MisesWiki talk:2011 article improvement drive
Here are some thoughts:
- The goal should be to encourage new contributors to join in, so (to state what I think is obvious) judges can't win the prize(s).
- Wikipedia runs a WikiCup, which seems like a similar concept. Seems like a good model, but with the potential downside that we don't have the article reviewing structure in place to "objectively" assign points.
- I'm not sure I like the idea of extra points going to people who work specifically on Austrian Economics topics... what about borderline articles like John Law inflation in France or Frederic Bastiat?
- On the other hand, it's conceivable that people add articles on animals or singers or the like... perhaps we should require that articles be related to libertarianism in order to be counted?
- How long should this run? Perhaps one or two months? Too long and people will find $50 not worth the effort. Unfortunately, we don't have the naturally competitive base of users that Wikipedia has, which is part of what makes the WikiCup successful.
Other thoughts? --Forgottenman (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2011 (MSD)
- Judges can take part as well, but of course won't be allowed to win the prizes. :)
- Articles must be relevant for the Wiki to become Featured. We can require the same for articles that should receive awarde (may have to spell it out a little more, list examples and advise people to check with the talk page in case of any doubts).
- We should simply start the contest and see how it runs. If there will be hundreds of users converging on the wiki, we can cut it down to a few months; with a more comfortable pace we can make it last longer.
- ...okay, a specific duration is always better. Let's set up some parameters for the contest - say, a duration of two months and a maximum of ten gift certificates will be awarded (too little?); add the clause that the contest can be extended. Pestergaines 16:27, 27 July 2011 (MSD)
Another option: award each month one gift certificate. (May be extended to several, if there is a lot of outstanding work.) Pestergaines 21:54, 27 July 2011 (MSD)
Sorry for being sparse. As announced before, I'll be off the grid for the following two weeks. Please continue with setting up the rules, if you come to a working prototype, feel free to start the competition. Best regards, Pestergaines 00:14, 2 August 2011 (MSD)
Objectives and points
Added a few objectives, please comment and add more. As for the rules, it seems like the best way would be to steal most of the rules from the Wikicup, along with the rule that the spirit of the rules are more important than the letter. Pestergaines 01:52, 28 July 2011 (MSD)
Suggested points for the objectives. We will also need a subpage (or subpages?) for users to register their reached objectives. Pestergaines 12:41, 28 July 2011 (MSD)
Back on topic. Wrote the basic rules of the game, please comment. If we agree on them this week, we can advertise the contest next week and run the first round of the contest throughout whole September.
Open items and questions:
- Sharing points between several contestants
- Should we award extra points for outstanding work?
- Adapting the rules for the following runs (i.e. shortening them to less than a month)
- Leave open the possibility of awarding the gift certificate to multiple contestants in case of significant improvements.
- Anything to change or add to the points?
Pestergaines 18:31, 16 August 2011 (MSD)
- Looks good to me. Regarding your open items:
- This will have to be at the judges' discretion.
- I don't think so; if it's good enough to pass the FA process then I think that's a good marker for "outstanding."
- I think one month is a good length
- I wouldn't put the possibility of more gift certificates in the rules; if it looks like a second one would be good, then we can just throw it in at the end.
- Two things to clarify regarding points:
- Does someone who creates an article AND adds it to the new articles template get 20 points or 30? I would say 20.
- How much "original content" is required to get points for converting something from WP text to original text?
- Otherwise, looks great. --Forgottenman (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2011 (MSD)
- Added a note on the stub/article points. The original content for WP articles is a good question... I'd say the whole page would need to be reworked (reworking WP sections may earn partial points depending on their size and importance for the page). One would also need to go through the references of a page and check them, removing those that can't be verified, fixing dead links, etc. In short, the page should look very much different from the Wikipedia page.
- I'll try to add this to the Hints. If the rules are acceptable, I can start to drum up support (assistance welcome!) in the forums tomorrow and the contest can be announced in the Mises Blog over the weekend. Pestergaines 11:56, 23 August 2011 (MSD)
- I'm thinking we should remove the points for creating a new article and putting it on the main page. How about just giving points for creating the article? --Forgottenman (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2011 (MSD)
- The thing about the Featured Article is, that the article in question should come out of the review process with a very high quality. We have a lot of really good pages around, somewhere in the 80-90% of being undeniably great, but as always there's too little time and motivation to polish those hidden gems - and the last 10% tend to be the hardest.
- Now, frankly I don't know how this will turn out and how many people will take up the challenge, We have a good motivation tool and we have an experienced reviewer, so let's give it a chance. It might fail and we can exclude or modify it in the next rounds. (Or perhaps the points should be changed?) In the end, I'd really like to see it in action. Pestergaines 02:31, 25 August 2011 (MSD)
- Oh, you mean the creation of a new article from the front page? Completely forgotten about that; yes, that can be removed. Pestergaines 13:46, 25 August 2011 (MSD)
- Yes, I meant the new articles template. --Forgottenman (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2011 (MSD)
- User contributions page was created.
- Advertising in the new and old community, more propaganda welcome!
- Mises Blog post was created.
- Advertise on any other related pages
- A dedicted barnstar for the contestants would be nice
Do we need anything else? Pestergaines 20:07, 30 August 2011 (MSD)
Open for business!
September is here: the contest is open! Pestergaines 02:06, 1 September 2011 (MSD)
Testing the points and more
Dear co-judges, I've joined the contestants and created an article. Since I can't well enough give points to myself, can you check if the page corresponds to our high criteria and can be awarded full points?
On another note, we should do something about the popularity of this contest. The harvest so far has been rather... slow. Pestergaines 01:35, 6 September 2011 (MSD)
I leave for just a few days and things speed up so much that it's hard to catch up - great work all around! And the race is still wide open. Perfect! :)
Now, in two cases I had to refrain from awarding points, so it needs to be explained. Points for Anniversaries are really only awarded if a new 'day' is created, i.e. a new day page. Should have explained that clearer.
The second ruling also runs afoul of the rules - points are only awarded if a 'short' page is extended (<500 bytes). Both contributions are still very much welcome.
Seems like it's going to be an exciting fall. :) Pestergaines 22:36, 21 September 2011 (MSD)
Note: no points were granted for an anniversary, due to not being relevant to the stated purpose of Anniversaries. The rules and guidelines will have to be clarified in the next round of the contest. Pestergaines 01:40, 30 September 2011 (MSD)
The September contest is coming to an end, so we can easily start another round in October. What should be done differently, which rules should be changed, etc.? (Anniversaries need to be clarified, for a start.) Pestergaines 01:18, 30 September 2011 (MSD)
October is here! The September contest featured an unexpected turnaround and a last-minute spree of new pages.
I've taken the liberty of adding another rule to the contest that shouldn't change anything significant - people may put their already posted work on the submission page a few days after the contest is over. the rule is:
- Submissions from the last three days of the contest may be added to the submission page three days after the contest has ended.
So, if someone posts something on the 28th of September (with the contest ending 30th September), he may put it on the submission page up to 3rd of October. This is to allow any late submitters to have their submissions counted. Later additions won't be counted. (Please let me know if the rule is unclear or needs changes.)
The final count will be done and the winner will be declared on the 4th of October. Pestergaines 16:46, 1 October 2011 (MSD)
September contest closed!
And it's done! After an impressive last-minute finish, Matthew has won the contest, closely followed by Joel.poindexter. Great thanks to both of you! The rewards will follow shortly.
Meanwhile, please do consider the next contest. ;) Pestergaines 01:07, 5 October 2011 (MSD)
More points for October
It is time for updates. I've rewritten a few pages and added some points; I withhold judgement for now on the pages Case probability and Class probability, since they could very easily reuse existing content from the Probability page. Update would be welcome! Pestergaines 02:53, 17 October 2011 (MSD)
- Sorry didn't notice the Probability page when I wrote those stubs, but you are right they are repetitive. Matthew 03:34, 17 October 2011 (MSD)
- Just for the record - you can still have the pages listed as your contributions; but as of now I would be inclined to reduce the points awarded for them. (If you expand them, full points would be awarded; if somebody else does it, the points could be shared between contributors.) Pestergaines 22:53, 22 October 2011 (MSD)
The October contest is coming to a close and - barring some unexpected development - it seems the contest will be won by default by a single contestant. If that happens, then so it shall be, but the end result doesn't look all that great.
Thus I'm considering adding a new rule for the November round of the contest:
- A winner will be declared only if there are two or more contestants.
We don't need to list token contestants anymore (and there seems to be some interest in participation in November) - but a restriction of this kind would make the contest more meaningful... or a contest at all.
But since this is quite a change in the rules, what does everybody think? Please let me know. Pestergaines 05:38, 30 October 2011 (MSK)
October contest closed, November contest started
Another round is over! Congratulations to our undisputed champion Matthew. The reward will follow shortly.
For the case probability articles were awarded partial points. (It is also possible to add Physiocrats to the list, for the sake of completeness. :) ) However, the winner is clear already.
A new rule was added for November, as announced above. Seeing the little activity on the Anniversaries, how about raising the points to 5? Can you think of any other changes that would bring us more action?
Lastly, please consider joining the next contest. ;)
Pestergaines 13:16, 3 November 2011 (MSK)
- Due to general agreement, the points for Anniversaries shall be raised to 5. :) Pestergaines 14:59, 11 November 2011 (MSK)
It is that time again. The winner shall be declared on the 3rd of December with all accolades - even though there is little doubt about the person. :)
The next contest will be announced soon! Any comments, suggestions to change the rules etc. would be welcome now. Pestergaines 02:09, 2 December 2011 (MSK)
Knew I might have forgotten something! The 2011 article improvement drive is now completely closed and over. I would like to thank to all those that have participated - I hope to see you contribute in the future as well.
Have a nice day, Pestergaines 15:39, 8 January 2012 (MSK)