FamilySearch Wiki talk:Reviewer

Proposition: Rename Reviewer role to Uploader (or something like that)
For several months, we have given rights for certain members of the community to upload their own images without needing to have them approved by our Reviewer missionaries for appropriateness. For instance, certain employee teams at FamilySearch are adding content rapidly and need to upload their own images in order to fulfill their tight production schedules. But since we didn't have a system role for uploading, we were giving people the Moderator role, which includes uploading rights. The fact that these folks weren't really Moderators has led to some issues. Some of these folks are not well versed in governance, Manual of Style issues, and wikiquette, so when they tangle with newbies who see that they are "Moderators," the newbies get a feeling that our wiki's leaders aren't very friendly or knowledgeable, so these newbies cease contributing.

Therefore, we propose to add an Uploader role whose sole functionality above and beyond a normal user is to be able to add their own images.

Rather than create a whole new role for Uploader, we propose to rename the Reviewer role to Uploader because the Reviewer role has the same system permissions proposed for Uploaders. The missionaries who currently review and approve all new images from other users will still have that assignment. Other Uploaders needn't do this assignment, but may be welcome to do it in the future, which would tend to scale the work of image reviewing as the wiki scales.

We propose that after we add the Uploader role to those users who were given the Moderator role just to upload images, we will then remove the Moderator role from those individuals.

Please indicate below your support of this proposal or ideas to improve it. Thanks! Ritcheymt 16:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me Laralee 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound OK to me, except I really don't like the term "Uploader." Sounds like you're running a conveyor belt to load "ups." Just my farm background showing again. Jbparker 19:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't an uploader something used in a Fisher Price Toy set? When I think of uploader my memory seems to see something bright yellow that beeps. FamilyJournals 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I do not think that way. I personally do not like poster either as it sounds like something hanging on the wall. Bright yellow and beeps sounds like a very fun thing. For me, the action text is "Upload File" in the Toolbox. It would make sense to me to use the same words or some derivation of the words. Upload is the standard name. However, even one without the rights can still upload, they just do not have the immediate approval. So, maybe it needs o keep the Reviewer. Thomas Lerman 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I support this. Never had anyone unfriendly, but had issues with timeliness and naming. Thomas Lerman 19:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Great with me and like Thomas Lerman said, I have issues with timeliness and naming by somebody else after I submitted a few and not able to get that person to correct the naming of the file to the uniformity. I am still waiting for direct uploading with oogles of images. dsammy 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some alternate names were suggested: Media Uploader, Media Loader, Media Poster, Media Contributor, Multimedia Reviewer, Multimedia Approver, Image Approver, Media Approver, and Reviever Ritcheymt 20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another suggestion for the Uploader name change: Media coordinator. Coordinator is a nonthreatening position in any occupation. FamilyJournals 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing about "Media Coordinator" that worries me a little is that it may sound like a member of FamilySearch's marketing team who feeds information about the wiki to the media -- newspapers and genealogy magazine writers and such. If misunderstood that way, the title Media Coordinator might be construed as an authority figure in the wiki, which is something we wanted to avoid. (It's the same trouble we had with calling this role Moderator.) So I wonder if inserting Multi into the word would help clarify things. Then it would be a Multimedia Coordinator. (Makes for a long name, though. I prefer the short role names Wikipedia uses, like SysOps and Bots and such.) Ritcheymt 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My vote is to have a Reviewer that has a job (e.g. the missionaries) to review and upload, and to have an Uploader role for the people we trust and who get a free ticket to by-pass the image review process. Uploader and Reviewer, both roles both names. Jimgreene 18:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I surrender! In the interest of simplicity, I would like to see the title remain one word. So maybe "uploader" isn't so bad after all. Jbparker 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Vote recorded below, but wanted to add my opinion in agreement with Jim that we should keep the reviewer as a separate role from Uploader, even if the rights are the same. In the future they may diverge. Even now, the Uploader doesn't approve others' images, only their own, right? Alan 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I generally support the change, but don't have an opinion about titles. --Gregorybean 00:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Vote today! Polls close 3 November @ 1:00 pm wiki time.
Okay, let's vote and narrow down what the name of this role should be. Please record your top 5 choices. Add three tildes to the User column to add your name as a link.

The results:

Votes in the first column received 5 points, the second column 4, the third column 3, second column 2, and the last column 1. This is how the math came out:

Additional responsibilities for Reviewer
We have been discussing having Patrolling rights be given to Reviewers. We figure that if we trust someone enough to allow them to upload images, we trust the content that they are going to upload as well. And then we would not have to give Moderator rights to those who will in the future be helping with Patrolling.

Another option would be to create a Patroller as a separate role, but I figure since if we trust someone to do one, we would trust them to do the other as well, and I am all for simplification in the roles. Thoughts? -- janellv (talk&thinsp;|&thinsp;contribs) 14:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)