User talk:ONUnicorn/Unreferenced Contest

Just looking at scoring and having a think....

why do we have different scores for age of sources?In medicine newer sources are more valued BTW.

not sure I am keen on giving points for articles nominated for deletion as that happens commonly enough anyway and to me runs counter to encyclopedia building..

Regarding penalties, I'd just not award points rather than subtract points as this seems to run counter to AGF. However, agree that copyvio would exclude someone I think.

At present there is no accounting for article size. Should more points be awarded for large articles fixed?

However, happy to concede points if the consensus is that any or all of these are a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with the age of sources has to do with avoiding circular referencing issues. Some of these unsourced articles have been on Wikipedia unsourced since 2006 - for 10 years or more. That's plenty of time for a hoax to be picked up, passed around the web, and now when you search for it you find it accepted as true, and can use those sources to source the article. This is a fairly common problem that's been documented before. This is an attempt to ensure that there is at least one source that couldn't possibly have gotten its info from Wikipedia because the source pre-dates the Wikipedia article. I don't want to limit people to using only old sources because newer often have updated information, but I want to make sure we aren't perpetuating hoaxes unwittingly.
Again, with giving points for deletion I'm recognizing that some of these articles may well be hoaxes. Others are totally unnotable. If people start digging through the category they'll find them and I want to encourage them to take appropriate action. I figured 5 points for the nomination, not nearly as much as they could get for actually fixing the article if it was fixable, but not discouraging them from handling it. Also, if it is salvageable, the person salvaging it gets a ton more points while the person nominating it only gets 5. If it's not salvageable they get 15. However, I understand your concern. How would you recommend providing acknowledgement that some of these quarter million articles might need to be deleted and encouraging people to do that, while still discouraging deletion overall?
Yeah, maybe losing the penalties is a good idea. I did want to emphasize that there are a lot of mirrors out there that need to be avoided, and let people know we'll be performing verification checks. Maybe it's better to just not award points for articles that do that.
As for size, I'm not sure how to handle this. Like, if it's an unsourced stub, and you don't just source it but expand and de-stub it I want you to get more points. If it's already long, it's more work to fully reference than if it's short, so you should get more points for that. But I'm not sure how to quantify that.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your first two points are valid and am happy to run with them and see how it goes. The size thing - I have just based on end size using the prose tool. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make some adjustments to the scoring, giving bonuses based on beginning and ending size, and changing the penalties to just not gaining points rather than losing them. What do you think? And is the overall points scheme confusing? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]