User talk:Sphilbrick/Tour of Duty

Background

I proposed this in August of 2010. Reached out to some people, not many, but didn't get enough feedback to get it started.

Recently, I see that the feedback board has imploded. This is not a good sign.

I still think this idea has merit, but it needs support from others, Any suggestions on how to improve the idea are welcome.--SPhilbrickT 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that the Feedback board has disappeared since the proposal, and the unblock requests now have a new procedure. In both cases, I think we replaced one approach with a better one, but we still have backlogs, and this approach still has some merit.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Feedback, or ideas for improvement

I don't think people are going to sign on for this for the warm fuzzies. Look at other successful reward programs such as GA/FA/DYK. Make it into a kind of game, like those are. The rewards don't need to be tangible, but they probably need to be more than a barnstar. Think about scoreboards, maybe get with the Signpost editors. Create a lightly competitive environment and make the reward of recognition worth going for. Gigs (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, will think about how to do that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

This all looks fine to me. I was tempted to do some copyediting to simplify the verbiage. The next step is to find a way for people to see the idea. I'm not sure where best. Village Pump? Maybe post about it at Jimbo's page as a separate section. I was about to, but if you want to that works too since it is your idea. Right now it seems no one knows about it. You have fewer than 30 page watchers [1]. Only 24 article views in the last 90 days to the article [2]. Only one view to this talk page in the last 90 days [3]. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I am not entirely sure what to do.

One concern I have about posting it on Jimbo's page is that there are a few people who post every half cocked idea they come up with on his page hoping something will stick and I don't want to feel like I'm part of that group..

My current thinking is that it needs a good incident to justify posting it. While I'm a believer in being proactive rather than reactive, I fear that if it were posted on Jimbo's page today we get a lot of "meh" to have the logo as an attachment. I prefer to wait for some "event" such as a backlog that gets out-of-control and someone goes ballistic, or someone sues Wikipedia for not properly cleaning up copyright, or conflict of interest issues rise to an ugly head and we point out that the request edit forum is undermanned and this might be part of a solution or something like that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I have a feeling being reactive, it will still get the say meh comments as otherwise. Look what happens when there is a rash of mass gun violence--any attempt at new legislation restricting guns is "shot down". I think one has to do more of a sales job on this one. IMHO. One of the key things is adjusting the proposal to address typical concerns, reducing the number of meh comments, and increasing the number of YES comments.

Have you considered the Village Pump? I have never done much there. I also think the Foundation is seeking proposals for new ideas. And as always, we don't want to reinvent the wheel. Maybe someone came up with a similar idea, and we could see why it went nowhere. Maybe such person had ideas that improve your own. There are already a few people interested in dealing with the jury issue at least. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)