How to moderate a Wikinut page

Chief NutStarred Page By Chief Nut, 16th Jul 2010 | Follow this author | RSS Feed
Posted in Wikinut>Guides>Using Wikinut>Moderating Articles

We've designed our moderation system to be as intuitive as possible. Here's a step-by-step guide to the process.

Moderation basics

Our moderation process is a series of multiple choice questions, with the option to add a message to the author. The answers to the moderation will determine whether the page is published or rejected, and whether it receives any badges or awards.

At each step you are presented with a part of the page, and asked to make a judgement. You can skip between the steps in any order by clicking on the progress bar at the top, but we suggest it is easier to work through in the standard order.

Don't worry too much about what you feel another moderator would decide, use your common sense. We ask that all our moderators keep an open mind, and even when they are reviewing content they do not personally agree with, they are objective in their judgements.

Step 1 - the preview

The first thing to review is the page preview block, which is the content that appears on the homepage, category pages etc. It is basically the page title, summary and a preview image.

You need to check that the title and summary:

  • Have good spelling and grammar
  • Aren't ALL IN CAPS - instant rejection
  • Are descriptive and attractive for a reader

Note - some of your answers will lead to the system flagging the page for instant rejection. In these cases, you'll be given the opportunity to skip to the last step, as there is little point answering the rest of the questions.

Then you need to assess the image. Remember, that if the author has added a page specific preview image it will appear here. If there is no image, the author profile picture will appear instead. Unless, that is, the user has not submitted or chosen a profile picture in which case you'll see a pale blue default Wikinut "w" image.

Step 2 - the page quality

On step 2 you will be presented with the full page content to review. The first key question here is the originality of the page. Pages fall into 4 different categories:

  • Ripped-off - the page has been copied from a particular site (Wikipedia for example) - instant rejection
  • Widely available - things like top 10 lists that are available in dozens of other places
  • Re-published - content that the author has published elsewhere, and has now upload to Wikinut
  • Original - content that has been written especially for Wikinut

We obviously prefer original content, but re-published content is fine. Anything classed as widely available will be of low value but acceptable. Copied content is a big no, and is never published on Wikinut.

Then you need to assess the overall spelling and grammar - we don't expect every page to be perfect, but pages that are terribly written will be rejected by the system. Remember that not all our authors are native English speakers; you may need to account for this.

Finally, you'll judge the content value. Basically, is the page something that is worth reading? Does it offer insight, information or entertainment? Or is it just spam, or auto-generated rubbish (people sometimes use software to produce high volume, low quality content).

Step 3 - links and formatting

Next we'll show you a list of all the links on the page. Are they appropriate? By that we mean has the author added links that are relevant to the content, or have they simply added in links to try and sell products or services.

  • Links to other websites are fine, so long as the page they are pointing at is related to the author's page and is not inappropriate (e.g. pornography etc.). Our content guidelines are a useful guide to what is appropriate.
  • Authors are also allowed to link to their own website or blog, so long as the link is not a blatant attempt at selling or promotion.
  • You need to be aware that authors sometimes add tracked affiliate links into their pages - these are a way of circumventing the Wikinut revenue share system and mean that you as the moderator would not get a share of the revenue. Obvious instant rejection.

Then you will assess the use of formatting and sections - how well has the author made use of the tools available? See our editor help section if you need a reminder about the editor functions.

Finally on this step, you'll judge any images the author has included in the page. Do they add value to the page, and are they intelligently used?

Step 4 - page relevance

Here you'll be a shown a list of the tags the user has added to the page - you can read about these on our tag help page. You're checking to see if they are relevant to the page content. Some authors will try to get more traffic by adding tags such as "Britney Speare"... this doesn't work, it just annoys readers.

And finally you can check the category to which the page was submitted. If this does not seem correct, you can use the breadcrumbs shown to browse and select a better category. Sometimes there will be a few options, so if the author has picked one that is OK you can leave it there.

Step 5 - feedback

Ok, you've now reviewed the page, and the results of your work will be converted into a score for the page (out of 100) and some automatic feedback to the author.

You'll also get the change to add some optional feedback for the author, so if you want to give them some encouragement or advice this is the time.

By the way, a score of 0 means that the page has been rejected because of at least one key failing, regardless of how well it scored elsewhere.

Additional information

You'll notice that at the bottom of every step you have 4 options for information.

  • First up is Page notes - this contains any messages from the author, either in general about all their pages, or specifically related to this page. An example of usage is for an author to let the moderator know that they are re-publishing their work from another site.
  • The second is Author details which will show you the author's profile - this is a nice way to see whether the author is new, experienced etc.
  • Next is Page changes - this is only useful for a page that has been published and then changed, as it shows you the differences between this version and the old one. Basically, it helps you spot what the author has changed on a long page.
  • The third option is Page history - this shows all the messages that have been sent about the page, and allows you to see if it has been previously rejected, published etc.

You don't need to look at any of the above information, but they can be useful in certain circumstances.


Example, Guide, Help, Moderate, Review, Wikinut

Meet the author

author avatar Chief Nut
Overly excited co-founder, keen to share the buzz so please get Wikinutting and give us some feedback! I'll be writing about new features as we add them to the site, and a few other topics as well.

Share this page

moderator Sam Wormleighton moderated this page.
If you have any complaints about this content, please let us know


Can't login?