Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Franamax (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 21 June 2008 (moving discussion (headers need fixing)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Follow-ups to re-opening

Discussion moved from main page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-opening this debate. Two and a half hours is insufficient. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, is that so you can get at least one, your own, oppose in? :-) — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 08:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I oppose or not is irrelevant. Two and a half hours is a joke. I have been at dinner the whole time that this MfD has been open. Let's not even talk about those from other time zones who've been asleep the whole while, and won't even be waking up for another few hours. This was not a candidate for a speedy close; by no means. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets assume good faith here please. I'm talking it over with jb right now. :) — MaggotSyn 08:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I am assuming good faith, Jb could very well vote to Keep. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realist2, I'm somewhat shocked at the tack you're taking: again, whether or not I oppose or support is irrelevant, and proves nothing about good faith; the point is that a two and a half hour discussion is no discussion, especially given that this is a global site. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make you aware of ongoing discussion is all (Realist2). — MaggotSyn 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im not "taking any tack", like i said, you can decide either way, who am I to know how you feel on the issue. The original post was a light hearted joke with a smile, not some monsterious breach of AGF. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 08:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist :-(

My poor watchlist just had an unwanted addition lol. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just had to remove a few pages off mine to fit this one in. — MaggotSyn 09:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to remove talk pages from your watchlist, just as a general thing for the future. I find it so annoying. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. It can be a bit annoying. But I don't think there's any way of avoiding it. I moved the discussion to the talk page for good and obvious reasons: let's have a proper debate on the main page, uncluttered and to the point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the less drama the better. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to spoil the fun but I have to say too late. — MaggotSyn 09:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) take that as a joke, or if not, I don't mind[reply]

Hmmm.— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics

If this MfD was closed as keep, what are the specific challenges that provide a problem? -- iMatthew T.C. 15:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll venture a guess. "All of them." Fundamentally flawed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the challenges seem fine to me, but are there any that can cause a problem. Why all of them, what problems come from certain challenges? -- iMatthew T.C. 15:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its more than possible to make a new award center after this one is burned down, with more controlls in place. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)So far on this page editors have listed issues caused by challenges to improve articles to GA or FA, spam talk pages, adopt users, add infoboxes, and participate in AfD. Are there many other types of challenges left on that page? Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theres also awards based on edit count, a serious concern to the wiki elite. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although no one has offered evidence that this challenge is a problem yet, I can certainly see how a race to see how many edits one has could degenerate into disruption. And there are no "wiki elite"s - we are all editors expected to follow the same policies. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(re to iMatthew) All of them have problems, because all of them have the same fundamental flaw. It's a design problem. It's a structural problem. Put another way, it's a foundational problem. If the foundation of a building is bad, it doesn't matter if you put really really nice windows on it, or add really really nice exterior siding and granite countertops and a jacuzzi tub and other amenities. Those things are all good things, sure. But if they are on a bad foundation, they are also, by default and design, flawed, and will crumble just the same. Fixing the exterior siding on a house that is falling over would be rather silly, eh? All of them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) To Keeper, I don't really see anything ostentatiously damaging about an incentive for helping single articles reach FA status (even general improvements). I myself have listed a few that I'd like some help on. Anyway, I'm talking about seriously contributing/improving the article whilst collaborating with the main editors and then getting it ready for FAC. There's a tiny sliver of a possibility that it may be like the barrage of terrible GA reviews, but really, the only negative thing that happens is the article is immediately shot down at FAC. Those challenges appear to foster genuine contributions and article building. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have listed a few that I'd like some help on. That's what peer reviews are for, yes? Article building does not require payment for services. I would like to think that people helping me write successful articles are doing so because they want to, not because I'll reward them with a graphic. María (habla conmigo) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they require incentive. However, if a barnstar were to motivate new users to the project to start contributing in a helpful encyclopedia building fashion, I'd be rather disinclined to object. Regardless, no that's not really what Peer Reviews are for. Usually Peer reviews result in a few suggests for improvement, not actual improvement. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{e.c.} I'm almost convinced to change my vote to delete, since I see a lot of valid points brought up. Would anybody be opposed to deleting the center, and once Sharkface returns, I'm sure between myself, Sharkface, and The Trashumanist, we could probably come up with a load of new challenges that would not cause any problems. One new challenges are thought up, we could possibly run it by the community for approval of re-opening, because at this point, I see no hope in getting the center kept. -- iMatthew T.C. 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) OK, I'll bite; Imatthew, your three challenges in particular are all inherently disruptive.
  1. The "spam 100 talkpages with wikicookies" challenge causes WP:AWB-armed editors to spam users with pointless templates. Unless the editor is known to the poster, all anyone receiving these is going to think is "why are you spamming me?".
  2. The "Create a newsletter" challenge is fundamentally ludicrous; were anyone to do this, all it would do is waste people's time setting up newsletters, arguing with other project members over the contents, getting shouted at by the project members for dumping this unwanted piece of spam on their talkpage, and going off in a huff (there's a perfect example of this here). There's a reason projects generally don't have newsletters; it's because every project already has a page for discussing developments affecting the project — it's called "the talk page".
  3. The "add an infobox" brigade is one of my pet hates. Infoboxes are very useful for collating basic information about the subject of a lengthy article. When they're added to short articles and just duplicate the information in the lead, they're pointless. – iridescent 16:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points, so I've deleted the challenges. -- iMatthew T.C. 16:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, if this gets deleted today, I don't see why your going to want to go create a new "center" or "program". If you really want to create new challenges, we can't stop you, but approach editors individually about them. Any program will be hard to maintain, and new editors will inevitably have no knowledge of the concerns raised here or even understand that achievement-based editing might harm the project. I don't want to continue to have this MfD discussion every few months, and to be frank, I just don't see the point of a centralized award center in terms of being a "net positive". Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely understand. I was just brainstorming ideas, and presenting them. If this MfD is closed as delete, I promise I will not re-create it. I have not intention of going past the community's decision. -- iMatthew T.C. 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That iMatthew, is a refreshing answer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad, now I believe this could easily be closed as delete right now, but I doubt this is a clear consensus. Sharkface is on a break, I believe, so expect him to have a negative reaction when he returns. -- iMatthew T.C. 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samples

moved from main page:

I woudln't have found these editors to help me if it weren't for the AWC:

The Bio-star
is hereby awarded to Earthdirt for doing an outstanding job producing the List of basic cell biology topics, and for going far beyond expectations by including a definition for each presented topic. Thank you for creating such a useful resource for newcomers to this subject. It's fantastic! The Transhumanist    03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


File:Interlingual Barnstar.png The Geography Barnstar
is hereby awarded to Amartyabag for creating the List of basic India topics, to assist readers in virtually navigating the World and enable them to virtually explore India by providing this guide to India-related material on Wikipedia. Kudos. Thank you. The Transhumanist    06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must profess to having no idea what relevance the above have to this discussion. giggy (:O) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uh, do those really need to be here? I don't see the point. (The first one is a redirect from a deleted article, so I guess it helps make the point about quality editing?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've been renamed since creation. But no, these were created by those accepting challenges at the AWC. They're excellent pages in my opinion. The Transhumanist    04:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Society Barnstar

is hereby awarded to Kanogul for creating the Political science portal, and doing a damn fine job of it. The Transhumanist    18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- extended discussion moved from main page to talk -

Proposal
  • Proposal to keep the AWC, and request to let me refine it. I'd like to propose keeping the AWC, and refining the way it is operated. It has great potential for quality control. For example, I sponsored the Citation Challenge. I carefully set the award levels for balance there, to address the issue of barnstar proliferation. I also as a matter of course check every reference before granting the awards - this provides a very important feedback loop to the participants. They correct their entries, and then inform me when they are ready to be checked again. If I had not done this, the participants wouldn't have learned a thing about referencing and would go on posting unacceptable references (a rampant problem across Wikipedia). Therefore the Citation Challenge is providing a valuable service to Wikipedia. Guidelines can be created so that each challenge posted at the AWC provides a similar benefit. I've also had good results with my Wish List section. I guess it boils down to the challengers, the challenges they post, and how they award those who accept the challenges. Please let me conduct a discussion on the AWC's talk page to solve the above posted problems. I'm sure we can refine this page so it works. Sincerely, The Transhumanist    02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing this, I have little confidence the page will be monitored long-term, or that there is any acknowledgement of the need to eliminate everything from the page relating to pushing numbers at FAC, FAR, GAN, AFD, and a whole lot more. If we need a citation-adding Project, why not start that as a separate Project (in fact, I believe there already is one somewhere). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTH, you've had opportunities to restructure this place for months, since I first MfD'd it. What's been keeping you? giggy (:O) 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have carefully structured those sections I've been involved with, and they work fine. It's just a matter of extending the approach to the rest of the challenges. If the AWC goes to Wiki-heaven (or -hell, depending on how you look at it), I'll create a new page with a modified scope and new operating procedures within my own user space. So the feedback loop represented in this discussion will work one way or another.
  • I've had my hands full preparing for a major collaboration that will change the AWC and how it operates, and bring in co-coordinators to help manage it, but since it looks like the AWC may be removed, I'll probably run the planned event under another department or a new awards page. But I'd like to run it under the AWC, because it will do the page (and the effort represented there) good. It would also present an example of how to run challenges that are well-designed and operated. The collaboration I'm designing focuses on quality work and has quality control built-in to its operation. The Transhumanist    02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Transhumanist, as I stated in the nomination, I have no doubts about your good intentions. However, the Awards Page has not been managed and its negative affects are all over WP. As Sandy points out, the last MfD was closed with the very same promises. Reform, discussion, management. It hasn't happened. No one is monitoring what people are doing in pursuit of their awards. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary section break 1

Comment - Why not just simply eliminate all challenges that have to do with attaining a numerical goal and keep those which encourage actual quality enhancement to articles. By curtailing the actual number of challenges down, the page could easily be monitored by those watchlisting the AWC. Again, I reiterate a comment I made above that was subsequently moved to the talk page. I see absolutely (or virtually none) no harm in "help get X to featured article status". No stipulations. Just genuine editing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because 1) there have already been two MfDs withdrawn or closed because such promises were made (and apparently not kept), and 2) read the descrption in the nomination of exactly that sort of challenge that led to the Limetolime and other issues. And 3) we've yet to see an example of article improvements due to this Award-seeking process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I assure you, I read the nomination and realize the potential for damage. I can't say anything about point number 1, however, helping articles attain FA class is an absolutely noble effort, but with (and I guess this is just my own analysis) minimal detriment to the project. As stated, the worst that could happen is the article is bounced off of FAC so quickly the editor's head spins. And then they go back and try twice as hard the next time around. I mean, it could even be a means to teaching new editors how to improve/create high quality articles. Oh, and about the evidence: [1] : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a single FA that has resulted from the Awards Center? I can point you to many lost editor hours (e.g.; Laser brain's original post) and likely premature FAC noms and bad GAN passes because of the Center. I also don't see the type of editor participating in awards-for-hire going back and doing it better next time: instead, I see them putting up I-hate-so-and-so userboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something else to think about. One editor I recently had cause to complain about currently claims to have helped William Shakespeare to FA, despite having made only seven edits to that article, six of which were marked as minor. It's just a sad game. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those, and all the other barnstars I've awarded have been well earned. The Transhumanist    04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why were my examples moved. They were pertinent to this discussion, and were posted as evidence. They are not part of some meta-discussion about this discussion. So what gives? I'm moving them back. These are examples of awards given out through the AWC for quality work done. I would not have found these individuals, nor would these individuals have found me, without the AWC:
All right, they're not moved to the talk page (it's an illustrated MfD, point still escapes me, though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll explain the point in shorter steps, so you can follow. These are barnstar awards. They were offered on the AWC for creating the pages associated with them. Three people, attracted by the AWC and what it stands for came to the page and looked over the wish list that I presented there. In my wish list I offered to award a barnstar for creating pages to certain high standards. All three of these people did so, and so I awarded them the following barnstars. The barnstars below present the names of the 3 persons, the work they did, and my gratitude. These people found me, they helped me, and I thanked them in a respectful way. The AWC enabled this to happen. This is how I envisioned the AWC to work, and it should provide the model for the reform of the AWC, or for its successor. If you'd like further clarification, please let me know. Sincerely, The Transhumanist    05:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bio-star
is hereby awarded to Earthdirt for doing an outstanding job producing the List of basic cell biology topics, and for going far beyond expectations by including a definition for each presented topic. Thank you for creating such a useful resource for newcomers to this subject. It's fantastic! The Transhumanist    03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


File:Interlingual Barnstar.png The Geography Barnstar
is hereby awarded to Amartyabag for creating the List of basic India topics, to assist readers in virtually navigating the World and enable them to virtually explore India by providing this guide to India-related material on Wikipedia. Kudos. Thank you. The Transhumanist    06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Society Barnstar

is hereby awarded to Kanogul for creating the Political science portal, and doing a damn fine job of it. The Transhumanist    18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must profess to having no idea what relevance the above have to this discussion. giggy (:O) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uh, do those really need to be here? I don't see the point. (The first one is a redirect from a deleted article, so I guess it helps make the point about quality editing?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've been renamed since creation. But no, these were created by those accepting challenges at the AWC. They're excellent pages in my opinion. The Transhumanist    04:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are motivated by awards and recognition. Some are motivated by a challenge. The AWC provides both. That's something we should make best use of. The Transhumanist    04:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as WP:DGAF, and that is what most users should be following here. For example, I have been working in less seen areas (Africa etc.) pretty much since I came in January. While my award collection is mounting, it's still much smaller than those ones for "secret pages" to give the user some sort of bizarre confidence in their editing. And frankly, I could care less how many awards I have, as it doesn't make me better than anyone else here. I tell you, this starts to verge on social networking, with its own newsletter for god's sakes! At the previous MFD there was an urge for a massive reform, most of which was not done. We have Wikiprojects for users that wish to participate in certain areas. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 05:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the repeated claim that no article improvements have come as a result of the Award Center, I have already mentioned several. I believe that fixing typos in over 100 articles is definitely a good thing. In addition, there is The Transhumanist's citation challenge. As I showed above, this diff shows the article on Martin Luther King, Jr. before and after I added citations after seeing the challenge at the Award Center. I think it shows a major improvement in the article. Please note that, while I was adding the citations, I also noticed and rephrased several blatant examples of plagiarism, removed irrelevant content, added and corrected information, and reworded several awkward phrases. Since then, I have been inspired to keep working on it, so I have placed it for peer review to solicit feedback on what would help prepare it for a Good Article nomination. I think it would be hard to deny that this has improved the quality of the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(2xe/c) TTH, there's a lot of merit in what you are saying. Whichever tactic results in a better cyclo is a good tactic, and I for one will swallow my distaste for the cookie-culture if there are measurable results. What I think I see here though are doubts about how the initiative resounds through the other wiki-editors, especially concerns about compromising of the GA/FA process. It's fine and well to motivate people to make contributions - but if the edits they make then force other volunteers to do cleanup or extra quality-checks, then no net benefit is achieved. The quality control needs to be built right in whatever you do, so that it's self-contained. What measures can you put in place to demonstrate that? Franamax (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing that should be done is cull all the challenges that aren't working currently, leaving only those that are working. Second, disallow new challenges until some coherent instructions are written up. Third, write up the new instructions, which will specifically assign the responsibility of quality control to the challenger. The AWC, more than anything, is a method of delegation. Delegators should be responsible for the tasks they delegate. I think some of the challengers were just into the idea of granting awards, and lost sight of what this is really about: the tasks and their results. The new instructions of this or the next awards page will focus on results, and upon checking those results: actually looking over the work the editors did for you. I didn't realize others were taking a different approach than I was, and so I couldn't see the problem. Now I do. The Transhumanist    05:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of this chat belongs on the talk page; it's unrelated to the MfD. Anyone can pass a GA, so any challenge on number of GAs are inappropriate. And no one yet has shown evidence an FA has ever been written for a reward so they should go, too. And participating in AfDs for a rewards is just disingenous. How about the "add 25 infoboxes", when infoboxes aren't required and many editors hate them and they should only be added by consensus? I can't think of anything helpful here except maybe adding citations, and I believe there's a WikiProject for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards_Center&oldid=220716079"