User:Accotink2/Playing Wikipedia

An extended essay by Benutzer:Southpark:

Wikipedia is a browser-based MMOG (Massive Multiplayer Online Game). Probably the most successful MMOG playing in the world, in the exciting world of encyclopaedias. It can be played in over 100 languages, and although there are no accurate statistics, have probably already taken more than a million participants from all continents (Antarctica is questionable ...). Participation is free.

Game objectives
The predetermined scenario is to behave as if the player wanted to participate in the creation of an encyclopedia (using RPG also). Within this scenario it is important to take the greatest possible impact on the special application form of this encyclopedia. The game play is unlimited, so there is no "winner" in the true sense.

Wikipedia is characterized by the fact that there are no rules laid down by goals, and the rules change constantly. Beginners often think that the real goal of the game would be to write as much as possible, or write your own articles.

A special sub-group has refined this objective: their aim is to give the mere appearance of the activity of writing many articles. (See: Wikipedia: Alternative User Statistics)

However, the player has to realize that if he shows serious interest in an article, that is an identifier as a beginner, and thus becoming an easy victim for advanced players.

Secretly, however, the game play is the cracking of the ultimate high scores, as the goal of many.

Advanced game goals
Once the players have edited once, they expand their target horizon soon to writing their own articles, and to seek out to get a whole topic in their hands. If they manage that, they look for the possibility of influencing Wikipedia as a whole. In an intermediate step, it is often tempting to take structural topics such as deletion candidates, copyright or excellent article under the wing.

Abstracted
Based on a modified version of the RREEMM model (Siegwart Lindenberg, Hartmut Esser) players as rational actors with the appropriate constraints are addressed. It makes sense here, you should go beyond the narrow framework of classical micro-economics and assume a broader target range. Specific objectives include:


 * (A) Material wealth - so far the great mass of players neglect this in the short and medium term, and the required use is not justifiable relative to the potential yield.
 * Exceptions are short-term Employees (Spam, Wikipedia: self-promoter).
 * Some had to be designated as a professional players, and could now obtain positions in the private sector and public services, from which they continue their activities (so-called march through the institutions that condition due to the anonymity and active participation in real-life applications like Wikipedia, Germany).


 * (B) Social prestige, both within and outside the group. While the opportunities to gain social prestige in the outside world so far are small and limited to a relatively small group of people, the social prestige within the group is one of the main driving forces of players. This is particularly important, because this reputation is not only in itself a play goal, but also existentially, in order to achieve other goals.
 * Players who play in real-life applications can, through the adoption by the Executive or similar item externally record a reputation gain.
 * Besides the two basic components of each RC approach seems to make sense adding to two other factors.


 * (C) Inform yourself, spread memes and ideas as much as possible. This is done in Wikipedia by the requirement of a neutral position, and the limited choice of subjects available. However fanatical supporters of various non-encyclopedic contents are drawn almost magically.  After all, there are few hobbies, where you can achieve, with similar simple means, such a large audience.
 * (D) Fun and Entertainment. Watching the edit wars, train wrecks, and arbitrary admin misbehavior can be very entertaining, providing many hours of enjoyment.

The game currency
The currency of the game is an abbreviation of the known currency "credits" are called "edits". Edits are earned by hard-working changes in the article namespace. (But you should not succumb to the temptation to surreptitiously by avoiding preview edits! This can lead to a sharp depreciation of the assets.)

With a wealth of edits you can buy many things. Which are partly free, but quite expensive. For example:
 * Price subject [Edits]
 * An entry on Discussion, User or community pages 5
 * A "fun Babel" 2000
 * A contradiction to the argument of an admin 5000
 * A counterargument to the counterargument against the above an admin Opposition 10 000
 * A successful test with re-fighting 20 000
 * Check a successful user process 50 000
 * A successful de-admin application without bullying, bashing, attacks, etc. 100 000 sock puppets

But the players are warned against prolonged discussions with administrators. The price of each reply increases exponentially with each reply. Those players, who are bent on this game play, can easily lose his entire fortune. In the event of bankruptcy, the player must create a new character from scratch. Considerate and loving admins try to prevent this by responding to easygoing rejoinders, and remaining silent to more ruinous replies.

Conditions
A central part of the game condition, is the sentence that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. At least that is the face presented and the impression conveyed to the outside world, for each player. (B) and (d) are all the more promising game objectives, the larger the community. The higher the (external) social reputation of the player, the higher also the internal social prestige. In case (d), is added that player had fun, brought out similar level of their players, and similar ideas of "interesting, we spent time". What is the level that is in fact the matter, although the normative influence of the German academic environment unmistakably is taken from the behavior of his older teammates related to new players. Objectives (a) and (c) depend crucially on the extent to which Wikipedia is seen as a useful external knowledge resource.

Each player is keen that his players are as effective as possible, toward the encyclopedia-goal, while for others it could be the application of a free rider strategy to be profitable, which is to hold out a facade, but in reality only with difficulty.

The proportion of communication, "takes place behind the scenes" is relatively small - especially for the quasi-binding activities that have emerged and need to be fully discussed freely in public before they take effect. This does not mean that they are prepared privately, however, the tracing of changes and actions is a relatively effective control instrument.
 * Wikipedia is transparent. Each user can edit a view, but also about the long-term link user contributions, so that may be evident in a review as well as more subtle tactics, and experience that free riders are punished.

Even subject-specific information asymmetries are hardly exploitable, since because of the size and community composition, it is always in danger, and attracts attention with such behavior. Information asymmetries may in the long run exist only in specific areas or higher, more abstract levels beyond the everyday business.
 * Wikipedia is basically very simple. Information asymmetries regarding the system are difficult to exploit to their advantage.

Strategy and tactics
Various shortcut strategies are popular. Thus, players try to fill by means of a reordering of categories and all topics without ever having to write an article. By setting info boxes and navigation bars, a player can give the impression that one is primarily interested in the creation of the encyclopedia. The distribution of Warning, stub and maintenance instructions is itself not substantive improvement, that a particular topic deserves, but mediated, we take care to improve the quality of Wikipedia as a whole by the direction of others.

A certain anti-strategy may also work: by continual discrediting the work of others, in particular about the administrators, a player can be quickly and effectively create attention. At a certain point, however, we must translate the Negativeindruck that one has generated so far, by making it clear that you yourself, despite all the accusations of Vandals only the best of Wikipedia in the sense, and stop better strategies than the established parties at hand. Although one can easily fail in this strategy, it is considered as the fast track to power and control of the structure of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

These strategies, however, are risky. They can be quickly discovered by other players, and thus lead to social ostracism. Especially for advanced players with goals of such a strategy is often seen as an unnecessary burden of an effective alliance, so that they are denied true success. Some even try bypassing all the rules to gain immediate control of the Wikipedia, as this is only in breach of any other player, they inevitably fail, at least occasionally in an impressive manner.

Most players try by building alliances and coalitions to achieve their goals. Often these alliances are only sporadically for the achievement of a certain goal. In the longer term it is well worth it, in line with the economic game theory to enter into long-term alliances to acquire an exposure to social capital, which can then be displayed at strategic points in the game.

It is necessary however, to give satisfaction and seem to be interested in creating an encyclopedia, and occasionally, at least to show activity in this direction. Since players differ significantly in their stopping of advanced beginners, the current perceived status of a player are detected at the ratio of the editing steps in various areas of Wikipedia.

Players whose game does not bring success to their ambition in check, the game often leave again to start them in a more suitable environment in their own game. This is known as forking.

The current score is visible due to the constantly changing rules, but there is a semi-functioning indicator: see Template: Trust network. In the interim evaluation of the game is available.

Conclusion
Wikipedia The game is characterized by simple principles and complex game play dynamics. These properties make the little sophisticated graphical display more than compensate for the effort, and lead many players to high long-term motivation. Nevertheless, so far neither sectarian nor responsible search authorities have spoken on this topic.