User talk:Casliber/Golden Gnome

Please throw ideas of what else we can judge here - maybe input of some patrollers....Fram...Kudpung? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contest dates?

Hi Casliber? What are the dates for the contest? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ain't got that far yet.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd help, if you posted a note at WT:MED when it started. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

What about stuff like adding appropriate navboxes to the bottom of articles? StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, hadn't thought of that....maybe....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about scoring

1. Some list articles and redirects are wrongly tagged as Stubs, either on the talk page or the main page or both. Can the specifications of the competition clarify exactly if removing wrongly placed stub tabs on these sort of pages scores points? Snowman (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Explicit mention that semi-automatic and script assisted editing is permitted and can score points in the same way that manual editing does. If so, I think that it could be useful to advertize the Stub contest on the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser talk page. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Inclusion into the rules that declaring or submitting scoring edits must be done without undue delay. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For #1, I think this is explicitly covered - "Rerating article talk assessment [...] + removing stub tag if necessary.". Certainly I can't see any reason not to include it! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes #1 is definite yes. #2...if it can be done accurately then I think this is possibly a good idea. what edits do you envisage being performed effectively this way? I am interested. #3 is somewhat subjective. If the contest is only three days long then the time scale is pretty short anyway. What time period were you thinking? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to question: I think that semi-automated editing could be helpful with most stages of checking and amending templates, except for the final manual phases of checking edits and clicking to save edits. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2. If the contest lasts 3 days, then all competitors might save up their edits for submission for the last moment that is convenient for them. This may give an advantage to competitors who happen to be in daylight hours at the time the contest closes. For example, what ever time the contest closes, it will likely to be about 5 am in the morning for some competitors, who are likely to want to go to sleep at about 11 pm the previous day. This means that competitors where the closing time happens to be in the evening in their location will have about 6 hours to work on editing and do enough work to just exceed any of the other competitors who are asleep. Is this satisfactory? Snowman (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3. I presume that issues of accurate editing apply to manual and semi-automatic editing. Are their any special issues about accuracy with semi-automated editing? Snowman (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it boils down to it, we all have lives with different periods of avaialbility. Some of us are night owls, some get up early. I suppose we could make it five days or something. Regarding your point 3, accuracy is needed regardless of how the edits are made. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I count?

All input welcome as to what else I can count. Realistically it has to be something that is easily and quickly assessable. e.g. changing tags, linking, but copyediting is a bit tricky and involves some value-judgement so I am tentatively leaving it out. All input welcome. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: see this, any other ideas welcomed. Happy to hand this over to anyone or work with them on asking WMUK for a microgrant etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:, I was actually thinking more of taking one backlog at a time and trying to clear it out; whereas this seems like it would mostly be just moving articles around. Like, if you were trying to clean your house, and you had a mess in every room and stuff that didn't belong, and instead of picking everything up in the kitchen and putting it away, you just left it in the kitchen if it belongs in the kitchen, but you put everything that was in the kitchen that didn't belong in the kitchen in the room it belonged in but didn't actually put it away in that room (make sense?). In other words, this seems like rearranging the mess instead of actually taking care of it.

I was thinking more along the lines of having, say, a referencing drive. We could focus on Category:Articles lacking sources, which has 213,466 articles all of which are tagged with either Template:Unreferenced or Template:Verifiability. We could give points for various things people do to fix that particular issue, skewing towards a preference for retaining the article if possible, but recognizing that some will need to be deleted and awarding points for that; skewing towards more points for more work, and fewer points for taking the easy way out. So here's an example of what I was thinking points wise (This is way open to improvement).

Removing Template:Unreferenced if the article cites at least one source - 1 point.
Replacing Template:Unreferenced with Template:Refimprove or Template:Unreferenced section if the article cites at least one source but needs more - 2 points
Determining that no sources can be found for an unsourced article and nominating it for deletion - 5 points for the nomination, 10 points if it is actually deleted. (for potentially 15 total points)
Finding sources for an unsourced article nominated for deletion under the prior criteria and incorporating them in the article, thereby saving it from deletion - 20 points + points for number, quality, and age of sources as laid out below.
Searching for and adding at least one source that is not a Wikipedia mirror, but is more recent than the article - 5 points
Searching for and adding at least one source that pre-dates the creation date of the article - 15 points
Searching for and adding at least 5 sources, 3 of which pre-date the creation of the article - 50 points
Fully referencing the article, removing any statements of fact for which no references can be found, ensuring that every sentence is supported by sources and every paragraph contains at least one valid, in-line reference - 100 points
Fully referencing (as above) and considerably expanding the article such that it meets at least B article criteria - 200 points.
Using a Wikipedia mirror to source an article - -25 points for each occurrence
Discovering that an article is, in whole or part, a copyvio and taking appropriate action - 50 points
Creating a copyvio in an article - Disqualification from the competition
Points shall be doubled if the article has been tagged since at least 2010, 2.5X points if the article has been tagged since 2006.
Oldest article sourced by this competition: 500 points (going by creation date of the article).
Most articles handled by a single person: 500 points

Maybe run it for a month, and then we'll have to wait for all the AFDs to be closed, so judge it probably 2-4 weeks later. Some of those points seem like they could be cumulative, but others shouldn't be. So the points scheme needs work. But that's more along the lines of what I was thinking. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I dunno about other people but when I edit I often switch between tasks to avoid monotony. OK, late here and I need to think about the above..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

See, I take tackling an unreferenced article as sort of detective work, especially for the older ones. Many of them are also stubs, and many have other issues as well. So first you're scouring for sources, and I usually put a date limit of before the article was created so I can avoid circular referencing, then you add them to the article, but if you're reading the sources carefully and using them properly you often end up basically rewriting the whole thing. I tried to reflect that in the points scheme, for example the 200 points for bringing it to at least B status. This rewards both people who like to find stuff to delete and people who like to try to save stuff at risk for deletion. It requires skill in many areas to do properly. Each article and situation is different; so there's not much monotony there. Or maybe there is. I don't know. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: it's interesting how we can all have different approaches to this. And to be honest, there is no reason why we can't run all these a little differently and see how they go. Tell you what, why not take the lead on the next one, set up a page in your userspace with your scoring ideas so it's your main idea. After some tinkering, I am happy to help get a microgrant from WMUK, and then we can move it to mainspace once we've got a grant. Am happy to be the indian instead of the chief, and I can run Golden Gnome (with input from others) some other time and we can compare how they go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: What do you think? Any comments/suggestions welcome. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Contest dates?

Idea

Clarification about scoring

What else can I count?