of the editor base. I think it could fit in as a section of Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights but it could also just be another consensus track vote like CheckUser. The design of how this would work shouldn't be any different to other user rights and review board membership votes if it's on the WP:RFR. With that, I leave the floor to the editors to discuss this before I take anything forward to the CT. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 21:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, back from my {{Vacation}} to bring the next big update to my proposal, in my sandbox is two proposed pages which will cover the membership control of the social media team, plus a fancy new navbox for them and a new category to cover them

The three items in question

Let me know what you guys think! Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 13:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Nods. A sound idea to me and, as you said, goes with our recent efforts to decentralise decision-making to direct votes from the wider userbase. SE's our social media expert and keeps our accounts going with a solid and consistent brand voice, so I'm sure any potential new managers elected by the community could learn from him and work together to keep our presence going strong. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I think it's really important to move into an era where every position of authority is voted-in by the community. A staple of the past was positions that were internally-decided and didn't have accountability, hence the huge push behind review board members now no longer being an internal vote. To that end, I'd definitely support a vote in/vote out process for social media team members.—spookywillowwtalk 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I love this idea, and per OOM. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • per Spooky BloodOfIriziSabine Starbird(Syndicure) 21:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I like this idea. I don't believe that we would need as many Social media managers as say EduCorps or AgriCorps members, and would I think work better as a smaller, but efficient team. AmazinglyCool Nightsisters symbol - JFO (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly on vacation this week bc of coursework but dropping in to say yeah I support this, especially per Spooky's point. Anyone who was around in the old days remembers how a certain ex-admin centralised control and dictated who could be appointed to what, so moving away from that is always a good thing. Fan26 (Talk) 21:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yep, per Spooky I think this is a good idea. Rsand 30 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Loving the 2023 modernization drive! Supreme Emperor Holocomm 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd probably suggest tossing it in with the RFUR, just for consistancy. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 23:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    • I think it might actually make sense for it to be its own thing to keep that page solely for wiki rights, ie those that show up in the User Rights Log. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 00:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'll be completely honest and thought this was how we already did things lol. my vote is support Editoronthewiki (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Technically I’m only on there because I run Jocasta, lol. I don’t have access to any of the other stuff; making a voting system for it makes sense. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! Some ideas I have for the Interviews policy rework could fit well with that too... NanoLuukeCloning Facility 06:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Sounds very sensible to me. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'm liking this idea too terribly much, if I'm entirely honest. Is this a way to make sure that everyone who wants access gets access? I have quite a few concerns with this and could see this being abused. Personally, I'd like to know more about the voting process and what requirements would be had? We can't base it entirely off of what SE does, because I don't think anyone is going to really do quite as much in terms of interviews, interacting with the fandom as a whole, ect. Do you have any planned suggestions as to what kind of standards a social media team member would be held to? As of now, I can't say this feels too complete and I'd really like to discuss this further. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 02:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Could Supreme Emperor teach the other managers? I'm sure that if he taught the other managers, they could do what Supreme Emperor does. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 07:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, of course SE can try and teach other people, but I don't think it's quite as simple as that. It's not just as easy as posting a few tweets or Instagram posts, there's a lot of time, energy, and resources that go into this. I've actually seen in person the amount of time he puts into the work on social media each day. It can't be taught as easily as you state. Plus, I still really want to see more information about this before it has my support, as it is there isn't anywhere near enough information to completely back this. There are too many variables here that aren't answered by the original post. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
        • I don't know what happens "behind the scenes," so I can't really know what you know. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 08:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    • I feel like this has all been misunderstood. The point was just to make the membership system community controlled, how that's used doesn't necessarily have to be decided here, and passing this doesn't mean there has to be an immediate overhaul on the social media team. This proposal is about finishing the decentralisation of Wookieepedia positions. Whatever is used of the voting in/out system can be a matter for when it's passed, not a reason that it shouldn't passed, because that's the exact thing I wanted to put a cork on by decentralising this. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 12:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Full support. Never liked that there was no voting progress when the Social Media accounts represent Wookieepedia outside the site. Looking forward to seeing what other users do with our Social Media accounts! Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 07:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I am curious about what sort of process you have in mind, CT wise. What sorts of thoughts do you have in mind regarding how to nominate, how many people, etc (given we don't need say ten people running the small number of accounts we maintain). I personally advocate for a small team as a way to ease coordination, and as a way to prevent potential abuse, such as an account being hijacked like Tope did. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 07:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Here's where I'll disagree, to a point. Yes, a smaller team is good, but that does not mean as small as it is now. As I've definitely said in the past and heard from others: I see no issue with allowing another admin or another very established user who does also have Social Media experience (someone who would not need training) to help with one account, out of several accounts, and some have offered to help. Something like an RfB has a 3/4 voting ratio on the Wook needed to pass, or even our RfAs have a 2/3 pass ratio. If that much of the community wants someone in as a social media manager, I genuinely believe the administration has no right to deny them that voice. At the same time, most Wooks are reasonsable, and won't be going voting in tons of social media team members. But, one or two? Certainly, or, even set a pre-determined cap if it's an issue. Even if the requirement for access was that only admins could run the accounts, which would minimize the abuse risk, that still means more admins could participate. Additionally, I'd further argue that since we're such a large community, having too few diverse voices unilaterally controlling our voice can definitely be an issue for optics, and being able to say we have multiple perspectives running the accounts is a good thing to prevent the Tope-ness of the past of one-narrative-control.—spookywillowwtalk 11:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    • After a short conversation with Preem in DMs, I am inclined to agree that the voting in/out system should be on the CT, with my proposal being to allow that and make changes to Wookieepedia:Contact#Social media to reflect it. As for the keeping the team small matter, that's not really relevant to the point of my proposal (see my response to SnowedLightning), we don't need to worry about that now. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 12:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I would support adding more people to the team. As someone said, Brandon and Cade are currently members of the social media team, but I am aware that SE puts in about 95% of the leg work. I know others have expressed interest before about recording audio for status article showcase videos, or interviewing people, or other smaller tasks. SE is not only a site administrator, but also a member of the EduCorps and the Inquisitorius, each with their own time committments. Plus, he's a working man! Bring some others onto the team, and give that man a day off for once lol! Jade Moonstroller (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • This is really just an obligatory acknowledgement that the Discussions moderators know our position isn't an elected one, and we have a standing plan to change that once the fine print is finalized, probably by northern-hemisphere summertime for me. To the main idea at hand here, I say it's a no-brainer. We're a wiki; the majority of social media posts coming from this site are just about our content, which any site member with sufficient knowledge can showcase. Most organizations' executives delegate social media management to other departments, with Twitter itself ironically being the only big exception nowadays. As more editors start to use the Discussions forum too, I'd encourage open-mindedness about the possibility of experienced forum regulars being considered for social media positions. We don't have anyone in mind for that (or even future mods for that matter), but the forum is a conversational space by nature, so it's another great place to see who's particularly skilled in talking to people. Obviously admin oversight shouldn't be separated from any of this, and I hope it'll become even better defined by whatever social media policy ends up being changed. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I would definitely like more people on the SMT, and I think it's best the community elect them. They are the people representing the community to the wider public, and so we need to make sure they have been chosen to carry that out. Can't really properly represent people who haven't chosen you to represent them. It would also ease the burden for SE, allowing different people to focus on different platforms. We are currently active on YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram, and we could build a new Facebook following, too. Heck, we could even figure out a way to make TikTok work. Having an individual dedicated to each platform while also having them come together to create a cohesive brand across all platforms would be ideal. We could get people with expertise in video editing, graphic design, and sound editing to help really push the quality of our posts. SE does a lot, but having him do everything across all the platforms stretches him to a point where it's impossible to get the most out of each. Now, as for requirements, I've listed some basic qualifications below, but there is definitely discussion to be had about specifics:
    • I'd say a basic editing requirement is justified. Not as much as admin, but the individual needs to be an active contributor to the wiki.
    • No blocks for a certain amount of time, as well. We absolutely cannot have any bad faith actors running social media accounts.
    • They need to exhibit calmness and an ability to de-escalate, not instigate. This should be a quality of every leader on the Wook anyway.
    • Video/sound editing and graphic design skills would be a huge plus, and experience running other large socials an even bigger one. I wouldn't require these, though. I'd also be happy to help design templates, as I did it for many years for the Instagram account, and to show new members of the team how to, as well. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 03:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
      • I like these ideas a lot! Thinking further into this I may make the vote it's own page rather. I've already explained above why it should be differed from sysop rights votes, but I think if we're working with a set of election requirements, then that all should get it's own pages. And it doesn't matter if it doesn't need to get used much, WP:RFRUR hasn't been used (unironically, at least) in nearly a decade and a half. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 12:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I like the suggestions made above. The community should certainly get a say in the makeup of the social media team, and I also believe said team would only benefit from an expansion. In addition, I also like LeKit's idea of potentially involving active Discussions users in Wookieepedia's social media engagement at some point down the line. Imperators II(Talk) 08:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I do find myself drifting towards the opinion that the team should be made up of people who are on the admin team, given those are the people "authorized" for lack of a better term (I'm still post travel waking up lol) to speak on behalf of the wiki. Open to thoughts on this of course, but that's where I find myself drifting. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 17:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    • I disagree with limited it to admins only. I think it adds more potential work to the admins and confines too strictly who can be on the team. By the fact the vote would have to occur would mean anyone voted to the team would therefore be authorized by the voice of the people to speak for the community via SM. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Per Dani, and also we already trust two non admins with technically being on the team, what makes that different going forward? Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 18:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
        • Inclined to agree with Dani here. We could use spreading responsibility out to non-admins, especially given that there's only so many of us and different people are good at different things. I'm happy so long as the community is able to delegate the responsibility to users we feel are capable of managing social media well, are also attuned to Wookieepedia's overall workings, and can respond to and work well with other Wookieepedians—all admins should possess the latter two qualities, but many non-admins have them too and could be able to bring more to the table. OOM 224 (he/him) 17:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • One thing I recall thinking when pronouns where added in policy, and the worst of twitter came at our account to harass it, and to say really messed up things: "I wish I could be able to help SE blocks those people", because there was a lot coming his way for a few days, and that put a lot of pressure on SE to deal with. What I'm getting at, is that we maybe could have specialized tasks for people within the social team, and that adding new people to that team shouldn't mean they would have to be deal with all aspects of social work. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Should opening votes to nominate someone to join the social media team be only restricted to the admins (as currently proposed in the new sandbox page), the current members of the social media team, both, or be open to other Wookieepedians? I think it's very important that any manager of our social media platform is able to collaborate closely with fellow managers (perhaps even more so than for review board members), so it makes sense to allow social media team members to start nominations themselves. OOM 224 (he/him) 14:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)