Last edited: 05.11.2020

1. The principle of voting

1.1 Any changes to data made by users go through the stage of voting by the members of the community or the administration. It is necessary to check the quality of the input information.
1.2 If a user’s edit (update) reaches 10 votes for or votes against, it is posted in the directory or rejected, respectively.

2. Voting rules

2.1 When checking the updates, you must consider the level of the user. If it is a novice, you should take into account his/her limited experience explain in detail what his/her mistakes are and how to fix them.
2.2 Mistakes in the route edit are not a reason to immediately vote against it
  1. 2.2.1 Instead, you should ask the author of the edit in the comments to indicate a source of information or to point out a mistake so that he/she can fix it (or fix it yourself: only for level 3 editors).
  2. 2.2.2 If the author of the edit does not reply or correct the error within 3 days, it is allowed to vote against this edit
  3. 2.2.3 Unreasonable voting for and against the edits may result in a fine by the administration
2.3 If you decide to review your blocked editing, inform the support team.
2.4 It is forbidden to vote against edits or to demand from the author to add more information if, in the opinion of the voter, the author made minor changes or did not indicate all the data that could be indicated. If you have more information, you can add it yourself in the new edit of the route.
  1. 2.4.1 Each editor contributes only that part of the information which he knows and is not required to have all the information about the route;
  2. 2.4.2 For example, it is forbidden to vote against edits if its author correctly changed the type of route but did not update the outdated schedule.

3. Rules for choosing the reasons for voting "Against"

3.1 Fictitious data (vandalism) – the edit contains a set of signs indicating the introduction of fictional (not existing in reality) data. For example:
  1. 3.1.1 Unrealistic, absurd changes in the current and / or other edits of the user: extension of a city route to another city or country, etc;
  2. 3.1.2 A large number of questionable edits shortly after registration on Wikiroutes;
  3. 3.1.3 Use of foul language in edits or in user profile.
3.2 No source to ensure data is valid – the edit matches all of the features listed below:
  1. 3.2.1 The source of information is not specified making it impossible to check for specific changes made by the user;
  2. 3.2.2 In the "Links and source of information" field or when answering a question in the comments, the author of the edit indicates that he cannot provide confirmation, or ignores the question within 3 days;
  3. 3.2.3 Search for confirmation on the internet did not return any results;
  4. 3.2.4 For some reason, the user who votes cannot take the author's word (activity history, time spent on the site, etc.).
3.3 Wrong data (there is evidence) – the author of the edit has made incorrect changes to the route and it can be proved:
  1. 3.3.1 If you choose this variant, you should provide evidence (link to the source) and clarify in the comments what was wrong with the edit.
3.4 Duplicate: this route already exists – the route with the same number and characteristics is already on the site.
3.5 Other - specify the reason with the comment.

4. Rating formula

User rating (Vote) – a number that determines the weight when voting for or against the edits of other users.

5. User level 2 (Experienced editor)

5.1 Status in the project:

  1. 5.1.1 are perceived by the Wikiroutes team as editors who have demonstrated their awareness and good intentions while editing
  2. 5.1.2 the WR team is more attentive to reviews and suggestions

5.2 Additional authority:

  1. 5.2.1 editing stops (renaming and moving)
  2. 5.2.2 merging duplicate stops in one
  3. 5.2.3 adding cities
  4. 5.2.4 the user's vote is increased by 1 point

5.3 Requirements for candidates and owners of the user level 2 (the exact indicators of the criteria and the user's compliance with them are determined individually):

  1. 5.3.1 good number of edits
  2. 5.3.2 prevalence of accepted edits over blocked
  3. 5.3.3 prevalence of edits with significant changes
  4. 5.3.4 regular activity in editing
  5. 5.3.5 knowledge and observance of editing rules

6. User Level 3 (Trusted Editor)

6.1 Status in the project:

  1. 6.1.1 are perceived by the Wikiroutes team as reliable like-minded people who are not indifferent to the future of the project
  2. 6.1.2 feedback and suggestions from such users about the future work of the project, as well as the priority of implementing suggestions are submitted for discussion within the WR team

6.2 Additional authority:

  1. 6.2.1 ability to edit other users' updates
  2. 6.2.2 the user's vote is increased by 1 point

6.3 Requirements for candidates and owners of the user level 3 (exact indicators of the criteria and the user's compliance with them are determined individually):

  1. 6.3.1 knowledge and observance of voting rules
  2. 6.3.2 not hindering the involvement of new editors by blocking edits in violation of voting rules (for example, containing minor flaws)
  3. 6.3.3 willingness to help new editors, indicating errors and explaining how to do the right thing (with references to editing and voting rules in the user's guide)

If you have questions, please write us

Support contacts