Wikipedia talk:Developing Countries WikiContest

General planning thread

Feel free to brainstorm logistical details here! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Who's coming to the party?

July is going to come a lot faster than one might think. It might be worth reaching out to editors and asking for RSVPs as soon as possible, as that will likely significantly impact how the contest is organized. Ixtal and Sawyer-mcdonell, thoughts? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i think let's give this thread a few days to ruminate & develop some concrete ideas, and then definitely ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

+1; WP:VPIL is probably a good first place. ^Queenof_Hearts 02:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Additional weight to "least developed" countries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unanimous consensus and has been implemented, although I won't formally close it. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

---

On the map, it has "developing" and "least developed" countries. Will/should the "least developed" get a multiplier-like bonus? ^Queenof_Hearts 01:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Support the idea, not decided on what the bonus would be. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Support - Countries highlighted in darker colors should be given more bonus points in my opinion Arconning (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

support ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, maybe a 1.5x multiplier? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

1.5x is fine for me. ^Queenof_Hearts 02:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. A 1.5x multiplier sounds good. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criteria

How will we determine which articles are mostly about developing countries and which aren't. Obviously places and some biographies are pretty obvious, but what about albums, books, concepts, species, etc.? What about a Western-born person with parents born in a developing country? What about an article about a historical figure who's country, present day, spans a developed and a non-developed country?

Also, should we give more weight to articles more directly about the country? For example, an article is created about a current Peruvian politician vs a book by a Peruvian-born American author? There should probably be some sort of criteria so editors aren't confused about it. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

this is a great question - currently, my idea is that all articles related to a country are worth the same, with bonuses for more "high-level" country-related articles, such as "history of" or "religion in" articles, and an even higher bonus for the actual countries' articles. however, we need to iron out more tangential cases like you mention ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this would boil down to defining the scope of the contest as "Global South (broadly construed)" and leaving the edge cases up to judges' discretion. Might be worth an instruction on the submissions page to check beforehand with a judge if they're unsure? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Some preliminary thoughts

• It would help to have a full list of countries instead of just the map. Even if you know where the countries are on the map, the islands are difficult to tell apart.
• Should we consider including some of the "no data" countries on a case-by-case basis? We shouldn't reject articles about Cuba or North Korea, for example, just because of a technicality.
• I don't like that "Winter" is included in the title just to teach people a lesson. Being intentionally confusing and WP:POINTy is not inviting, especially since Eastern Europe, Central America, the Caribbean, the majority of Africa, and nearly all of Asia are in the northern hemisphere.
• How will the multipliers work? So far I'm assuming it's just the "least developed" multiplier mentioned above. There was talk of having more points for "core" articles for each country, and I've made a list of such core articles at Wikipedia:Sample country outline. I imagine we're not going to use an inter-wiki multiplier since that would incentivize people to stick with the developing countries that already have good inter-wiki coverage.
• It would be a good idea to get a third judge who has some experience with this sort of thing or has been on Wikipedia for a while. Most of us who are involved so far only have a couple years of Wikipedia experience at most. Having an old hand involved will significantly increase the chances of this getting off the ground and running smoothly.
• And most important of all, FAs can take over a month to process and GAs often take several times that. It might help that contestants will specifically be seeking out reviews for these countries, but we need to be more proactive or the three one-month rounds system might not work. For starters, I suggest something like Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews needed but placed prominently right on the contest page itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've whipped up a list based on the map's sources, I'll move it to a subpage if no one objects.

Extended content

"Emerging and developing" Albania Algeria Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Azerbaijan The Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belarus Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Cabo Verde Cameroon Chile China Colombia Republic of Congo Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eswatini Fiji Gabon Georgia Ghana Grenada Guatemala Guyana Honduras Hungary India Indonesia Iran Iraq Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Libya Malaysia Maldives Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Namibia Nauru Nicaragua Nigeria North Macedonia Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Qatar Romania Russia Samoa Saudi Arabia Serbia Seychelles South Africa Sri Lanka St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Syria Tajikistan Thailand Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Türkiye Turkmenistan Ukraine United Arab Emirates Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam "West Bank and Gaza" Zimbabwe "Least developed" Afghanistan Angola Bangladesh Benin Burundi Cambodia Central African Republic Chad Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Eritrea Ethiopia The Gambia Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti Kiribati Laos Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Niger Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Somalia South Sudan Sudan Timor-Leste Togo Tuvalu Uganda Tanzania Yemen Zambia

^Queenof_Hearts 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We can incorporate the "no data" countries into their own section that says "These countries have not been assessed by the IMF or UN, but are deemed eligible for points" or something like that. ^Queenof_Hearts 03:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for so many replies, but I agree with removing "winter". That made sense in the original plans, where we used an arbitrary "global north/global south" map, but now that we're using this (much better) map, it doesn't make sense. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

a couple things - will get to more later:

im not particularly attached to the winter-summer name scheme. i think it's fun, but i see your POINT point. courtesy pinging @Generalissima

thanks for linking your "core" articles list - that will be very helpful. and i agree we should do away with the interwiki bonuses in favor of the new ones we've come up with.

i also see your point about the FAC length issue - i'm amenable to either having one single 3 month round, or extending the rounds, or some other solution. i also agree that we should display the "reviews needed" prominently.

regarding the "no data" countries - most of them are, unsurprisingly, lacking coverage on wikipedia due to WP:BIAS so i would be cool with a case-by-case basis. we probably shouldn't count vatican city, but we should absolutely count the DPRK, for example. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts: I agree with dropping the "Winter" simply because shorter names are easier to remember. There isn't a need to differentiate between another contest with the same name this year.

I also think a single 3-month round would work fine.

We could also consider using the Human Development Index instead. We could only look at countries considered High development or worse (HDI ≤ .799), giving us about 123 countries. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

there was some discussion about how we're counting countries that are "no data" - HDI could be a great supplemental measure for this purpose i think ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also think a single three-month round would work better. Less chance of unlucky DYK/GAN/FAC promotions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

rounds

putting this in a new subsection so it's easier to find: currently we've got 3 month-long rounds, but above we've got some legit concerns about how long the FAC & other content review processes are. what are our thoughts on having rounds? should we switch to one 3-month round? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, especially since this is a brand-new event. I think it might be beneficial to incentivize as much contribution to the contest as possible by eliminating eliminations. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i agree - pinging @Ixtal 4 their thoughts ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If the majority is in favor then sure. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 00:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

+1, although maybe I'm just salty I got eliminated from WikiCup because of a DYK running one day late. ^Queenof_Hearts 19:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Scoring

I made Wikipedia:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest/Scoring based on what I've read on this talk page. Please provide suggestions as subthreads to this one so we can keep the talk page easy to navigate through and make proposals easier to discuss/enact. Differences to the WikiCup I've made: removed interwiki bonuses, added bonuses for country and second-level country articles with additional bonuses for least developed countries. Some editors have discussed removing DYK points and the like, but I personally am very much against doing so. They don't give all that many points so I don't think anyone will win based on them, they increase the visibility of the content, and in order to get a DYK a page has to be either (1) created, (2) expanded 5x, or (3) GA'd. Either of those 3 options are exactly what this WikiContest is trying to encourage. Points for review and stuff really are there so we don't add to the huge backlogs. We could add a clause were no editor may pass on to the next round or win if over 50% of their claimed points are from reviews. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 11:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i've removed the mention of an interwiki bonus from the DYK section; it's not mentioned elsewhere in the scoring page & i don't think it serves our purposes here ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thought about including points for new article creations? I'd be happy to participate if I could create new start-class articles about species in these countries and have them count for something. Maybe 1 point, for minimum 1500-character relevant article (with the 1.5 multiplier for least-develop countries)? Esculenta (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

there was some discussion about this, but we were concerned that it might incentivize mass stub creation. for all intents & purposes, DYK credit can be considered a "new article creation" category. however, i'd be happy with giving points for non-DYK article creation with similar length/citation/etc criteria as DYK ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, if we're all okay with incentivizing mass "start" creation, then add it to the scoring column! I think it's a good idea to have a way to contribute and not be compelled to add to the demands of the review systems. Esculenta (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

totally fair, as DYK is still in backlog mode & GAN still has a pretty big backlog. pinging @Ixtal @TechnoSquirrel69 & @Generalissima to see if you guys have any input on this ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What if we just accepted approved DYK nominations, instead of waiting until they actually run? (Obviously, disqualifying them if someone tries to game the system around that) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

i would definitely be cool with this, as someone who just had an approved DYK nomination sitting waiting for promotion for over a month haha ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't think start should qualify. I say B+ only. We want actual articles that take time and work, not something people can pump over and over to win. I also think any article not GA level should give at the very most 5 points. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm game with Generalissima's idea to count DYK accepts for points rather than running on the Main Page. While I have a somewhat more relaxed view on article creation than Ixtal, I agree with the basic sentiment: pumping out a bunch of low-quality articles is not the goal of this contest, as it does not contribute to the encyclopedic coverage of underrepresented communities/places. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

definitely agree with this ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with all of the above that DYK nominations should be accepted instead of articles. If we want to incentivize article improvement of underrepresented areas, editors shouldn't be spending their time not contributing towards this goal. Editors will be finding interesting hooks, nominating them, doing QPQs, answering reviewer queries etc. instead of writing content. Obviously, an editor who goes through DYK should be rewarded, but why not also award points for, say, C class article creations? If I'm an editor and I find an underrepresented subject area and I have 10 articles I could write, it would take significantly more hours of work to send them all through DYK. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that I personally don't often go through DYK, especially because most things I write don't have "hook"-y facts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

to be fair i think you're actually agreeing with us here; at least me and Technosquirrel anyways ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Am I? I thought you guys were advocating for only accepting DYK nominations, while I agree with Esculenta and want the option for editors to submit C+ class articles outside of DYK. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

there's a compromise proposal to accept approved DYK nominations that haven't hit the main page, but my understanding is that there's consensus that as long as the articles aren't low-quality, new creations should count for something; the main concern here is balancing both encouraging quality article creation & avoiding worsening backlogs, while also avoiding incentivizing mass creation of crappy articles. the details of criteria still need to be decided though; i'll write a proposal in a subsection. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

While I do recognize your concerns, I don't think they're enough to take DYK out of the equation. Also, here's another point I haven't seen people discussing: it'd be an enormous burden on the coordinators to have to check that the new creations are at the rating that the editors think they are. In essence, they would have to conduct a DYK review — checking for copyright infringement, assessing sources, and scanning the prose for errors. You also seem to be implying that editors' time would be wasted at DYK when they could be writing something else, and I disagree on that point. Our goal is to improve encyclopedic coverage of underrepresented topics, and that goal does not end the moment you tab away from that page. DYK brings large amounts of attention to otherwise forgotten articles, and the review process undoubtedly improves (or, at the very least, reaffirms) their quality. I think this part would go a long way in incentivizing collaboration on underrepresented topics, which is a much more beneficial goal than making sure the participants receive points faster, in my opinion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

excellent points! you're right that there would be a lot of extra maintenance on our part doing checks of articles, which i think could be pretty impractical, especially if we get more participants ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Valid points, but in my opinion, the coordinators have less to check compared to a DYK review. Most competent editors could quickly assess an article on its citation density, reliable sourcing, NPOV, and class in about a couple minutes, no? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

awards

what kinds of barnstars, awards, etc should we be giving out!!! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

idea: other than the main big award the overall winner gets, i think having some specialized awards would be fun too, like "most countries covered" or "most top-level articles" "most article reviews" (PR, GAN, FAC) or other things like that - it would add a little whimsy & extra fun ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There are the generic reviewing and quality content barnstars, which would be appropriate for special recognition of this kind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

works 4 me ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i'm in a car and to lazy to look, is there a systemic bias barnstar!!! we could like give a {{The Left Half of the Half Barnstar}} to ppl who make the 2nd round and this systemic bias barnstar to the finalists and cups to the top three, no!!! ^Queenof_Hearts 17:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i also support most countries/DYKs/GAs/FAs/reviews!!! ^Queenof_Hearts 17:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry for typing like that. But I also support somehow incorporating {{cbarn}}. ^Queenof_Hearts 17:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"im sorry for typing like that" you're just typing like me lmfao :sob: ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

rekt!!! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I was considering this as well. If we can bring on an artist or two, it might be cool to design some event-specific awards for podium winners. Other award ideas include the {{Systemic Bias Barnstar}} and, of course, {{The Completionist Barnstar}}. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

definitely agree w the systemic bias & completionist barnstars !! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can ask for a Grand Systemic Bias Barnstar? To give to the winner. Since we aren't doing rounds, perhaps the top 25 editors can win the regular bias barnstar. As much as I love the completionist philosophy, I don't see the reasoning for granting its barnstar as part of this WikiContest. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

ok so here are my specialty award ideas:

• most countries covered
• most articles for one country
• most article reviews
• most top-level articles

to be awarded with some special barnstars. please give suggestions for which specific barnstars (or suggest new barnstars for this purpose) should be given for specific awards, as well as what special barnstars/awards should be given out to the top 3 overall winners. i like Ixtal's idea of a "grand systemic bias barnstar" ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with those so far. Perhaps we could add one for most women articles? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 23:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

ooh that would be fun! i'll start laying these down on the contest page - then we can see where we might want to ask someone to make new barnstars etc ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

also, should we have special awards for the top 3 scorers? i'm thinking of something like a triple crown or the aforementioned grand systemic bias barnstar ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

i've layed out my initial ideas for the award scheme. anyone feel free to BOLDly change it, especially if you can find more specific/appropriate awards (or add new ones!) :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction between "Most high-level articles" and "Most good/featured articles". ^Queenof_Hearts 01:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify what "high-level articles" are? It's additionally confusing considering there's another award for good and featured articles. (QoH and I just can't stop jinxing today) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

sorry, i'm talking about the articles referred to on the scoring page, as in main & second-level country articles - i'll clarify the wording ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, is it realistic to expect someone to improve multiple "high-level" articles to GA/FA within a three-month period? These articles are a lot of work due to their enormous scope. Also, the achievement of promoting those articles is already being awarded with massive multipliers. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

that's a good point; i'll remove it for now ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I understand, but I agree with the squirrel. ^Queenof_Hearts 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's lazy, but maybe do {{tcb}} for most countries covered? ^Queenof_Hearts 02:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

perhaps lazy, but certainly works! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

if anyone here enjoys making templates, barnstars, and the like, i think a "global barnstar" would be lovely, along with our other suggestions of a "grand systemic bias barnstar" & some kind of cup or trophy perhaps :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing the Global Barnstar... ^Queenof_Hearts 02:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Gbarn}} ^Queenof_Hearts 03:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

wahoo! thanks :D ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I could create some userboxen perhaps...? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

feel free! sounds fun :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

countries & territories not included on our map

on the main map we're using, there are a number of countries marked grey (not mentioned by the sources of the map) so i think we should outline which of those countries will count for our purposes. this UN report includes a number of non-sovereign territories. i'm going to add these territories to the scoring (probably in a different section, for now) assuming there's no objection. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

i found a better source for the SIDS list so i've updated it accordingly ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

i have added some more information about edge cases, territories, etc. anyone feel free to suggest changes here. pinging @Ixtal for their opinion here ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Like, sawyer-mcdonell. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

submissions?

how will a submissions system work for this? should we use the same system as the WikiCup? or something else... i have very little preference on that front, but i'd like to require submissions to designate which country they're submitting for. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it could be the same system as the WikiCup with additional rule that submissions must include the primary country claimed. For example, if one did the Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict they could claim it as either, but the bonus multiplier will depend on that explicit choice made by the submitter. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 00:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

great idea! (although both Eritrea & Ethiopia are least developed, so it wouldn't matter for the multiplier). i think we could allow people to include multiple countries in their submissions, but only claim one for multiplier & point purposes. i think it would be fine for someone to submit a Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article (for example) for both Armenia and Azerbaijan & get credit towards the "most countries covered" award for both, though. hope that makes sense ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I mentioned earlier somewhere, I don't think we'll be dealing with a volume of submissions large enough to merit subpages WikiCup-style; at least not for now. A regular backlog drive–style page with sections for each participant should work just fine, maybe with a couple of columns to track the number of submissions and coordinator-approved points. I like the idea of "claiming" the country or countries that have been expanded with the submission — maybe just a {{flagicon}} or two before the links, which would give the page some color. I know Women in Red sometimes does that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

this works for me; i agree that there is not a real need for subpages (which would also be a lot of maintenance) & a single page will probably be fine. flagicons sounds fun :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

North Korea

Y consensus for

 – Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that North Korea should be considered "least developed" and given a multiplier on Wikipedia:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest/Scoring § Other states. Thoughts? ^Queenof_Hearts 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thought we'd decided on this already. Support, obviously. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

DPRK is certainly on par with the rest of the "least developed" world, in both information and living conditions. works 4 me ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

More feedback/questions

A few new thoughts, and revisiting a few that might need more discussion:

• The submissions page still needs to be figured out.
• The number of points for each type of submission hasn't been changed. Are we going with the same scores and categories as WikiCup, like 5 or 10 for DYK, 12 for ITN, etc?
• Has any thought been given to the total number of judges? There are currently two, are there plans to recruit a third (or even a fourth)?
• "Most submissions for a single country" should be reworded. Right now it could be read as "a barnstar is given to the one person who has the most submissions for a single country" or "one barnstar is given out per country based on who did the most in each country". The latter would be kind of insane.
• The "higher level" articles are such a narrow list of difficult articles that it might be worth expanding it or reworking the idea.
• Three months is a relatively short period of time for some of the review processes, especially GAN. We might consider a "soft launch" for June in which competitors are encouraged to start working on articles so they're ready to start nominating in July or can get their DYKs nominated in late June if we're going with DYK submissions. The WikiCup has Round 1 as a low-barrier warm up, but DCWC doesn't have that luxury.
• There was talk of a prominently displayed "needs review" panel like Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews needed to help noms get reviewed more quickly and to help reviewers find qualifying noms. We should figure out what that will look like.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Re #3, the plan was to have a third more experienced judge (cf. the VPI thread, which was archived without comment), but no one has stepped forward thus far. and re #4, it should be the latter, so I can just farm random Pacific islands... Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK #4 is the latter, unless sawyer-mcdonell disagrees. I'd appreciate if you could expand a bit on your feedback for #5, Thebiguglyalien. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 18:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

fix failed ping Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The bonus points system at Wikipedia:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest/Scoring#From relation to developing countries assumes that several people will be working on these types of articles, but I don't believe there are going to be any meaningful contributions there. I think that the scope of those bonuses should be expanded in some way if it's going to be kept, though I don't have a proposal for what exactly it would look like. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

i actually was thinking the former, as that is more practical & matches with the award for the person who covers the most countries ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

i welcome a rewording although i'm not sure exactly what to change the wording to ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, re. point 3 I think it should be the former. Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  (i assume you mean #4?) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Don't edit Wikipedia while eating pasta... Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Should we make a subpage for the submissions of everyone? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 20:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

yes - i think we can have it all on one subpage, much like a backlog drive ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest/Submissions, though we may want to rename it. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 22:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have a leaderboard-style table, but we also need a page with sections for each user where they can list their submissions. I'm thinking something like the GAN backlog drive. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

as of how it's designed right now, this page does both - i would be amiable to splitting it into two pages though ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Three months is a relatively short period of time for some of the review processes, especially GAN". There are points for GA, but also for GA reviews, which should speed up the process. Cambalachero (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Greenland

Should Greenland be classified as "developed" (ineligible), "developing" (eligible), or "least developed" (1.5x multiplier)? Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Developing as proposer. On the map, it's "no data", but the first sentence of Economy of Greenland calls it small, mixed and vulnerable, it is heavily dependant on Denmark (the economy is critically dependent upon substantial support from the Danish government, which supplies about half the revenues of the Self-rule Government [the government of Greenland], which in turn employs 10,307 Greenlanders out of 25,620 currently in employment (2015)), and Unemployment nonetheless remains high, with the rest of the economy dependent upon demand for exports of shrimp and fish. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  i concur with this ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Apart from basic numbers, the Greenlandic Inuit are under heavy environmental stress which threatens their old ways of life that depend on the sea ice, now disappearing fast. They have to transform their economy entirely, towards something more urbanised and economically viable. This too, I would say, is a sign of a developing economy.

  Also consider the HDI of 0.786, which although classified as "high", lags significantly behind the rest of the Danish Realm - Denmark is at 0.952 and the Faroes are at 0.950. And all the other IMF-designated developed countries are well above 0.800. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 06:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  definitely! not to mention the colonial dynamics, which while not directly correlated with development, are relevant contextually. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Translations

How will translations of articles from developing countries be evaluated? HarveyPrototype (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

this is a good question! @Ixtal thoughts? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I see the value as adding them to the wiki, Sawyer. I'd personally score them equally as creating articles. Articles in, say, Burmese language that are not yet in the english wiki probably are equally important to Myanmar than an article that doesn't exist in either, if not more so. However, if others feel that they should be scored less I am open to that possibility. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 17:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

i agree that translations are very valuable, and something we should encourage - so we have something to work off of, how would 5 points be for a score? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"I'd personally score them equally as creating articles." Check again, we don't score the mere creation of articles. We score created articles that pass the DYK process, which guarantees some basic quality. The problem with translations is that anyone with google and a basic fluency to check the results can translate articles from other wikis and quickly farm points. Just a mere 40 semi-bot translations, 2 or 3 hours at most, and you get as many points as someone who promotes a featured article. It would be too easy to derail the contest's purpose that way. It may be better to treat translation like any other new article, only scores if it passes DYK (or if it is promoted to higher levels in record time). Cambalachero (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

this is a great point... i don't do translation work at all so i forgot about the existence of machine translation for a moment. i agree with your idea of requiring it pass DYK criteria. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Cambalachero, my statement works regardless of if they are currently scored or not. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 08:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In the news

Is it the same (as in, same points) if an article is accepted for Recent Deaths, or for a proper blurb? Cambalachero (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

i'm personally fine with keeping the WikiCup standards where both recent deaths and blurbs count for the same amount, since that's really impossible to control on the nominator's end. ITN has quality requirements for displaying on the main page, which is ultimately what we're looking at for scoring. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)