Board Thread:Help!/@comment-15755849-20131229214328/@comment-15755849-20131230005833

Hey

Many thanks for getting the reply up so quickly - also recall reading today that "czeckout" is the wiki founder so glad to get this from the "top" even though I realize now there IS no top here ;)

Great summary of the review process here: indeed the explanation of admin policy that I was suggesting.

I cant help but feel an assumption was made however that i'm trying to tie up the wiki with formal bureaucracy etc and setup a "taddletale" style system - this was not what I was suggesting! I fully appreciate that this wiki is run by volunteers who have enough on their plate already etc and that there are some informal systems to ensure fair review etc - this is a great system!! My point is simply that since there can be no strict "rules" or "laws" regarding these wiki's in general...then it's up to us - the community - (and to be fair more you the admins) to demonstrate and explain the internal systems used for review (with posts like this etc) to ensure that the public who use it trusts the validity of the information posted and also so they know the information is not censored and/or controlled in any way. This will get further support and more donations (assuming this wiki is setup for donation support?!)

Many thanks however, LOTS of clarification here and I hope the post stays up so others have a chance to read your great reply.

PS: confused on the last point?! Wikipedia isn't a democracy?! The assumption made by the public - with all of the wiki's on the web - is that they are controlled by and contributed to the mass as opposed to the few. That way the information can be better trusted and not censored etc..... really though....it's not like this?!? 0_0