Talk:Gamification

External links and pointers to gamification companies and resources
Per the Manual of style and external links guideline, we're not supposed to use internal inline links to external websites in the body of the article, e.g. BigDoor (which looks like BigDoor). I'm removing a number of those. Also, linking to too many individual companies at the bottom in the "external links" section is disfavored, especially if there are a whole bunch of them or if those companies are only mentioned in passing. We could have a "see also" section or a "list of companies" section here, but Wikipedia strongly favors that any such list be limited to wikilinks to notable companies that have their own article, or at least companies whose existence and status as a gamification company (extant or defunct) can be verified to a reliable source. Unfortuately that leaves out a bunch of companies that just aren't notable or haven't been written about much yet.

I don't have the exact guideline page for that but it's sometimes considered WP:LINKSPAM even if you're not promoting your own site. A couple years ago Wikipedia added the flag for Google not to count these links towards search rankings, so it doesn't help there, it just creates a small amount of traffic. Beyond the concern with it looking too commercial rather than encyclopedic ( Also, there's a passage in WP:NOT that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. The best explanation is that it's very hard to keep a complete, current list of something like this, and very hard to verify the accuracy and suitability of the list given the nature of the project.  Better not to have lists of links than to do them poorly.  Instead, if we can find an  page somewhere that contains a list and links to gamification resources, ideally an authoritative noncommercial one like a page belonging to a gamification trade association, it's best to include that single link in the external links section of this article.  Then interested readers can go that external site to see the list.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For reference, and to avoid losing the info, here are some links:
 * UserInfuser
 * BigDoor
 * CloudCaptive
 * Seriosity


 * Per WP:PRESERVE and also EL, I've restored the external links as references where those sites are mentioned in the text, as primary sources for themselves. Without them some content was left without any source at all. I believe this content in an encyclopedic section called Gamification does not violate WP:LINKSPAM. Diego Moya (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for thinking of it.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Changes/Additions
For my Itec 544 class we were instructed to research and suggest changes to the Gamification Wiki. Here is a two page report that I would like to add. Please give feedback if you think this would be a nice addition or not.


 * The Gamification article (2012) has been up for deletion in the past, so, that in itself should give off a sense of the problems with this article. The main thing to improve on the Gamification article is to boost the support for the article by improving the definition and the quality of the article as a whole.  A link to gamification.org would allow the user to not only have access to that website, but also to plenty of other resources from books to articles to learning modules that include gamification.  The definition of gamification is the concept of applying game-design thinking to non-game applications to make them more fun and engaging (Gamify Network, 2012).  The definition on the page is correct, but it lacks support in the references because the resources are mostly unreliable and linked to points made later in the article.  Quality could also be linked to not having enough information on the advantages of the idea of gamification, which will be improved vastly by the Belsky (2012) article.  Belsky (2012) summarizes by saying that gamification takes advantage of the basic human need to compete, it makes learning easier and more engaging (especially with the use of technology), and keeping boredom out of work by looking at the success of fantasy football (Belsky 2012).  The process of how gamification works is clearly outlined by Raymer (2011) in his eLearn Magazine article.  He explains the definition and gives examples of how a program should be set up, from a typical flow chart of how games work to setting goals and objectives to providing feedback to offering rewards and incentives for completing a goal or objective (Raymer, 2011).
 * I noticed that Charles Coonradt which is considered the grandfather of Gamification is not even mentioned on the gamification wiki. I find this a bit disturbing since he published a book about Gamification in 1984 called “The Game of Work”. Now it is a growing trend that is implemented into many things around us whether we notice or not. According to Ken Krogue (2012), Charles also founded The Game of Work to answer to answer the charge that the U.S. productivity was not world class. What Charles discovered was that people who considered work drudgery were often the first ones to leave right at 5 p.m. These individuals also were ones who would spend incredible amounts of time and money on hobbies or sports like Skiing and Golfing. He asked himself “Why would people pay for the privilege of working harder at their chosen sport or recreational pursuit than they would work at a job where they were being paid?” Through his studying for writing his books, and founding The Game of Work he answered this question by developing these 5 key principles:
 * Clearly define goals
 * Better scorekeeping and scorecards
 * More frequent feedback
 * A higher degree of personal choice of methods
 * Consistent coaching
 * As it is noted in the beginning of this document this wiki is up for deletion which to these people I say this shouldn’t even be considered. Gamification is truly important in today’s society and Charles himself can attest to this. He traveled millions of miles teaching the principles of Gamification. He has worked with Coca – Cola, Microsoft, AT&T, Time Warner, Qwest, Abbott Labs, Ralston Purina, Boeing, Wendy’s, and Sherwin Williams. All of these companies are still in business and operating in today’s high competition, fast paced, and innovative world. Their success cannot be completely attributed to Charles and his principles but they were gaming before gaming was as cool as it is now (Krogue, 2012).

Miller97 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Asmith2812 (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you guys have coordinated on this but in case you're not aware, see WP:CLASS PROJECTS. Everybody's help is welcome, and this is the encyclopedia everyone can and should edit! Do keep in mind that Wikipedia runs by its own rules, so a decision by a class group is not necessarily binding on the editors here. Also, an academic / scholarly approach to studying things is just one of numerous approaches to understanding the business world and does not necessarily have a higher standing than others such as news or business publications. The encyclopedic voice is different than the scholarly voice, and also has some different conventions. If you look at the bottom of my edit here, you'll see that I removed a statement about what "available data … indicates". Other than being written in stilted English that contains a hidden narrative from the subjective point of view of a researcher or scholar trying to prove a thesis, it claims the existence of a fact that is not related to the subject, namely that there is some data and it indicates something. If we are writing about the fusion reaction on the sun, Heisenberg and Schrodinger aside the sun does not generate any more or less energy because we have some data about it here on Earth. In other words, the process of proving things and gaining support for a theory about a thing, or even the theory itself, is usually not part of the story we tell here in an encyclopedia about the thing. The process of supporting factual claims has different rules here, and is carried out behind the scenes on the talk page. For example, the above critique mentions there is a 1984 book by Charles Coonradt called The Game of Work, and that he is considered the grandfather of Gamification. That's nice. A lot of stuff happened in 1984. To show that this is relevant and of due WP:WEIGHT to include in the article you would have to find a neutral, third party, secondary source that ties that book to this subject. And sure enough, there is a Forbes article that does so. Most sources on the subject, however, do not report that gamification started in 1984 with the book, so the Forbes story is just one among many contradictory, or at least different, accounts. A word of caution, the recent additions, apparently related to the class, contain a lot of stuff that is not in standard Wikipedia format, style, and approach, so that introduces a lot of clean-up need. If you were to rework the entire article in the same way it would probably wreck it beyond salvageability and somebody more practiced at Wikipedia writing would have to recreate it from scratch (or else it would languish and basically become a dead end). To see an article overwhelmed by overzealous sloppy editing (though in this case not academic), see Royalties. By contrast, for an article about a very technical subject written in encyclopedic rather than scholarly tone, see Dodecahedron. Also, see WP:LEDE regarding use of citations in the lede. Normally, any definition or introduction in the lede is merely a summary of cited content in the article. It's to give a reader new to the article a quick overview of the subject, so they identify what it is, whether it's the article they were looking for, and whether they want to read further.
 * Incidentally, the deletion nomination had nothing to do with the quality of the article, it was a response to: (1) a concern that the phenomenon was just marketing hype (which would have to be covered as such, and is generally not worth writing articles about), not a real business / design practice, (2) the concern that Wikipedia in most cases does not have articles about mere words, it has to cover real subjects (see WP:DICDEF and in particular WP:NEO, and (3) possible knee-jerk opposition to recreation in new form of an article that had previously been deleted (see discussion here). The version nominated for deletion most recently, two years ago, was more tightly written and sourced, mostly by me, but also much shorter and less complete, at the time the word was first gaining widespread currency. It has since endured an onslaught of mostly helpful edits by people who seem to be excited by the subject, a few whom are self-promoting their own companies or ideas. There's a tendency of articles about current buziness trends to accumulate lots of spam, editorial opinions, trivia, etc., so these articles periodically do need heavy maintenance for accuracy, scope, neutrality, completeness, sourcing, tone, writing quality, avoiding spam, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If possible I think it would be helpful to have a list of sub categorisies of gamification - e.g. simulations, advergames, serious games, applied games, activity trackers and so on. Gamification itself is such a broad concept. Tobyberesford (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd second the idea of sub-categories, seems like a good call to me. DerekErickson (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Facebook Places
Does Facebook Places actually include any game elements? I've not seen any, though maybe I have an old version of the Facebook app or it's iPhone-only or something.

See also ... Alchemy?
Why is that related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.28.26 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: This article appears to be written like an advertisement
Would a table of products that use Gamification be an improvement? Instead of having the bulky Applications section, a two column table with a name and a category (e.g. fitness, language, content generation) could help tidy things up and allow for the removal of a lot of the advertising type lingo. Nick Garvey (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Advert warning
I can not follow the perception that this text is "written like an advert". Instead it mostly distances itself from the attitiudes of the proponents, there is also a chapter "criticism". So please indicate more precisely what (in the current version) is perceived as advertising style, and possibly improve it. Without more arguments I would remove the advert warning. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't remember if I added that tag or not, but the article is definitely a bit better than it used to be. The "Applications" section used to be more of a laundry list of random IP addresses inserting links to their own gamification platforms, much of which someone appears to have cleaned up. --Delirium (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for criticism
Jesse Schell's ideas on the Gamepocalypse (when every aspect in life is gamified)

Evgeny Morozov criticises in "Chapter 8: Gamify or die" (from his book "To save everything, click here") that "gamification (in politics) may well be based on peoples expectations, but they also have duties and obligations, which occasionally spoil all the fun." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.178.242 (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Gamification 2013 event
Another editor is insisting that this article include a mention of "Gamification 2013, an event exploring the future of gamification [which] was held at the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus in Stratford, Ontario from October 2, 2013 - October 4, 2013." I don't see how this adds to a reader's understanding of this topic and remain convinced that it should be removed. Can other editors please comment or contribute to this discussion? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree with you. Throughout the section, there are mentions of other events. I do however, take issue with Stratford, Ontario location tag being included when the campus name indicates where this location is. I recommend that this tag be removed.KobieTale (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then we probably need to remove or trim back other context-free listings or descriptions of events that aren't necessary for readers' understanding of this topic. For those events that you believe should remain, what exactly does the mention of an event convey to readers about the subject of this article?  Moreover, what reliable sources can you provide asserting that these events are important to someone's understanding of this topic?  ElKevbo (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that there's a particular gamification event doesn't seem to add much to the reader's understanding of gamification. The attendees, perhaps. It's possible that the original Gamification Summit in 2010 is worth mentioning because that legitimized and brought the subject to a lot of people's attention. The encyclopedic value there, if it bears out and can be sourced, is that it is a potentially important event in the development of the field. Other events would need that kind of sourcing to be germane. Here, the sourcing is particularly week because it's a local paper talking about its own institution's event. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with removing it. Simply mentioning events where people talked about gamification are of low utility to others trying to understand the concept. Tobyberesford (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a really stupid word
And was probably written as an advert. Let's get rid of it.

‎Mherger COI
Before someone knee-jerk revert's Mherger's changes because of WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE, I found the additions very helpful and informative, especially given the otherwise poor quality of this article. I feel his username based on his real name constitutes disclosure, which mitigates WP:COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've deleted, not as a knee-jerk but because the information is self-promotional, a single person's idiosyncratic viewpoint on the subject, and not reliably sourced. He's an industry participant adding material from one of his self-published books, not obviously a scholarly or academic expert. That's more or less the definition of COI. I've left in some group citations / helpful links to his books here and there, but adding an entire section based on his list of categories and examples gives it undue credence. This article is a spam magnet as it is. An anonymous editor keeps reverting, which will get this article semi-protected if they continue.- Wikidemon (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is really rife with self-promotional cruft, and as a result is not a particularly good encyclopedia article. Unfortunately it's a lot of work to fix up, and the people pushing their particular brand of gamification self-promotion are a lot more motivated than anyone who cares to fix up the article. I agree in this case, but it's really one out of many. --Delirium (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Further reading section
I have fixed the formatting of the Further reading section by consistently using the cite book template. I have also added some new books that came out last year.

However, that section does not seem to have any particular sort order. Should the books perhaps be sorted by year, or by topic?

Gtondello (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Further reading" is usually alpha-sorted by author to avoid any undue prioritization or personal bias - I have re-arranged the list (and removed one spammed entry by multiple SPA IPs). On a sidenote, "Further reading" should focus on a selection of the most educational and useful ressources. Not every popular book with "Gamification" in its title needs mentioning. Of course it's up to topic experts to make this editorial selection, but minor works should be omitted. GermanJoe (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas McGuigan/Suggestions for Corrections
Hi,

This is Thomas McGuigan. I just want to give you a few suggestions for improving your article. The most important I have to suggest is making corrections to your grammar. This involves making the language of your sentences more specific and ensuring that the components of your sentences are clear and well organized. This also includes limiting the length of your sentences and ensuring that the words you type are spelled correctly. Another thing I would like to make clear is some but not all of the sources you cited from were outdated. Considering this, you have to ensure the sources you are using are not only factual and supportive of your research but are also recent enough. Another edit you should make can be seen in the "Technology Design section of your article. Online pornography is very controversial even though it only targets adults so be careful. Not everyone will agree with you in thinking that they are fun to view. One last suggestion I would like to make for you to keep in mind is including information about the disadvantages of gamification where the disadvantages are clarified beyond the ones you expressed in the "Legal Restrictions" section of your article. This includes disadvantages from areas such as psychology, sociology, environmental, and more. Those are all of the constructive suggestions I have to present to you right now and if you take them into consideration I guarantee you that you will see improvements in your research methods in the future.Tpmsfcstudent2019 (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)(Thomas McGuigan)

Sincerely, Thomas McGuigan69.48.147.51 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Thomas McGuigan
 * Hi, thanks for your suggestions. If you could kindly point out specific typos and grammatical errors, that would be very helpful – it's a bit difficult to figure out whose sentences you're referring to due to the fact that there isn't one single author, and a general copyedit tag might be excessive if the problem is relegated to a few sections. Since I am not very well versed in this subject, I can't assist with adding content, but I hope I can help clean up the grammar. Me, Myself &#38; I (☮) (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's one sentence where you can make the grammar more specific. It's in the "Inspiration" part of your article. "Gamification can be used for ideation, the structured brainstorming to produce new ideas. A study at MIT Sloan found that ideation games helped participants generate more and better ideas, and compared it to gauging the influence of academic papers by the numbers of citations received in subsequent research."[43] Tpmsfcstudent2019 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC) (Thomas McGuigan)

Comment
I've removed the recent additions as being unviable. Although I applaud the effort to learn from and contribute to Wikipedia, both the approach and the content itself do not seem to be working. The proposed content is so far from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with respect to style, tone, sourcing, format, etc., that it's probably not possible to improve them while they are part of the article. I don't really know where to begin, and doubt that a student who is currently not adept at editing Wikipedia could bring their skills up to the level of making major article changes within the framework of a single course, certainly not in the closing days and weeks of a semester. Most people learn by making very minor changes, working with other editors, getting critiqued, and slowly learning the process. There has indeed been some criticism that this chases people away. Perhaps Wikipedia's model for cultivating new editors is weak, but that's the way it is. I know there is some outreach to instructors and students, and a few people around here who have experience working with class assignments. I'll see if I can point to that. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Almost all the "references" were broken links. Also, the content was written like a talk over beers. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay Wikidemon and AManWithNoPlan. I'll check in on that. I was only adding content a little bit at a time to improve the article, not to violate the rules of Wikipedia. 69.48.147.51 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Thomas McGuigan

Hi Wikidemon. There are some wiki links I am going to add to the "Gamification" article. Tell me what you think of them later on. Thank you.Tpmsfcstudent2019 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Thomas McGuigan

Hi Wikidemon. I cited a source I wanted to add to the gamification article correctly but the article is not accepting it. Can you please help me out with this.96.246.183.154 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Thomas McGuigan


 * Hello. It may seem unintuitive, but Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. See Verifiability. Sources must be meet guidelines set out by Identifying reliable sources. This mostly means books from reputable publishers, academic journals, and news outlets with editing and fact-checking. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon, AManWithNoPlan, Evan Augst, Diego Moya, Me, Myself, and I, Grayfell, Professor Brian Gregory, and everyone else who has helped me edit the Gamification article. I really appreciated it. Sincerely, Thomas McGuiganTpmsfcstudent2019 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[Thomas McGuigan]

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gamification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520204612/http://mitsloan.mit.edu/vc/Ideationpaper022805.pdf to http://mitsloan.mit.edu/vc/Ideationpaper022805.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Education - addition
In recent years the subject of gamification has been reported on in academic journals. I would like to add to the Education section of the main article information about gamification in Higher Education courses. There are a few articles that would be very useful in providing background research. This gamification dissertation for example has 50 pages of literature review.

Smachaje (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gamification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112074424/http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/03/the-game-based-economy/ to http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/03/the-game-based-economy/
 * Added tag to http://www.ecscw.org/2011/04-%20Dencheva%20et%20Al%201-20.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112074424/http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/03/the-game-based-economy/ to http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/03/the-game-based-economy/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219171239/http://radoff.com/blog/2011/02/16/gamification/ to http://radoff.com/blog/2011/02/16/gamification/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting New Section - Theories of Gamification
Hi Editors interested in this topic,

I am curious it seems theories explaining gamification is barely mentioned or only briefly mentioned in the Gamification section. I am thinking of suggesting / adding a new section, I am going to try to do some field research and summarize the theories about Gamification in branches like social science, WDYT? Or do you think they might be better off left out or moved to a separate article? If so, which?

Thank you Xinbenlv (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Preparation
Reference
 * http://romisatriawahono.net/lecture/rm/survey/pervasive%20computing/Seaborn%20-%20Gamification%20in%20theory%20and%20action%20-%202014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinbenlv (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-software-for-handling-online-survey-incentives. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is much more ancient
See this https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/24/gamification-a-short-history/ for starters.

Measurement of workers' output (especially in Asia and CEE socialist countries) with their scores, perks (e.g. not starving, being alowed a room, place to study, or just not getting shot) is another example of mass gaming aka engineering by the ones in power. Zezen (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

See also this fine article: https://www.fastcompany.com/90260703/the-dark-side-of-gamifying-work Zezen (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition to Education: In-class quizzes
I think that gamified quiz applications (Kahoot!, Quizzizz, etc.) are becoming more popular in terms of in-class activities. I am suggesting adding more information about them under the Education and Training section. Is this related to the section? Or is it more related to other articles?

Related reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131519300442 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntntwwaan (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree and just added such a section. Mkretzsch (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Historical Footnote
Douglas Adams also independently invented something analogous to gamification with the "Crisis Inducer" (see: https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Crisis_Inducer ) which should be worth a footnote here at least.

82.16.147.172 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Teaching and Learning with the Internet
— Assignment last updated by jmenglund (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Funware into Gamification, as the former seems to be the same concept but with a different name attached, and enough notability to justify a short inclusion within this article. QuietCicada (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be the same concept. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Same concept with a different name. Charcoal feather (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Given the fairly dated sources for the term, it could make for an interesting historical note, but gamification definitely seems to be an identical and more commonly accepted term. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Add a history section, or mention history?
This article is very focused on gamification, obviously, but I feel like it's missing a history section or like it exists in a vacuum. For example: this article discusses badges awarded for merit, yet makes no mention of merit badges. With no mention of history, it's as if the concept of merit badges was invented after 2008 for gemification, when they have existed for since at least the 3rd millennium BCE in the ancient Egyptian Old Kingdom.

Likewise, the merit badge pages don't mention gamification. This page never links to award or prize which in turn make no mention of gamification.

I don't know which page should cover everything, maybe award? But we can link out to some history.

Anyway, here's a few examples of subjects that are related (in my mind, anyway), yet none of which are linked from here, and none of which link to here.


 * scout badges
 * merit badges
 * Personal_progression_in_Scouting_Ireland
 * History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America
 * Military Order of Merit
 * Papal honorary flag of distinction
 * award
 * Lists of awards
 * Military awards and decorations
 * Civil awards and decorations
 * Ecclesiastical award
 * Ecclesiastical decoration
 * Prize
 * Title
 * Order of precedence
 * Order (distinction)

Skintigh (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Medal
 * Prizes named after people