Forum:Creating a Tardis Wiki Discord server

Opening Post
This is something I've been meaning to start a discussion on for a while. Pretty much, I think that it would benefit Tardis to have a. For those that aren't familiar, is a (primarily) text-based instant messaging service. Its main draw is how each community is comprised of a "server" which can be formed of multiple text "channels". This means that there can be multiple segregated discussion spaces in the same community. For an example of how this works, see this screenshot of the channels list from the Fandom Discord server: As you can see, there is a "general" channel which allows for discussion on anything related to Fandom. There are then more specific channels, such as "mediawiki-upgrade", "mobile-css-editing" or "feedback-fandom", for specific topics. This allows multiple conversations to flow without disrupting each other. It also allows people with narrower interests to only follow conversations that they're really interested in while ignoring channels they have less interest in.

Discord servers have become very popular as a supplement to on-wiki communication. They allow for faster discussions, allowing small issues to get resolved more quickly. They don't replace forums or talk pages: they're still very helpful for larger discussions and keeping a public record. Here are some examples:
 * a group of like-minded editors could discuss a potential policy change on Discord together before formally presenting it in a forum thread
 * issues with templates could be brought to the relevant editor's attention much faster than a talk page would allow (this already happens a lot: if anyone notices any small technical issues, you're always free to message me through any of my public social medias, primarily Discord, for me to fix it quickly. A proper Discord server would help to centralise this process)
 * editors who just want to discuss Doctor Who, not how it relates to the wiki, could do that via Discord in a separate channel for non-wiki matters
 * editors could use the server to work together on articles more easily than a talk page would allow

Tardis is probably one of the last wiki's of its size to not have a Discord server. Prominent wikis, both on and off Fandom, with Discord servers include: And many others from wikis that I'm less familiar with.
 * Wookieepedia
 * Marvel Database
 * Encyclopedia Spongebobia
 * Halopedia
 * Halopedia

Now there's the question of how to actually implement a Discord server ourselves. Firstly, I think that all active wiki admins who wish to use Discord should be given admin permissions on Discord. If we can trust them to manage the wiki, we can trust them to manage the Discord. Secondly, I think that all editors should undergo a verification process, such as the one provided by Wiki-Bot (for those not familiar, a "bot" is an automated user able to provide certain automated functions, in this case related to wikis), before being able to gain access to the majority of the server (for those not familiar, Discord has a permissions system where different users can be given access to different channels, a process that can be connected to verification). Thirdly, we need to decide on what channels we have. This can, of course, change later on, but I was thinking something like this, at least to start off (note that channels can be sorted into categories which I have done here): Fourthly, we need to decide how this all relates to the forums. I think we should have as policy that discussions via Discord cannot affect sitewide policy: they cannot overrule forum discussions or relevant talk pages and they can't create new policy. Fifthly, I feel that policies such as T:SPOIL and T:NPA should, by and large, carry across.
 * Meta
 * announcements
 * info
 * verification
 * On-topic
 * wiki-general
 * wiki-spoilers
 * editing-help
 * templates-&-technical
 * Off-topic
 * doctor-who
 * spoilers
 * other-wikis

Finally, Discord does require signing up for an account. This is free, and can be done (on a computer) via the website without downloading anything. You don't have to use your real email if you don't want to (although that is kept private). However, if accessing Discord is a major issue for anyone, we can look into setting up an IRC bridge or something. Bongo50  ☎  21:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm in full support of this idea. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  21:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * editors who just want to discuss Doctor Who, not how it relates to the wiki, could do that via Discord in a separate channel for non-wiki matters
 * This is basically Discussions but all right.
 * Pretty much in support of this, but the only thing I worry about is privacy and potentially people not realising various things about privacy matters, or feeling pressured to join when they don't actually want to because of various issues. My big thing is that this oughtn't to be something that people feel pressured into joining or something that they feel that they need to do. It should be an optional extra on top of what we have, as Discord allows significantly less privacy than Fandom.
 * But apart from that, sounds good. Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  21:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely optional with no obligation. Bongo50   ☎  21:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. 21:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Against. For a few different reasons here. Discord servers actually have people who are treated as owners, and if these owners go MIA, this can cause issues in some real edge cases, I believe. See User talk:TheGreatGabesterfor an example of this. We have enough of a history of admin and editor churn - sometimes quite abruptly - that this should give us pause. Next, many people might not feel comfortable joining. I've had bad experiences with discord and other forms of social media in the past taking up too much of my life, and I'd still be hesitant. BCM has also expressed his hesitancy (though it might have changed since then). While theoretically it wouldn't be necessary for everyone to be active in this server, it's something that we should bear in mind. You will have an official place to discuss this wiki that isn't this wiki. And one not everyone will wish to join! That's... a real headache. I acknowledge that nothing there will be taken to be binding for purposes of policy or editing. But, like, policy comes from precedent and discussions between users. If some of these discussions between users are taking place off-site it makes it difficult to follow the causal chain of how precisely people were convinced - how precisely policy became what it is.


 * Now I'm not so naive as to believe this isn't happening already. But we shouldn't have an official place off wiki to do just this. Imagine if Scrooge's next response to Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives is just "okay, no, I withdraw my objections, R4bp needs to go, web theory is untenable" because of a discussion we had off site. Someone looking back at that thread, years later, will see a large gap in response length but will be wholly incapable of understanding why this response is what it is. There's no gradual evolution but a complete causal break. As much as reasonably possible, discussions about the wiki should take place on wiki. (Once again, I am not so naive as to suggest that all discussions about the wiki must do so. Some violate some of our rules, be they violations of T:NPA, or so meta that they violate T:POINT. But, you know, we shouldn't actively encourage a break in our textual record between two repositories, one of which you yourself note should be optional.)


 * I think this particular point should have broad appeal as well. OS25 has complained about how MM removed invalid stories' continuity sections, saying that this resulted from a discussion in the wiki chat. Well. We can't see the wiki chat. The wiki chat was never supposed to be used for policy decisions, but allegedly it was used for this sort of stylistic choice for a page. If anything ever happens (no matter how far in to the future, so long as it happens before the wiki goes away) to the discord server we'd be in the same spot, unable to see these discussions that might have motivated people. And even if it doesn't, there might be disagreement between users in the future who just don't think to look there. I think this is a bad idea. The first two points are frustrating, they're annoyances that make minor headaches - there are sometimes administrative problems and some people will feel uncomfortable with the entire thing. But this last point is a real issue for the entire project imo. Najawin ☎  22:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The second (?) point is more or less what I was getting at, but the third is a very good one, and for that reason, I think I'm against the proposal. From an archiving perspective, it doesn't make sense, and we have perfectly adequate means of communication already on-wiki. Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  22:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 100% full support of this. WaltK ☎  23:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I fully support this idea. — Fractal Doctor @  10:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposal for the same reasons cited by Najawin and Aquanafrahudy. I've seen too many other projects and communities open "official servers" on Discord which then rapidly suck all the oxygen out of the alternatives, neglecting the fact that a chat server is a piss-poor mode of communication and documentation for wiki-style projects. Remember how much difficulty we had rescuing the forum archives? A Discord server is infinitely worse: no archive.org copies; zero recourse if the server gets suspended or an admin goes rogue and deletes it; and Discord as a company has taken an actively hostile posture towards third party archival tools. Unofficial or 1-on-1 off-site chats are another thing, but when it comes to official platforms, it's best for everyone if conversation stays on-wiki on talk pages and forum discussions. – n8 (☎) 15:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)