I've unlocked the logs for SCP-914 and SCP-682.

Here are my admin posts for each:

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-88429/experiment-log-914#post-2463935

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-99832/experiment-log-t-98816-oc108-682#post-2463937

It appears that these pages were both closed by unilateral staff action, without wider consultation. It's clear to me that this was done entirely non-maliciously. This is 100% understandable. There was a ton of confusion in each thread, and staff were simply working with what they thought to be true. I only noticed all this stuff because Decibelle was incredibly confused and drew my attention to it, myself! :)

But… Gears explicitly intended for these collaboration logs to remain open. This is evidenced by his posts as author in those threads, and multiple statements over the years since.

It's possible he would let us close the logs if we went to him and asked nicely. Gears is a really nice person and he'll approve most things that we tell him we want to do. He already approved staff control over the content that goes into these logs.

However, I strongly, strongly oppose this. It's one of the worst things we, as staff, could do to this community, compounding a massive error we already made years ago when we shut down crosslinks.

Collaborative logs that continue to grow add life to the site. Especially if stuff like 914 and 682 link to newer SCPs — they add the vital wikiwalk aspect to our site. They draw readers into a fascinating black hole that they don't emerge from for hours — and then we have another fan, another member. The stifling of this for years is why the wider SCP fanbase continues to largely be stuck in 2010 — and, bluntly, why our growth stagnates at the higher levels (staff, expert-level writers), even as our member ranks swell.

We staff should not be contributing further to that just because it makes our jobs slightly easier. We should be taking steps to counter this — but since we aren't (and understandably since it would be a lot of work, though I still want to see a "hub article" contest/drive), we should at least let the community keep what it has already.

Yes, that means we'll have to edit or remove shitty newbie additions. However, this is one of the easier jobs we're supposed to do. Writing up O5 threads for every doofy newbie error is much harder, for equal or lesser benefit… and a look at O5's Recent Posts should tell you that we do exactly that.

That said, if the majority of staff, particularly admins, disagree with me, then say so. If there's plenty of desire to see those logs shuttered and locked forever, (and Gears approves) or for there to be significant barriers to addition of material (which we can already make with the permissions we have), then that is what will happen.

Sound off.

Some side notes in response to questions. – hide block Temporary closure of logs after a flood of bad entries = fine. That was why 914 was originally locked. Eskobar didn't intend to leave it that way. It just… happened. 682's log wasn't closed to additions, but everyone thought it was, even with me spamming the thread with admin posts that it wasn't — see Drewbear's post yesterday saying it was closed. I think that was completely understandable, but it also means that the experiment of allowing people to suggest additions failed.

Out of collapsible coz important:

I'm not saying take away staff fiat power to edit or remove entries for any reason. We already have that, for these logs.

I wouldn't mind instituing that as a general default policy for collab logs going forward unless the author requests otherwise.