04-13-2018, 11:51 PM
Just to put in my two credits ....
Perhaps a useful start would be to define the current incarnation of Canon in the form of a set of criteria by which content can be evaluated. Once these criteria have been established, members could methodically scour the EG, taking note of articles which
A) Seem in compliance with the criteria and can likely remain as they are;
B) May be questionable in terms of compliance with the criteria, and may need revising/updating to bring them into line; and
C) Are not in compliance with criteria and may be recommended for removal.
During this process, it might be helpful to have a "sticky" thread available for members to periodically list the articles they have reviewed and whether said articles should be in Category A,B, or C. This can be as simple as ""Looked through Aa to Af ,,, all O.K. except "Adamantium" © and "Aether" (B) ... Radtech497" or a more complete listing of articles reviewed, whichever works best. The objective is to narrow the Index down to a list of (B) and © -type articles that may need another look.
The next step (which, ideally, can be done while the above is still in progress) is to take another look at those articles classified as Type ©. If a Type © article is, on second evaluation, still found to be out of compliance, then it can be removed from the Index, with perhaps a note asking for a compliant rewrite if deemed necessary or desirable.
The final step is to re-examine the Type (B) articles. First, to confirm they are, in fact, salvageable, and if so, to determine how best to transform them into Type (A) articles (using the criteria developed above). This may be as simple as changing a date in the article, or may involve a substantial rewrite. In either case, the proposed change(s) can be brought up in the Forum for Member input/review, as is now the case.
A side-benefit of this process is that the criteria established above can be disseminated (perhaps on its own "sticky page" in the Forum) to the Members, where it can be used to guide future article submissions. The criteria can, of course, be revised from time to time as necessary, and those articles submitted under previous versions can easily be identified by their submission dates for review under the current criteria. If necessary, it should be a simple matter to bring future articles into compliance with the current criteria.
Just an errant notion,
Radtech497
Perhaps a useful start would be to define the current incarnation of Canon in the form of a set of criteria by which content can be evaluated. Once these criteria have been established, members could methodically scour the EG, taking note of articles which
A) Seem in compliance with the criteria and can likely remain as they are;
B) May be questionable in terms of compliance with the criteria, and may need revising/updating to bring them into line; and
C) Are not in compliance with criteria and may be recommended for removal.
During this process, it might be helpful to have a "sticky" thread available for members to periodically list the articles they have reviewed and whether said articles should be in Category A,B, or C. This can be as simple as ""Looked through Aa to Af ,,, all O.K. except "Adamantium" © and "Aether" (B) ... Radtech497" or a more complete listing of articles reviewed, whichever works best. The objective is to narrow the Index down to a list of (B) and © -type articles that may need another look.
The next step (which, ideally, can be done while the above is still in progress) is to take another look at those articles classified as Type ©. If a Type © article is, on second evaluation, still found to be out of compliance, then it can be removed from the Index, with perhaps a note asking for a compliant rewrite if deemed necessary or desirable.
The final step is to re-examine the Type (B) articles. First, to confirm they are, in fact, salvageable, and if so, to determine how best to transform them into Type (A) articles (using the criteria developed above). This may be as simple as changing a date in the article, or may involve a substantial rewrite. In either case, the proposed change(s) can be brought up in the Forum for Member input/review, as is now the case.
A side-benefit of this process is that the criteria established above can be disseminated (perhaps on its own "sticky page" in the Forum) to the Members, where it can be used to guide future article submissions. The criteria can, of course, be revised from time to time as necessary, and those articles submitted under previous versions can easily be identified by their submission dates for review under the current criteria. If necessary, it should be a simple matter to bring future articles into compliance with the current criteria.
Just an errant notion,
Radtech497