Skip to content

Monitoring Led Zeppelin

February 24, 2010

Lately, Led Zeppelin has been my most active artist subscription, due mainly to a user who keeps submitting releases and edits to prior releases. I’m sure, like me, this user has only the best intentions. But s/he doesn’t pay attention to details and it’s a little bit frustration. For instance, s/he has now added 2 new releases that already exist in the system. While I’ve said many times that the nuances of the system are not obvious at first, there are certain things that are pretty easy to see and one of those things is the list of releases existing in MB. A careful scan of the list would have dissuaded this user from adding releases because he would have seen that they are already there. I sympathize with his desire to contribute, but I’ve found a lot of my voting time spent on his/her Zeppelin edits when I’d like to be doing other things, like continuing to link unlinked discs and adding my own CDs.

As a newly crowned voter, I have tried to follow the lead of some of the editors who’ve helped me learn the ropes and not just vote no, but point out what s/he is doing wrong and where s/he can find information explaining why it’s wrong (e.g., style guidelines). I’ve also encouraged him/her to cancel edits instead of simply voting NO. Insofar as I can tell, s/he is eager to learn and has complied with these requests, except for a very picky style thing that’s actually beginning to make me a little crazy. The style guidelines for untitled bootleg recordings indicate the title should be entered as: YYYY:MM:DD: Location, with the colon immediately following the date. This user has been entering everything with a space between the day and the colon. However, what he’s entering are titled bootlegs, and the style guidelines for those are marked “proposed” and not “official,” so how can I enforce something that is in line with other kinds of bootlegs but is not “officially” in the style guide?

This brings me back to issues of weak documentation. This page really should be made official, but it’s stuck somewhere in the official doc review process and I have no idea how to push it forward. It seems to me that doc review, while necessary, may be a bottleneck.

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. murdos permalink
    March 1, 2010 1:22 pm

    In fact the “proposed” status of the style guideline is not related to the doc review.
    It’s still a proposed style guideline because no consensus has been reached within the community (although in this case everyone applies the guideline).

    The “doc review” is in fact a bit misleading: all wiki pages are automatically available and “transcluded” as mb.org/doc/ pages. This is what we call WikiDocs.
    For some critical and official pages, the version of the wiki page is manually fixed by transclusion editors. This allow to prevent spam appearing on mb.org site and to display 2 different versions of a page at the same time: the official stable one on mb.org/doc/ and the draft one on wiki.mb.org.

  2. March 1, 2010 6:54 pm

    That’s interesting. I understand that everything appears in the Wiki like that, but this page was clearly marked with “proposed” so it sounds like a group of people have to review it to give it some kind of “official” stamp for people to start using it. How does the community reach consensus? Forum discussion?

  3. murdos permalink
    March 1, 2010 8:05 pm

    Discussion on the style mailing list.
    The process is described on the Proposals wiki page

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: