User:ThaddeusB/Draft Statement

I realize that isn't typical AN stuff, but there doesn't really seem to be a better place to post it...

Each year after the WikiCup finishes there is a period of time where people discuss possible ways to improve the contest (mostly by re-balancing the point system): WT:WikiCup/Scoring. The judges (this year, , and ) then assess the consensus and implement any changes before the next cup starts. This year, the decisions were not announced until the eve of the new contest and some unintuitive readings of the discussions were implemented. Specifically:
 * Featured articles were raised from 100 to 200 points
 * Featured pictures were reduced from 35 to 20 points, but a bonus of up to 15 points can now be earned (as opposed to 0 bonus previously)
 * The bonus system for articles was overhauled.

These changes have led to a good deal of frustration from several people, as can be seen at WT:WikiCup. After a little prodding, the judges posted a statement saying they ran simulations to find ways to balance the contest and came up with those numbers. Now, it may well be a good idea to run such simulations, but such simulations should not be used in lieu of the discussion based consensus. While it is true that one concern is balancing points so all contestants have a fair chance, it is also true that the tradition balance also takes into account how important given content is to Wikipedia. The original bonus system was implemented to encourage work on high-importance articles, not necessarily to give more points for harder work (althoguh there is some overlap). Additionally, the amount of featured pictures (FPs) contributors is very low, so determining what a "normal" FP contributor can earn is not really possible. Thus any model is guess work and should not replace human judgement, and especially should not override individual discussions that involved several experienced editors.

Last year, the contest was won by who concentrated mostly on featured pictures. As a result, there was a lot of heated discussion on FPs. After much effort, a number of us (myself, Godot13,, , and ) on both sides of the debate came up with a compromise solution suggested by whereby the base value of FPs would be reduced, but a bonus system similar to that in place for articles would be added. The spirit of the compromise was that most FPs would be worth slightly less than before, but especially important ones would be able to earn more points than before. The implemented change, however, reduces the points so the max possible is the same as the normal before (35) and the vast majority of FPs will earn significantly less points (20). It should be noted that numerically, there were more people against any reduction at all than in favor of one.

Exasperating the frustration of FP contributors is that FAs were simultaneously increased from 100 points to 200. While there was broad consensus to increase the FA score, the only numbers actually suggested were 125 and 150. The 200 appears to be an invention of the judges.

A somewhat mitigating factor was that the article bonus structure was overhauled to prevent extremely high multipliers. Unfortunately, there was very little discussion on changing the bonus system, and absolutely none on the drastic change implemented. Thus, it is very hard to justify the changes based on consensus.

Overall, the changes implemented may or may not make the contest better. That isn't the issue. The problem is they were implemented not by consensus, but rather based on a simulation created by the judges and not discussed by the WikiCup community. This is not the right way to do things. The judges have said they are open to making changes. Thus, my hope by posting this here more people will read the previous discussions to better determine what consensus based changes should be implemented. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded - Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye - Godot13 (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)