Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring

Featured articles

For next year, FAs should be worth more than 100 points. There is no way that the work put into an FA is equivalent to only 10 DYKs.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Some FAs are worth more than 10 DYKs and some are not, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what basis you are making that statement on. That said, I agree completely with William. I'd like to see a slight increase to GA points as well - maybe 50 for a GA and 150 or 200 for a FA. And I remain unconvinced on the value of GT/FT. Resolute 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. Anything I can get a DYK for, I'm generally going to take to GA, at least eventually. So that's 50 points total, half of a FA. Now that I think about it I think that GAs are worth too much because they can be so easy to do. I can get a GA for a 5000 character article that will likely never go past that. Or I can do 50,000 characters and write something that's FA-quality, although it could take several months to wind its way through the whole process. I've consistently won the MilHist and Aviation writing contests because I can bury people in B and GA-class articles. But I'm not sure which is really better for Wiki and should be rewarded by this contest. Is it better to have more good, but not great quality articles vs. fewer but better articles? My inclination is to say both, but finding a balance is tricky. Another issue to consider is the time required to get reviews and limits. I think my longest GAR was 9 weeks while my FARs average 3 weeks or so. With only one article (plus a co-nom) allowed to be in the FAR process that's a real handicap vs the unlimited number in GAR. (I think Tony had 17 in the queue the last time I looked!) Plus GARs can be dealt with by a GA backlog campaign like they did in April, (which upset my carefully planned timings for that round, I might add).

So it's pretty obvious to me that FA points are never going to be the decisive factor in winning, but merely a nice supplement as currently rewarded. So figure 3 FARs, plus 3 co-noms in a single round vs. the possibility of 30-odd GARs if there's a GAR backlog elimination drive one month. So 600 points for FARs vs. 1200 from GARs, plus DYKs for half of the GARs worth another 150. Babysitting those FARs through the process requires, at least for me, less work than does writing new GA-quality articles because a lot of that work has already been done in the initial stages. For me, the writing of a FA-class article is probably three days of concentrated work, maybe 15 hours, but a GA-class article of limited scope is about 3 hours, maybe less depending how much I can copy-paste from other articles. So I'd support a 5:1 ratio between FA and GA class articles. And keep the GT and FT points as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry guys. We'll talk about this once the current cup ends, just like last year.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 21:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• No reason not to at least think about it out loud now. I think Sturm has the key point that FA points will never decide this contest given the length of the process and limitations on nominations. The key thing is to up the points to a fair level so you get a serious reward for that serious process, but not so high as to almost insult all other work people do in saying that a single article overwhelms lots of other good work (500 points for an FA, for example). Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I understand but I'm only letting you guys know that we're almost certainly going to talk about this when this cup ends, so you don't have to worry about points. I too think that FAs should be worth more than 100 points (Heck, I cannot even get one!) But as should GAs in terms or increasing the amount. The standard for both has risen in the past year in my opinion so we'd better compensate for that increase....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• At the same time you have to remember that every time you up FAs and GAs you are (partially by design) lowering the comparative value of FLs and FPs. Obviously I'm biased as a big FL guy, but we shouldn't forget that those are significant work that provide significant content for the encyclopedia. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I totally understand and I myself have a FLC that I consider my proudest work on this whole site. I think that FLs should be much closer to FAs next competition. It has taken me much more work to try to promote my FL than it has one of my 20+ GAs. With that said, I'm thinking that if FAs are going to be 100-150 points next year, then FLs should be at least 60-70 points.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that an FL is quite as much work as is a FA, but it certainly ought to be worth more than a GA. And probably the same is true for a FP although I really don't have any idea how much work is really involved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I consider my FLs on average to have been easier to produce than my GAs. However, the easiest GAs to produce for a contest like this are probably slightly easier to produce than easiest FLs. However, for every relatively easy GAC (like say J. T. White, which is one of my current ones), there are GACs that take inordinate amounts of time to do correctly (like my current GACs Juwan Howard and 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team). I would not compare an FL to an FA with the word half. I think making an FL half an FA would be wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
        • But that gets back to the size issue as Juwan Howard is over 100,000 characters and is really an embryo FAC while J.T. White is less than 10,000 and will likely never progress past GA. I really, really don't want to get into size counts as that will just lead to verbose wordage and crappier articles, but the points awarded should work so that people will be encouraged to do long articles like Juwan Howard as well as short, snappy articles like J.T. White.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
          • We can't begin separating out difficulty levels for different FAs. IMO, the reason why FAs should be higher point value is because the entire process is typically much more time consuming. Also, a higher value for FAs would encourage more editing in that direction. GAs and DYKs are lower hanging fruit. And an FL I would argue is comparable to a GA and should not be raised in value. Resolute 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
            • • I still disagree. FLs are Featured for a reason. They are not called Good Lists (though that's an idea to incorporate in the distant future for this site) I've spent more time on my FLC than I have on any or my GA's. I have a system for my U-boats and If I follow it, they will be an easy GA in about 1-3 weeks from when I first begin editing it. The articles are not crappy or anything but I've just figured out a "blueprint" for them. Every FL is unique and there is no set way to do it (though I modeled mine after Parsec's List of battleships of Germany) as every list is about an independent topic. When comparing that to U-boats, well, there are over 500 U-boats but only one "List of battleships of Austria-Hungary". Do you know what I mean? Of course, FLs are still not as big as FAs so they should not be worth as much but I'd like to see them worth more than GAs at least....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
                • The reason FL's are featured is that there is no such thing as a good list, and no point to them. A list is simply a table and typically a few paragraphs of prose. For larger lists they are time consuming, yes, but typically hardly outstanding, even at the FL level. I would personally always rank a good GA as being more valuable to the project than a good FL. Resolute 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally value FA as 300-350 points. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: FAs should be about 200 points, per the reasoning above by Sturmvogel 66. I personally think 10 points is too much for a DYK, I'll admit that it didn't take much effort to write something like The Victoria Advocate. I'd favor reducing the value of DYKs to 5 points. 50 would be good for GAs, but FLs should probably remain at 40. The encyclopedic value of GAs are arguably above those of FLs, and generally they sit for weeks while the FLC process is quicker. I would also support the splitting of points for any articles that are co-nominated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think we should step back and compare like versus like. Somebody should put up a table showing a couple of examples of the easiest DYKs GAs and FAs, average DYKs, GAs and FAs and the most difficult DYKs GAs and FAs. We should not be comparing the easiest GAs with the hardest FAs and saying FAs are 8 or 10 times harder to do. Yes the most difficult FAs take a ton of time and some GAs are easy to get through the system. However, the easiest FAs are not that really that much more worthy than 100 points on the current scale. For the final round, I will not be doing a ton of Juwan Howard article type GAs. I will be trying to rack up points on cakey GAs. I imagine people who want to rack up FA points will be trying to get the easier FAs through in the final round. Most of the easier FAs are less work than my Juwan Howard article. I don't think any of the 11 or 12 FAs in the current round are as long or have as many refs as his article. Even my 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team GAC is longer than probably all FAs completed this round. Doing an FA caliber Juwan Howard article would be nearly as difficult as doing an FA caliber LeBron James. People trying to win this thing will be doing FAs that are easier than my harder GAs. If we are using a 10-point scale, I will be trying to push a lot of 3 and 4 point difficulty GAs through in the final round. However, I don't expect people to be spending time on 8 point FAs. Look at the submission pages of people in the contest and consider the relative difficulty. Looking at the shortest FA in the current round, Russian battleship Slava, it is not that much harder than my current GAC for Howard and the 1997 Michigan football team. The scoring could be tweaked but nothing drastic is really necessary, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainspace

I propose we bring back Mainspace edits next year. It drooped our scoring down quite a bit. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's that?

I disagree, far too easy to manipulate by saving every single change as you make them rather than one series of changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also disagree. A high edit count does not necessarily mean one is improving the project.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One possibility is to award 100 points for every 1000 "quality" mainspace edits to a maximum of 100 points per round with the editor certifying that he or she believes the edits to be of high quality. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Too much IMHO. If that happens, then 1 FA will put you through rounds 1 or 2!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 18:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Last year, you could advance out of round 1 with just one GA. The main reason for mainsapce it to increase scoring. and then an FA could be worth another 5 points just for mainspace. It should be 1 point for every 25 mainspace edits. How about that? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No scoring inflation is necessary. This only results in the advancement of editors who frankly do not deserve to be advanced.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok we should problay give what we did in 2009, giving 0.1 edits. If we make fA 200 points you would need 2000 mainspace edits to equal an A which is unlikely during a two month round. It would even give more points to an FA. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why do we need increased scoring in the first place? Edit scores always struck me as the odd man out in a field where everything else is evaluated content. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, maimspace makes every thing little more fun. It is like the three-point shot in basketball. It can also reduce the chance of ties. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think that it's a way for people who do not deserve to move on to...well move on. All of the other categories are promoting something so it seems unfair to have one category where all you have to do is edit...anything.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your missing the piont. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the point, then? J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Increase scoring and makes everything a little more fun. The is proposal is 1 point per 25 mainsapce edits. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's way out there on amount of stuff done per edit, I would find this a bit sad. It's frankly encouraging editcountitis. How about instead giving points based on how many articles one edits? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's better than the original idea, but I still think it diverges from the idea of this contest, which is content production, not wikignoming. Not that there's anything wrong with wikignoming. I just feel like that's a different contest. Guettarda (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, but I can also see the argument for rewarding sheer productivity, I just don't think it's fair to measure it by raw edit numbers. So how about a couple of points per new article created regardless of DYK? Actually I would rather not see the number of points for a DYK reduced; that's directly related to production of new content and insofar as I understand GA and FA at all, it seems to me getting an article past those threshholds is wikignoming. But on that the argument seems to be going against me . . . However, not all articles are suited to DYK (some take too long to write, some contain list material, others are just too short without undue weight). 3 points per new article and 10 points per DYK? Or 3 points per new article, some reduced pointage per DYK, and some teensy fraction of a point per discrete edit to an article? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

3 piont per article might be an ok deal. but I still liked my propsal. How about 1 point per 200 mainspace edits. It can make the competition a little mroe fun and you would need a ton of mainspace points to equal an FA. it worked in 2009, dont see why it could not work now. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that it increases the burden on judges. The competition has grown a lot since 2009, and we'd probably need extra judges, especially during the first round, if we expect them to check edit count claims. We'd also have to rely on competitors to mark all minor edits and automated edits as minor, because there's no way the judges can check even a small proportion of the edits. Apart from that, 0.005 points per edit barely seems to be worth the trouble. It's not going to get a person across to the next round. It doesn't seem fair to ask the judges to do a large amount of extra work for something that's unlikely to change the outcome. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to program a bot to detect a good mainspace if the overall character count in the article changed by say at least 15-20 characters (for example). A simple one character difference would probably not be worth counting, but a 15-20 character difference (once again, just grabbing that number out of thin air). Wouldn't be perfect, but would be a decent compromise between no award, and award for little bit.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The challenge, as I saw it, would be the check the number of mainspace edits...no matter how carefully you word things, some people will count non-mainspace edits by mistake, or will miscount, or count minor edits...that kind of thing. Having a bot verify people's claims might help avoid that problem. As long as people made sure they marked minor edits as minor (or gave them the ability to add a "deduct" column to their claim, for any unmarked minor edits) it would probably work. After all, we aren't looking to weed out cheating here, but rather, errors. (Cheating would actually be fairly easy to detect. Anyone who racked up massive edit counts would almost certainly get their edits checked by another person in the competition, and this being Wikipedia, it's easy to audit other people's edits.)

Obviously I'm no coder, so I'm just guessing at what tasks would be 'simple' for a bot to perform. Guettarda (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Bedford's idea is great. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

Guettarda: The bot will be able to count the edits for us. In 2009, it counted the mainspace edits, splitting them into minor and non-minor, and ignored anything done by a bot (with AWB, Huggle, Twinkle or whatever linked in the edit summary). It wouldn't require the amount of work you are talking about. There was an awful lot of controversy about mass editing- Sasata got a lot of (highly unjustified, in my eyes) bad press for mass stub creation on taxonomic ranks. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We can do non-minor edits that change more than 50 to 100 characters. Then, that solves the problem, if a bot can do the task. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Replace FA and GA points

I believe FA and GA points should be replaced with this: 1 point for every 2 nonvandalism mainspace edits to start and stub articles, 1 for every nonvandalism C-class edit, 2 for every nonvandalism B-class edit, 5 for every nonvandalism GA or A-class edit, and 10 for every nonvandalism FA edit. When quality is conflicted between WikiProjects, use the highest quality rating. I also believe every nonvandalism contribution to a Featured Topic article should be worth 1, and every Good Topic nonvandalism edit should be worth 2 for 1 point. I think that those should replace Featured and Good topic points. Us441 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You want to count which edits are non-vandalism and which class the articles are in? Didn't think so.. Too complex, sorry.  f o x  19:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a way to bring back mainspace edit points without awarding points for vandalism, and a way to keep the increased FA and GA points without having to worry about the "significantly contributed" line and where it is. Us441 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Carryover points from the previous round

It was discussed somewhere that if points are carried over, this is good and bad. Good because it rewards those who write and bad if it causes one to be lazy in later rounds. Some Europeans go on holiday in August and that could eliminate their chances to win.

One possible compromise is that the top 2 people with the most total points for all rounds automatically get promoted to the next round with exception of the last round. This may be too complicated but I am not that stupid! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly doable, I reckon.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Will doing reviews be worth points next year? I think it needs to be added in somehow, seeing as how every review process was stretched to its end over the past year (DYK has been over critical mass for months). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This would be beneficial to the project.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It needn't be much (bit like kicking a conversion in various codes of football) - one or two points would be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to take this seriously this year, but we have the age old problems. How do we judge a review fairly? How do we ensure that substandard GA promotions don't end up being traced back to a WikiCup decision to award points? One way might be to limit it to featured processes, where fellow participants are more likely to spot a pattern, but that would probably have an impact on GAN. --WFC-- 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The WWI contest in MilHist last year counted reviews, though I forget the scale used, as well as basic assessments at 1/10 of a point each. It was helpful in reducing the GAN and unassessed article backlogs. I think we can all recognize a quality review at GAN; the real problem is that the judges will have to validate every review, which would be a huge burden on them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(As a judge, I'm trying to remain neutral in these discussions, but...) Remember that there have also been GA elimination drives which have encouraged a large number of reviews. A problem with poor reviews exists anyway- I'd be inclined to say that offering a more "token" point rewards (as Cas recommends) would not encourage "mass" reviewing of the kind we would strongly discourage, and I think judges exist purely for the reason of stopping points being awarded for this anyway. I have already been doing all I can to encourage reviews, I'd be inclined to say that this would be a good thing. I've talked about the "feeling" of the competition, and I get the distinct impression that the "feeling" of the competition is shifting towards awarding points for reviews. (I have already been using participation in review processes as a tiebreaker.) J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the WWI contest awarded 2 points per substantial review in RP, GAN, ACR or FAC. Nobody went overboard; the most I saw was 12 reviews in 6 weeks, although since the points were restricted to WWI content there weren't that many articles to review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We are going to have to incorporate GA reviews somehow - the pressure on them is fit to burst even without a hundred people throwing article at them - so this seems logical. Judging quality shouldn't be too hard.  f o x  18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw something into the ring, although I accept this will throw up challenges. How about we require people to claim GA review points before making the final decision? It's a way of ensuring that if there are any substandard reviews, they are not the responsibility of WikiCup. --WFC-- 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WP:CUP contestants should be reviewing. I just got two of my shoddiest reviews I have ever gotten from a cup contestant. As the competition heats up, it will cause contestants trying to produce encyclopedic content to do shoddy reviews because good reviews take too much time. I think there should be a separate reviewers cup. This content should be about contributing encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Points should be based on benefit to the project, rather than effort required

The aim of Wikicup is to be as beneficial to the project as possible. From what I've seen this year, we caused significant problems at DYK, to the extent that there was serious discussion of reforming the entire system to cope. If that happens next year, the people that are disproportionately hit will be people who rarely submit new articles, and were really looking forward to seeing an article that interests them on the main page for a few hours. The GA backlog is more of a permanent problem, but given that it is at saturation point without Wikicup, I question whether it should be incentivised as generously as it is. Sure, FA, FL, FP and FT have participation problems, but it's a net benefit to the project if the quantity of audited content goes down, and the quality goes up. Incentivising featured content more heavily would result in an overall reduction in the amount of reviewing required for the wikicup. --WFC-- 20:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It terms of effort, I found DYK an easier way to pick up points than GA/FA - I'd guess that 5 for a DYK was a more accurate proportion compared with FA or GA scoring. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a discussion that I'd rather we had in a relevant thread. I want to see if there's consensus for the view that if WikiCup incentivisation is causing problems in one or two particular areas over all others, we should be lowering the incentive in that area accordingly. --WFC-- 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The backlogs early in DYK made it obvious that we were crushing the system at times, so I would agree with that view. To the rest of the processes, there is already a movement to add a point value to reviewing, and we could help alleviate the pressures on those areas by mandating that to score points on a GA, FA, etc, the contributor must also review another article in the same queue. In that case, this game would benefit the project both in terms of adding quality content and in ensuring that we help alleviate the pressures we create within these processes. Resolute 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think forcing people to do reviews like that really could encourage hasty reviews. There's a line between strongly encouraging/providing incentives and forcing. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about it a bit over the last couple of days. I think for any sort of review competition to be workable, there would have to be serious involvement from people heavily associated with peer review, GA reviews and FA/FL reviews. Unless a review system was run by those sorts of people and the points then fed into Wikicup, I don't think it can ever be workable. --WFC-- 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are talking of benefit to the project, though, reviews are sorely needed in all areas. I agree about the difficulty in reviewing reviews as it were. Hence why I thought just a point or so was a good score for one - A GA review would need two links - one to the GA review page (which will show the depth of the discussion), and one to the page history showing the number of edits by the reviewer in picking up straightforward errors. If you limit a GA review to one point, and grant one the reward of one point for "some effort towards improving the article to GA status" I think that is a net benefit. Can do the same for FAC too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I like splitting the points like that- it sounds very bureaucratic. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad explaining. I didn't mean split points, I just meant a low point total and an easy couple of links for wikicup reviewers to see how the contestant reviewed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything, giving fewer points reduces the likelihood for scrutiny, in turn increasing the risk of near-useless reviews (which do no harm at featured processes, but are a big deal at GA and DYK). If we are going to go down the points for review route, the system would need to be robust. --WFC-- 22:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how making it more points will make it easier to be scrutinised, a review takes as long as it does regardless of points scored. I was just trying to keep it in line with effort expended and also the emphasis on article creation. Presuming current point awards are more or less the same, what would you consider a point reward for a GA review (and/or FA review)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could lose the points if (during the course of that round) the GA promotion was overturned. As for DYKs - if you approve an article and it turns out to have problems, you'll get more than an earful from the community. Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the effort for reviewing a DYK candidate is worth points, and the idea of having to document it for the bot to count is a little ridiculous. GA, FA and PR reviews are in a different league to DYK, FPC, VPC or FSC reviews. (Where the others fall is, I guess, open to debate.) J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reviewing DYK should be worth points either FWIW. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I just thought that was part of what was being discussed. Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Creation

I believe points should be awarded for article creation next year. Us441(talk) (contribs) 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We already give for DYKs, and new articles that don't cut it for DYK are generally stubs - we'd rather not encourage those.  f o x  18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything, we should give more points for a DYK that's not a new article since (a) a 5-fold expansion usually takes more effort, and (b) all else being equal, an existing stub is likely to be more 'vital' a topic than a non-existent article. Mind you, I'm not saying that we should split DYKs into 'new' and 'expansions', because I think that would add too much complexity to the system. But we should be encouraging article expansion more than article creation. Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Consolidation is preferable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think expansions should be worth double creations, but I also think that DYK points need to be reduced, due to the unreasonable strain we are putting on that system. This from someone with the books at my disposal to create a couple of hundred Watford DYKs. --WFC-- 22:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't a bad idea, though I'm not sure double is fair - maybe 4 points for a new DYK, and 6 for an expansion (presuming other values for GA/FA/etc. remain the same). Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that the DYK nom specifies whether it's a new article or an expansion, I suppose it should be possible. Guettarda (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that expansion DYKs should be worth more than creation DYKs. Forgive me, but it's myopic to presume that most of the worthwhile topics have already had articles created - given the recentist and geographical biases that tend to operate, this is highly unlikely to be so. Plus GoogleBooks now lets me ref up stuff that wouldn't have stood a chance of surviving 4 or 5 years ago because I couldn't have cited sources (like most volunteers here, I'm not based at a ginormous academic library). Plus some articles just can't - or shouldn't - be expanded fivefold, though fourfold may make all the difference :-) Similarly, as I said above, not all articles can or should meet the minimum length for DYK. (I just had a huge struggle with Hotspur (comic); somebody very kindly stepped in and prosified a summary list section so it could squeak by.) Also, DYK's supposed to be for topics for which an interesting hook can be made. So to reduce the stress at DYK and maintain the emphasis on creation, I suggested above that every non-redirect new article get a few points - I think I said 3. I don't think this would encourage the creation of stubs on unworthy topics any more than we already do - any article that either is on an apparently non-notable topic or doesn't make a clear enough claim to notability is already challengeable. And it's extremely easy to verify how many articles someone creates so no added stress for the judges. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to remind everyone that a lot of the angst concerning points for edits last year was caused because of someone mass-creating articles. I'm not sure you quite appreciate the nature of mass-article creation- three points per article created would make it easily the easiest way to farm points. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all the important articles have been created, just that there are more important articles languishing in stub form than there are important articles being created (or so I believe). When you couple that with the fact that a 5-fold expansion is often a lot more work than is simply creating a new article that just barely makes it to DYK standard, it seems to me that it might make sense to reward expansions more than new articles. Guettarda (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In some respects a creation is much more valuable to the project than an expansion. The reader who finds no article or a redlink is infinitely more disappointed than a reader who finds an underdeveloped article. However, expansions are often a lot more work because things that have articles tend to be deeper topics than things that don't.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I find that creating new articles is something folks like to do without any prompting - it is natural and hence doesn't need to be rewarded or encouraged anymore than happens already. I guess I am trying to take a big-picture apporach on where the 'pedia needs most improving and what carrots we can employ to get there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainspace

So, to be clear, mainspace counts for zero again next year. Is that correct? 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}13:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not official. See the discussion above. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is under discussion at this time. Depending on the conclusion the discussion brings, we will probably vote on it towards the end of this year. I won't be opening any final votes until after the end of this year's competition at least. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Award more points for vital articles

Hi guys. I worked at Wikipedia:Vital articles a few months ago, but since then I appear to have become the only active ("active") participant. Although the list of the 1000 most important articles only has 988, these are broad topics, which means that receive a lot attention (relatively speaking) but are harder to work on. Hence, the quality is mixed. The Cup has been so great at improving articles that I thought it could really help improve the vital articles. I propose we select a diff of vital articles (to prevent people gaming the system) and then provide a modest incentive to work on the articles; the amount is up to you. I'm not very involved in the Cup, so feel free to say no, but I think it could spice things up while making the Cup's improvements more noticeable - or at least offsetting the fact that general articles are more difficult to improve. Cheers, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some sort of modifier or bonus with Vital or Core Articles and have proposed something before. I think this is something worth raising again after this years' competition is finished and we're sorting out scoring for next year. Can't find where we talked about it now.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support a modifier, since it wouldn't stop your working on obscure articles of your choice / in your niche, but still incentivise editing certain articles in a way that pagecount or some other system may not. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my idea was for something like a 1.5x modifier maybe for GA/FAs or something like that, for whatever we deem to be core topics/vital articles etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

The obvious problem is determining what does count as core. We've all had fun getting annoyed about those ridiculous lists. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What about using something like page views to determine which articles receive a bonus? That would incent people to work on articles that are important to the readers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that selecting which articles to incentivize is the most difficult and subjective part of the process. For what it's worth, the vital articles were selected in complete isolation from the Cup, meaning minimal conflict of interest. If you're going by page views, you'd have to sort through the transient pop culture entries (and the not-so-transient sex topics) to find what people are actually looking at, over months or years. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah- there are inherent problems with using page views, in particular the fact that page views are an imprecise science. Just because there is a hit on the page, doesn't mean anyone has read it. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that, and the fact that a 'vital' article that doesn't exist has zero page views. Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, that's not true, as I found when I started looking at our coverage of British comics and their characters. The page views tool records a hit when someone searches for the term that is later created as an article. But I just looked at Vital Articles and found only one redlink and corrected the spelling error that was causing it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is one discussion --> Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring/Archive_1#Another_idea_-_bonus_points_for_vital_articles. However, there was another where I suggested to J Milburn some unarguable categories (which I can't find now) My thinking was along the lines of:

• Any sovereign country
• Any leader of a sovereign country
• Any chemical element
• Any nobel prize winner
• Any World Heritage listed Site
• Any capital city
• Any food staple (a type of food rather than a brand etc.)
• Any language

All of the above are core topics which surely cannot be gamed - I'd be thinking of something like a 1.2-1.5 modifier of an article fulfils one of the above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: I am also thinking of what is underrrepresented at GA/FA - was tempted to add any mathematics, linguistics, Law, or language-related article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised at how much I like the above idea, given how opposed I am to including vital articles. For diversity, it would probably need to extend to featured pictures, lists*, portals* and DYKs for the above. --WFC-- 03:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* Where applicable, otherwise we will end up with List of pig-based products and Portal:Bacon)