So catching up with pedagogist points ;p I come across a few things that might be bugs or be improvements:
- firki: making a listing with links is not working out somehow. I suspect there is a limit to nesting firki tags?
- firki: making a list with firki has the whole list having to appear as one (long, unreadable) string. That why I don't use it now. Making only bullets could/would be easier.
- firki toolbox appears at posts but not at article editing (not that I dare use it...)
- would be nice to have a tickbox to save comments on an article edit as a new history line. When one author edits the same article for multiple reasons, only the last remark is stored. Not that every change needs a remark, hence the suggestion for explicitly making a new record.
- a preview of the article before posting it. Saving and re-editing is fine too tho.
- allowing BotBers to write comments on the articles, like comments under songs? Ofcourse it is encouraged everybody participates on writing, but on some articles there might be discussions and it would provide a solution to avoid clutter/opinions in articles
- a tickbox to request a page for deletion
- a better system for gaining pedagogist points? In the end, I just like the clean up and am not in it for the points. But getting points for the amount of characters encourages trolling.
- have a tickbox (I love those...) to have the edit be promoted on the front page . Not every edit is worth mentioning, yet informing people could put the lyceum in a better light?
- image including. Tsja, I do like a picture here and there of a mentioned console, preferrably linked and not uploaded. But I see the server-performance risks, copyright troubles and trolling opportunities so it is not that important afterall.

This was an absolutely overwhelming read to wake up to.

People love to tell me how flawed points by characters is, but no one makes a suggestion . . .

I think if I worked on lyceum issues for 40 hours I might cover most of what you suggest here.

Sorry! It wasn't meant to be overwhelming, just a centralized post to address a few things. I think it would be worth looking into easy bullets and improving on logging who has done what. All other is less important.

Thinking about a suggestion for the points and I agree it's not easy. Taking the curent count and multiplying by a factor depending on quality would be fairer. But deciding the quality per article and/or per author is only possible when it is shown who changed what. Botbers, and moreover admins, could decide by voting what the quality is.

Drawback is: what if nobody gives a fuck and doesn't vote. The curse of every documentalist :'-(

Changing lyceum articles isn't a popular time waster as there is not much flair for the wins. Changed and new articles do not appear on the front page, which is bad for the popularity of the Lyceum and good against trolling. So far I see only people with good intentions writing. Perhaps having new and edited lyceum articles appear on the front page is the fastest way to up the credits for pedagists on their articles. If it turns out to get troll activiy, that could be easily banned with those scary scrub stuffies.

edit: nevermind the points for pedagogists. They go way too fast, now i won't be a critisist anymore :'-( boohooo