Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep. Wow. It's not often an MfD attracts this much participation. I find consensus in favor of keeping the project, though I'd urge the developers to heed the constructive criticism raised by supporters and opponents alike. Editors favoring deletion focused on potential problems, which is a poor reason to delete at this time. If their concerns prove founded after implementation, however, TWA may be making a second trip to MfD. That's something I'd take to heart if I wanted this project to succeed. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure


Targetting little kids is the last thing Wikipedia should be doing. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  18:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Adventure was designed to attract a diverse college-aged demographic. The content of the script covers editing, policy, and social skills that all editors need, but especially new ones.  It's not a kid's game although they could probably learn from it better than they do now with our current introductory material.  Please read the project page at WP:TWA.  And when it's ready for testing, play it through once and tell me what you think.  Please remember one thing, this project is for the many potential great editors who struggle to currently participate, despite their best intentions.  We're better off as a community to teach them properly and have their contributions. Ocaasit &#124; c 19:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's at a 3-4th grade reading level. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted that mdf as WP:SK. Please provide an appropriate explanation on the Wikipedia Adventure talk page if you feel it should be put back on; this looks like WP:POINT Sjgknight (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the template, which says "Do not remove this notice". Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SK - you need to provide a reason for the deletion of an active page. The template asks not to delete while there is active discussion - but there is none, because its addition is WP:POINTSjgknight (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Targetting 7-8 year olds is an obvious problem, according to the sensible adults on this page. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NPA stick to the content, "sensible adults" stands in contrast to the "not sensible adults" who disagree with you (for entirely legitimate reasons).  2) That other people have in places made actual comments on suitability doesn't make it any less poor form that you failed to do so when adding the deletion template. Sjgknight (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The game was designed to attract a diverse college-aged demographic" - is that why it's got some crap about unicorns in it? Volunteer Marek 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * DId someone say "unicorns"? Just a side comment, but WP:EQUINE is not particularly fond of pink sparkleponies or unicorns, they tend to mythologize the important work of actually creating legitimate contens!  (/humor) Please, we have enough problems with 12 year old editors with starry eyes on our project as it is! (/serious)  Montanabw (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Kiefer that "targeting little kids" - to become editors surely is what was meant - "is the last thing Wikipedia should be doing". However, this isn't doing that.  A fun way to introduce the required skills to new editors sounds beneficial.  If it comes across as a bit too juvenile to hit the intended demographic, that can be adjusted, but deleting isn't the solution.   19:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Invalid reasoning. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 19:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Pointy, bad faith, dickish nomination, including the tendentious plausibly deniable accusations of paedophelia towards Demiurge1000. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your false accusation violates WP:NPA, so please remove it or make administrators look like two-faced hypocrites. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this indicates you should be careful in how your phrasing - if implication wasn't your intention, then fair enough I'll WP:AGF, but it isn't an unreasonable assumption to jump to Sjgknight (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * After considering it, I do think you are acting in good faith. I remain convinced this is pointy in the sense that it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and dickish, in that there was no reason to mention Demiurge and DCoetzee other than to disparage them. If you would like me to explaim my reasoning on both further, feel free to discuss it on my talkapge (or here if you prefer, but I do believe that will bring us too far off course of the deletion discussion) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep As above - suspect WP:POINT so should be WP:SK; wish to avoid edit war. Sjgknight (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a good thing that TWA is written simply: not because that would target young editors, but because it might be helpful for new editors who don't have English as a first language.  Howicus (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Zad68 & Howicus. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all subpages too. This is WP:MMORPG at its finest. See also WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Additionally, the children young enough to be attracted by this set of pages are not the type of editors we want. They will cause lots of disruption at best. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See above re: target audience. Don't think WP:NOTFACEBOOK applies as that's about the encyclopaedia content - i.e. primarily articles and user pages.  Could you explain the WP:MMORPG more please? Sjgknight (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 24.19.234.62 below puts it far more eloquently than I did. All this will do is dumb down the userbase. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, I actually agree with you . But speaking as an editor who started as a social networker in 2006 and has morphed into a relatively decent editor now, I think that the amount of 'dumbing down' that will happen is acceptable, given the good editors we could draw in and the long-term benefits as editors potentially return years later. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete simply because it's super creepy. Or maybe Keep to preserve it as a verifiable document for future generations, testifying to the mindset of 2013 Wikipedians. Volunteer Marek 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it's buggy as hell. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in Alpha. ... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, it may seem childish targeting little kids but it is a way to help users learn about Wikipedia in a different way. Prabash.  Akmeemana   20:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This provides a means for editors to identify children (i.e the target demographics and thus participants), and so violates WP:CHILD. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , please — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rebrand or delete This appears to be targeting children, hardly the sort of demographic in which to find quality mature contributors. If it is not aimed at children, it appears overly patronising and quite frankly a little bizarre. Remove the material targetting children and make it more serious, we don't want to become the Yahoo answers of encyclopaedias. (I'm impressed by the capabilities of the API, the little that I looked at, its neat) IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely re-do or delete The concept of this is a good idea in general, but not at the present moment. I tried participating in this using a throwaway account (somehow its too buggy to an IP address or an active editor in good-standing) and it felt like like a game catered to 7-8 years old, which is a problem for obvious reasons. Secret account 20:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's a bit unfortunate that this discussion is happening now, while TWA is still being designed and developed. People have only happened upon this accidentally, presumably because they have Ocaasi's Talk page watchlisted, saw some messages from TWA get written to it, got curious and started clicking on stuff, and then because how it works wasn't well-understood, it ended up the focus of an ANI discussion.  Ocaasi had mentioned it's not even ready for alpha-testing.  Just like we do not delete articles that are stubs or start class just because they're not perfect yet, we shouldn't even be throwing this up for a deletion discussion at this point when it's still quite a ways away from the final product.  If there's one thing to take away from this discussion, it's that Ocaasi and the other developers should be planning user acceptance testing and getting regular feedback from the community about it.    20:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per IRWolfie: either it's aimed at children, or it's bizarre, or both. I don't see a third alternative. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
 * A project which you might view as having a similar spirit was the Teahouse. Many editors' initial reactions about the notion of a supportive, friendly, social space for new editors to ask questions was basically that its pleasant, fun, inclusive, visually appealing and personal approach simply "did not belong in an encyclopedia".  Yet, consider the following:
 * Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Metric !! Control group !! Teahouse group !! Contrast
 * Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit)|| 5.02 weeks|| 8.57 weeks || 1.7x retention
 * Average number of articles edited|| 58.7 articles || 116.9 articles || 2.0x articles edited
 * Average talk page edits|| 36.5 edits|| 85.6 edits || 2.4x talk page edits
 * Average article space edits|| 129.6 edits || 360.4 edits ||2.8x article edits
 * Average total edits (all namespaces)|| 182.1 edits|| 532.4 edits || 2.9x total edits
 * Percentage of women|| 9%|| 29% || 3.2x female editors
 * }
 * At Teahouse, elements which one might argue "do not contribute to building an encyclopedia", actually did exactly that because they lead to more people editing more articles for longer. (More details: Pilot report, Phase 2 report).
 * Consider, for a moment what it would look like if onboarding new editors was constructive, effective, and enjoyable. Then ask why you wouldn't want that? Ocaasit &#124; c 21:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "methodology" section is empty, and I don't see any mention of an institutional review board for research on human subjects. There is no mention of randomized assignment of subjects to either control or treatment. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  06:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , please explain your methods ("methodology")! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "materials" are in development. IRB is an American thing which exists in many forms across the world - including self-certification in many places (I've no idea where Ocaasi is). In any case, it may not apply in this context even in the US.  As an aside, methods and methodology are different things. I agree though, it would be good to know how outcomes might be measured, however - given the game is not ready to be deployed, it is not unreasonable that not all the details have been published/ironed out.  I'm sure constructive feedback is appreciated Sjgknight (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The_Wikipedia_Adventure/Impact is the draft of the impact assessment plan. No one will be forced to participate and 'data collection' is simply querying the already public contributions of any editor.  Database queries or any kind of event logging are approved in accordance with the site's extremely strict privacy policy--that is the ethical review board.  Our community has amassed a team of pretty darn sharp research strategists whom I will consult before, during, and after assessing the impact.  They haven't weighed in fully at this stage of the project because in order to test the game, it needs to be built first.  That's the focus right now.  Of course, there will be a control group, and selection will be random.  You might want to peruse the Teahouse assessment plans for a sense of how we might approach the issue: Pilot report, Phase 2 report.  Happy to have any constructive feedback on structuring the data and evaluation phase, when we get to it. Ocaasit &#124; c 13:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At Teahouse, elements which one might argue "do not contribute to building an encyclopedia", actually did exactly that because they lead to more people editing more articles for longer. (More details: Pilot report, Phase 2 report).
 * Consider, for a moment what it would look like if onboarding new editors was constructive, effective, and enjoyable. Then ask why you wouldn't want that? Ocaasit &#124; c 21:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "methodology" section is empty, and I don't see any mention of an institutional review board for research on human subjects. There is no mention of randomized assignment of subjects to either control or treatment. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  06:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , please explain your methods ("methodology")! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "materials" are in development. IRB is an American thing which exists in many forms across the world - including self-certification in many places (I've no idea where Ocaasi is). In any case, it may not apply in this context even in the US.  As an aside, methods and methodology are different things. I agree though, it would be good to know how outcomes might be measured, however - given the game is not ready to be deployed, it is not unreasonable that not all the details have been published/ironed out.  I'm sure constructive feedback is appreciated Sjgknight (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The_Wikipedia_Adventure/Impact is the draft of the impact assessment plan. No one will be forced to participate and 'data collection' is simply querying the already public contributions of any editor.  Database queries or any kind of event logging are approved in accordance with the site's extremely strict privacy policy--that is the ethical review board.  Our community has amassed a team of pretty darn sharp research strategists whom I will consult before, during, and after assessing the impact.  They haven't weighed in fully at this stage of the project because in order to test the game, it needs to be built first.  That's the focus right now.  Of course, there will be a control group, and selection will be random.  You might want to peruse the Teahouse assessment plans for a sense of how we might approach the issue: Pilot report, Phase 2 report.  Happy to have any constructive feedback on structuring the data and evaluation phase, when we get to it. Ocaasit &#124; c 13:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rewrite and/or move to simple.wikipedia.org: On the feedback page, someone had requested a "more formal" tone back in May, but this material is still too dumbed-down. The general idea of having an interactive tutorial for new writers is a good one. Please contact authorities if there's specific evidence of paedophilia. — rybec   21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting approach. It needs some work, but it looks an interesting, out-of-the-box approach. The Banner talk 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Seriously Rework If this is what the college-age demographic is attracted by, we're doomed. Seriously, though, if we want people to take contributing seriously the Teahouse is an acceptable and likely proper introduction. This makes it look like a ZOMG game. Plus it is a touch creepy. Intothatdarkness 21:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * sigh Frankly, I think this is a terrible idea and will add little or nothing of value to the project. That being said, we usually give even the worst ideas a chance to fail unless they are blatantly incompatible with Wikipedia's purpose and goals. This is aligned with the purpose and goals of Wikipedia, even if it does seem rather silly and childish. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia does not need more young contributors, either minors or college-age. Wikipedia does not need more "average" contributors, or even more female contributors per se. What Wikipedia needs is more academics, including serious amateur scholars. Is this portal likely to draw them in? Supposing that it works, and it is far from obvious that it will, it will only degrade Wikipedia by further dumbing down the userbase.24.19.234.62 (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep FFS, seriously? I see no obvious harm.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 23:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh per Beeblebrox. I don't like it, but thats not a valid reason to delete. Monty  845  00:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as the nomination does not provide a policy-based reason for deletion. I do, however, hope that this "adventure" will more clearly target an appropriate demographic (not children). AutomaticStrikeout ?  00:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per AutomaticStrikeout. I, too, would like to see this project target older potential contributors. Also, I'd prefer to see how it worked out with actual novice editors before trying to get it deleted. CtP  (t • c) 00:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - how useful will it be in teaching newbie editors? I don't know, but the project developers should have the chance to try. Side comment - please, please rephrase "non-technical editors (especially women and other under-represented demographics). I am quite sure it is unintentional, but that phrasing is appallingly insulting. Lady  of  Shalott  01:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Your knight, Drmies (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you. The implication was surely unintentional.  The tour is designed to appeal to a broad demographic (college aged men and women was selected as a particularly useful focus), and I meant no prejudice in the phrasing about non-technical editors.  Surely, there are women and older editors who can run circles around me technically, as well as men and younger editors who struggle with our procedures all the same.  Still, you might be interested in the survey research Sue Gardener did with women.  The first obstacle they themselves identified was how unfriendly our user interface is.  Worth a read: link Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 06:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling that a "survey" and/or "research" is highly misleading. Sue Gardner calls it "a bunch of comments, culled from discussions on many different sites", and that's what it is, on her blog. I don't say this to criticize her, as she's quite frank about it, but "culling" and then drawing conclusions from the collection of items culled is a parlour game, not research. Compare Survey methodology. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Agreed, it was informal research. I still find it very insightful to hear what different demographics have to say about their own experiences.  So, the intention was not to mislead but to share with others some of the background that has motivated my approach.  That article was particularly meaningful for me in the way I think about user experience as I think it identifies core issues that not just women face, but many new or potential editors.  As is well known, we have major demographic disparities.  I think the search for explanations of why that is and possible ways to improve it are worth looking into. Ocaasit &#124; c 09:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What was the methodology for deciding that this attracts a college demographic? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a discussion among myself and the designer I worked with. We chose a space theme to reflect the vastly ambitious mission of Wikipedia.  We chose the avatar because it was human-like but not representative of a particular race or gender.  We used colors that would neither be seen as stereotypically masculine nor feminine but were generally upbeat and inviting.  We used graphics that lightheartedly suggested accomplishment, travel, and exploration in a way that contrasted to the often difficult technical, social, and policy-oriented challenges new editors typically face.  The tone in the script was designed to be engaging and accessible without pandering or being pedantic--more like a helpful guide who can show you around than an expert who speaks at you.  The main subject of the game is editing a simulated article on Earth, which was chosen because, well, we're all on it, so it had universal meaning for anyone who participated. Those were some of the thoughts that went into the design. Ocaasit &#124; c 11:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Drmies, for fixing that! Lady  of  Shalott  18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Let's give this a chance; there is little to lose, and this is mostly harmless. If it brings some positive contributors, good. If not, then we add that to the list of things tried that didn't work out as hoped. I'd rather see something like this try and fail, and we all gain some useful information, than never be tried at all. Risker (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What's harmless about a feature that drops useless pages into user space? Somebody is going to have to clean up after this game. --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't complete the tutorial, but I didn't notice it creating pages in user space. I did notice that it added a message [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rybec&diff=566759864&oldid=566209295] to my talk page, as it did to yours [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orlady&diff=prev&oldid=566810854]. Is that what you are referring to? — rybec   18:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It creates user subpages of the type: User:Name/TWA or User talk:Name/TWA/Earth etc. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Those TWA and TWA/Earth pages are what I was referring to. Deleting them looks like a lot of make-work activity for admins and adminbots in the future. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, That looks like a real pain. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

24.19.234.62 (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTFACEBOOK, this seems to me to be a social networking/gaming exercise; and this is not written in a manner befitting an ESL-type setting. And I'm not sure the mentally-challenged are an appropriate group to be targetting. If this is an appropriate type of use of Wikipedia resources, it should be on SIMPLE, and it should be rewritten so as to not be patronizing. Also per IRWolfie above. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete? Per Beeblebrox, stuff like this probably gets kept to see what happens, however, my curmudgeonly nature is screaming at the thought of the likely consequences of a game/adventure of this nature. There are two problems. First, editors will get a warm fluffy glow from the adventure, but will be bitten as soon as they try to add their thoughts to a real article. A side issue is that participants in a game expect to engage in battle, so opposition to their edits may be regarded as a challenge to be blasted aside, as in their other games. The second and more serious problem concerns the type of editor likely to be attracted by such an adventure. When the percentage of MMORPG lovers in the community reaches some critical level, maintaining encyclopedic articles will become impossible because noticeboards will be overrun with people wanting to remove all barriers to universal participation—why should those who have been inside a library be given any elevated status, when Google has all anyone needs to know? Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a soft version of what I wanted to say (above.) Examine the backgrounds of "keeps" and notice that they all benefit (at Wikipedia's readers' expense) from this pseudo-egalitarian philosophy.
 * And you don't benefit from that philosophy, oh, IP editor? Want to explain just how I benefit from anything "at Wikipedia readers' expense"? Details, please. Lady  of  Shalott  18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to be a good way to attract new editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I haven't looked at the project since it was first conceived back in 2011, but I think Ocaasi has done an excellent job at creating an automated introduction to the encyclopedia. Yes, it seems a little cutesy, but tutorials often are. I'd rather we had an increase in editors who understand the basics. Worm TT( talk ) 07:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Further Comment Firstly, I see a lot of arguments are invalid with the WP:HARMLESS mantra. Secondly, one harmful result has already been shown; since the target audience is children, it provides a means to identify child editors, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I hear your opinion that you think the game might appeal to a younger audience, it was certainly not designed to target them. I can't accept your premise there.  The tour was indeed designed to be welcoming and lighthearted while also instructional.  But the content of the tour is our core policies and editing mechanics, similar to other introductory help pages or tutorials.  Of course the tour has not yet even been released in an alpha version, so we have no sense of who is using it or what effect it might have on their editing activity and retention.  So, when you say this game was targeted at kids, that's not just incorrect, and off-point (we welcome competent editors of any age), but I think it more broadly presumes an underlying conceit that design which is simple and engaging (or even fun) cannot also facilitate meaningful intellectual pursuit.  My hypothesis is that there's no such contradiction, and as an experiment, that's precisely what The Wikipedia Adventure sets out to explore.   It's also worth mentioning that this approach will not work for everyone, and it's certainly not aimed at established and well-tested editors.  They have made already it through the obstacles.  Instead this is one possible entry point that an editor may find useful, and if it appeals to them, and they go on to keep contributing constructively to our project, then that's a success. Ocaasit &#124; c 13:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "…design which is simple and engaging (or even fun) cannot also facilitate meaningful intellectual pursuit. My hypothesis is that there's no such contradiction…" – how would you know, what do you do for a living? Have your learning programs ever been used by serious researchers in any respectable field? Looks like just a bunch of power point bullshit.24.19.234.62 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a researcher, I say at the least WP:AGF - see below. Sjgknight (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that TWA isn't even in alpha stage yet, there's a lot of assumption of bad faith going on in the 'deletes' here. Some of that seems to imply some sinister motive, some around its potential for being perceived as MMORPG (which TWA patently is not), some around bugs (again, it isn't a finished game).  I've been watching with interest to see how TWA develops - but the basic principle of a guided process to learn how to edit is, I think, a good one. I also don't think it's necessarily one that will only appeal to children, or to the sort of editors we don't want on Wikipedia (whatever that means).  In any case, at the very least while still in development I'd have thought WP:AGF applies. Sjgknight (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Cause this project is really helpful for newbies.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 14:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This project has promise, even if it isn't fully there yet.  We already have dense lists of policies for people who want to learn about Wikipedia the same way they study for finals.  However, some people of all ages would appreciate a change of scenery.  I find the argument that it will allow the identification of child editors unconvincing.  The same could be said about any article that's of special interest to children.  However, I would like to see some assurance that someone will be watching the project carefully and sending all posts identifying editors as children to oversight ASAP.  Andrew327 14:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep not my cup of tea, but might be helpful to some new editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks fun, and children do grow into adults.-- Auric    talk  15:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is one of the worst rationales I have ever seen in a MFD, your complete disregard of WP:CHILD with that comment is unbelievable. Secret account 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If editors have concerns about the tone or focus of the project, bring them up on the talk page, or talk to Ocaasi about it. He's a reasonable guy, and will make changes based on reasonable feedback.  Let's give this project a chance to see the light of day. There's a lot of pessimistic assumptions being made in the opposes here.  I remember feeling similarly pessimistic about the Teahouse when it started up, but I was mistaken.  The Interior  (Talk) 15:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: I normally appreciate anything that helps bring in new editors, but is something that looks like it would mainly appeal to children the proper way to go? SL93 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, but the mascot reminds me of the Batman super villain Nobody. SL93 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: the nominator's personal distaste is not sufficient reason. Also this is an experiment.  Let's let it run its course and not consign the donor funds already invested in this to being a total waste. Ijon (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason for deletion. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 22:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you ignore the "pointy" part of the nomination and comment on why the project should be kept as there is a reason for deletion (related to WP:CHILD)? Secret account 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to simple.wikipedia.org and promote at zynga.com. This is not meant to be a condemnation for the efforts, and kudos for the coding; still - I don't see this as encyclopedic in nature.  — Ched :  ?  23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Serious concerns with me about an entity which concentrates children, as this will. Vast potential for abuse, not to mention the fact that children are not legally able to sign off on a CC license, which is gonna be a huge problem for WP someday... Carrite (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Totally irresponsible.  Giano   10:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on the totality, and irresponsibility? Sjgknight (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete whether or not children are the target group for this project, it will undoubtedly appeal to them. I somewhat agree with Kiefer that our child protection policy is inadequate - we only have a way of cleaning up quickly after a violation has already occurred, and no way to pre-emptively protect children that are using the site. I feel it would be irresponsible to implement something like The Wikipedia Adventure while this is the case. Apologies, OohBunnies!   (talk)  12:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. I think that this may help a few people and if it does why not? I don't think it's inappropriate and needs to be removed, it just needs work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Maybe rework for WP:SIMPLE, but my god, if you think college students are this childlike, then we are truly doomed. We need to come up with something that targets the people we WANT to be editing -- the grownups with some actual common sense and practical knowledge who are willing to do homework without being told. This just screams "don't take it seriously" - and frankly, the markup syntax for basic editing has never been that difficult; if you want to learn to edit wikipedia, it took me maybe a week to get the basics down.  The teahouse and mentoring concepts are what build and sustain new editors, not making the thing look like a 14 year old boy's video game.   Montanabw (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013(UTC)
 * "if you think college students are this childlike" - please view the userpage of the !voter immediately below you (and compare with their rationale here), who claims to be an undergraduate in Physics. "hi, this is my user page!!! -- Aunva6talk - contribs" "(animated graphic of nuclear explosion) This user will nuke you if you try to delete his pages. Wikipedia Department of Fun" "I have a very strong interest in computers". "Current Focus Article(s) none at the moment". And some big flashing advert about Bishzilla for arbcom or somesuch. Enough said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bishzilla for arbcom!   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    08:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC).
 * the wikipedia adventure looks alot more childlike than my silly userpage. sorry it's not as... businesslike as yours. I like the intention, but the way you're going about it is like a game for those 10 and under. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

*delete: does not appeal to target editor age groups of wikipedia. will only promote little kids editing Wikipedia, who, by and large, don't make constructive edits. in other words, it promotes vandalism. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:POINTy, bad-faith nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you ignore the "pointy" part of the nomination and comment on why the project should be kept? Secret account 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I can't. If no policy-based reason for a delete nomination is given, how can a policy-based rebuttal be made? Given that the nominator has on his talk page compared TWA to herpes and syphilis, I'm absolutly unable to assume any good faith whatsoever in this nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been good faith reasons given for delete beyond what was stated by the Nom. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - while this project (or whatever it's called) would benefit from some general discussion, and I might prefer targeting a slightly older group, I have to applaud the creativity and the be bold spirit. Most importantly, I have yet to see anybody give a policy based reason for deleting this.  If this is just a "I don't like it" nomination, forget about deleting it.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a clue what this is or what it's value is. Frankly I am afraid to go near it because of the automated posting that seems to just post the same message over and over. That seems to take a few by surprise and took some time to understand. But if it is intended to help new editors and the only real concern is a learning level it seems to present, I see no reason not to allow it to at least try to succeed. Not everyone has the same understanding level, and if starting simple works...who are we to judge.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 07:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Young people grow up, and there is much in WP they can usefully do in the process. WM-NYC is planning some WP classes for the upper grades of an elementary school for this fall, and I think other groups have worked with people of that age also. I've noticed that adults also sometimes like playing games intended originally for children. Unless we have evidence that this is mainly bringing in unqualified users, there's no reason to remove it. (I understand it has been more clearly worded  since the beginning, to avoid confusion.)  DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - DGG, Amadscientist, and Ocaasi seem to sum up what I was going to say, so I won't bother restate.  Go  Phightins  !  20:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTFACEBOOK, Are we trying to attract enthusiastic editors or nursery children ? ..... Seriously FFS!..... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  15:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There's no reason why minors couldn't perform gnomish tasks with competence, or collaborate content to grow articles on children topics, so I see no reason why we shouldn't explain how the project works - in fact it should help reduce disruptive behavior at that age group. Diego Moya (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC) As for the people claiming WP:NOTFACEBOOK, they should read that policy - it has nothing to do with this what this project is about.
 * thing is, the intended age-group is college students. if the intended target were say, children under 13, then this would be excellent. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be an argument for deletion? Diego Moya (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be an argument for a change or broadening of the rationale for the project--I think it's actually better adapted to below-college level. But many things can be used in various ways for different groups and different purposes, even those not foreseen by the originators.   DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. A well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided project. What Wikipedia really need is more adult and reasonably well-educated editors, not more 8-9 year olds as editors. Trying to attract editors that young does not help to strengthen Wikipedia's reputation for reliability with the public - in fact it does exactly the opposite. Also, have the creators and supporters of the project really thought through what would happen if this project does become successful and attracts large numbers of 9-year old kids trying to edit Wikipedia? Granted,  there are some 9-year olds who can do a good job editing WP articles, but most would need a great deal of guidance and chaperoning of  their editing. Whose job exactly is it going to be to do that? It is not as if Wikipedia currently has a huge surplus of active experienced editors with lots of free time on their hands.  WP outreach efforts are important and necessary, but they need to be directed at the right demographic groups.  Nsk92 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the idea was that they'd all be adopted by Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned, but maybe there's another plan I don't know about.24.19.234.62 (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per: User:Go Phightins! And the fact that I think it's a lovely concept. Would love to help. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it definitely needs work. There's no policy-based reason to delete it here. T  C  N7 JM  09:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is a work in progress (essay) - valid concerns raise should be addressed - no need to delete the hard good faith work of editors that are clearly trying to help. -- Moxy (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a social network either, I don't see how this is anything other than a way to make random edits. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * keep: I forgot, for a bit, that wikipedia is a work in progress. just because a project isn't pointed in the right direction is no reason to kill it. I think it needs an RFC to determine how the project crew can better attract the target age group. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – I'll admit it's slightly childish and automatically posts annoying messages, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted.&#32;~HueSatLum 03:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep due to most of the keep comments above. There is no valid policy-based reason for deleting this alternate method of teaching the core policies and guidelines to newer editors. As this hasn't really even had the chance to get off the ground, I see no harm in seeing how effective it is. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 04:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems fairly harmless although the creation of subpages for the user is likely to create some admin work. As I understand it, it's an Alpha project and comments/criticism here can all be used to develop it further. In any case, it doesn't seem to be violating any policies so deleting it seems more of an WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance. Although I do agree it seems a bit simplistic for its target audience and it could perhaps be a bit more mature Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It falsely attributes text to the user. This is a serious ethical matter. Quotes and text should never be missatributed. This shouldn't even be open to debate.24.19.234.62 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is vastly different from the aggressive multiple-choice examination ("you didn't get the required percentage? Sorry, bye!") that I had in mind when I first encouraged this idea several years ago. But that doesn't make it worthless, still less a net negative. It's long been recognised that the Wikipedia help pages have a reading age higher than the average editorship. Does this pre-alpha test page go too far the other way? Maybe so, but why is that something that requires deletion not fixing? There's been nothing to suggest that this is any threat to Wikipedia or that it's something that shouldn't be here. Will it encourage "too young" children to use wikipedia? Probably not - some seem to use wikipedia regardless, and there's nothing to suggest they will see this before they do so, nor that it would be more attractive to them than myriads of other free online games they could be playing. Anyway, having a simple theme and simplistic language doesn't mean it's aimed at any particular age group as has been claimed. And both can be fixed by methods other than deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - May be rather buggy, but Wikipedia is intended for anyone to edit. I think just saying little kids can't edit/are not to be targeted may hinder their potential here to become great editors, and possibly scare them off, especially in such a big world here, and since kids (or anyone, perhaps) love playing games, this game could be what they want. As others said, it's in Alpha stage, so don't expect the next 10/10 by IGN or something.  Zappa  O  Mati   14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Allowing those under 13 to edit would be a COPPA violation. We don't have special protections in place to hide the IPs of those under 13, how would you hide their IP addresses, without revision deletion, and if you revdel, then what's the point of their edits? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. No one could tell if someone is under 13 by their IP addresses.  Zappa  O  Mati   04:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Ocassi. Gamification is good. Let's give this a trial run. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is mainly aimed at others, but you do pose it most adept for a reply. Who is talking about a trial run at the moment? For now, this is just a work in progress. I'm sure an RfC will be started if a trial run is proposed. We're not discussing that here. Here, we are discussing deleting the work in progress. It seems some are forgetting that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.