Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure (2nd nomination)

 __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  Snowball keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure


Seriously? This is seriously still a thing? Are we trying to attract kids under 10-12 (the only people who would be attracted to this childish attempt at turning an encyclopedia into a video game or are we trying to attract professionals and intellectuals? I found out that this is still a thing because we are apparently slapping invitations to "join the adventure :-D" on new editors' talk pages.

Wikipedia is not a webhost or, for that matter, a game host. This does not contribute to building an encyclopedia; rather, it encourages children who want to play games and "level up". This silly game even has a "stats tracker" like an MMORPG. I'll freely say it: I like playing video games. However, this is an encyclopedia we are trying to build, not a kiddie game.

I am also nominating all subpages as listed here:

 

Furthermore, I am nominating the bullshit browser session-hijacking javascript powering this joke for removal. When looking at this thing and writing this nomination, it automatically forced my browser to make this page. This is a terrible security hole. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As an administrative note: this is the second nomination of TWA for deletion. See the previous nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, which closed as keep, with a fairly strong consensus towards keep, Sadads (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a game and as such does not need to be gamified (I think that's the word now). It's not a social network, nor an "adventure" either.   Konveyor   Belt   18:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the last consensus to keep. Has anything changed since then? Sjgknight (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Are there any metrics available on the actual impact of this project over the 2014-15 period? The_Wikipedia_Adventure/Impact and its talkpage have been abandoned for over a year - I assume the analysis of the project's effect on editor retention is available somewhere, but I can't find anything more recent than the beta analysis from 2013 at TWA/Story. Yunshui 雲 水 21:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete; as somebody who joined before I could legally drive (age is 15 for a permit here), people who seriously think this stuff attracts teenagers need to think again. There's no way a teen or young adult would find this to be anything but patronizing; teens get treated like little kids enough in the real world without having to deal with it here. The only people this will be attracting are like elementary school students, and even I have to admit that such an age is too young to be contributing here. I also enjoy video games; in fact, I'm typing this comment less than an hour after a gaming session, but this isn't a video game; it's a toy for little kids that I might have enjoyed when I was 7. Also the hijacking Reaper Eternal mentions is definitely a concern. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. As creator of TWA, I'd like to again share some insights into why it is not merely tolerable but significantly effective for Wikipedia, way beyond the scope that it was even originally intended for.
 * This game had an extensive post-pilot analysis which revealed consistent, very positive game-player feedback. You can read it all at WP:TWA/Story and I've excerpted below (cc: User:Jtmorgan, User:Aaronshaw)
 * 87% were satisfied or very satisfied overall
 * 89% said 'TWA made me more confident as an editor',
 * 89% said 'TWA helped me understand Wikipedia better'
 * 77% said 'TWA made me want to edit more', 6% disagreed
 * 79% said 'TWA made me feel welcomed and supported'
 * 71% said, 'TWA helped me know what to do next', 9% disagreed
 * 80% said, 'TWA prepared me to be a successful contributor to Wikipedia'
 * 75% said, 'I enjoyed playing it', 6% disagreed
 * 89% said, 'The game is a good way to introduce new editors to Wikipedia'
 * 89% said, 'Lots of new editors should be invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure'
 * 92% thought the educational aspects were useful or very useful; 3% useless or very useless
 * 83% were satisfied or very satisfied with the design, 6% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied
 * 76% said the gamification elements were effective or very effective, 6% ineffective or very ineffective
 * 70% liked the design as it was and did not want it to have a more 'serious' design, 14% wished it was more serious
 * 64% said, 'I wish there was more of it', 11% disagreed
 * 89% said, 'Lots of new editors should be invited to play TWA', 3% disagreed
 * 94% of survey respondents had about 100 or fewer edits, suggesting our sample was not biased away from the target demographic of new editors. This is critical because it's not important that Experienced editors like this game, because they are not the target audience
 * Game players consistently were more communicative and interactive with other editors--a key goal of the game--making more than twice the number of Talk page edits as non-invited editors from a similar sample. Game players also made more edits, including article edits, and game-finishers made drastically more (although our analysis couldn't demonstrate that increased article editing exceeded self-selection bias).
 * TWA players made more edits: New editors who played TWA made 1.2x more edits than a control group of similar but non-invited new editors. Players made 1.9x more edits than those who were invited but did not play the game.
 * TWA players were more likely to make 20+ edits: TWA players were more likely (1.2-1.7x) to make 20+ edits than either control group. TWA players were also more likely to make 0 edits than the control groups, however.
 * Players who finished the game made the most edits: Players who completed the game made 3.2x more edits than those who only started the first level of the game, and were 2.9x more likely to make 20+ edits.
 * Highlight quotes which reflect the overall feedback included:
 * "I enjoyed the idea of editing a fake article for practice - in fact, when I first saw the game, I immediately hoped it would incorporate some sort of actual editing rather than just theory or questions or something."
 * "Well, what's there not to like, or to have an opinion on...the game is great, most-of-all for us users that are just starting up in Wikipedia."
 * "I didn't know there was talk and discussion among users until I played the game...I just thought you could make comments and report on individual pages."
 * "I've seen and heard companies, including my own, talk about learning through 'gamification'. I found TWA to be the best example of gamification I have witnessed to date."
 * "TWA was very informative and helped pull back the curtain on some of the fundamentals of editing."
 * ''"I think TWA at the moment is a great stepping stone for new users such as myself. I would love to see it expand to include more 'advanced' topics"
 * New positive feedback continues to roll in dozens of times over: Wikipedia_talk:TWA/Portal
 * The game has since been adapted to Catalan, Indonesian, Persian, and Urdu
 * The game is utilized and recommended in the Wikimedia Foundation Global Education Program (cc: User:AKoval (WMF))
 * Pritzker Military Museum & Library built it into their interns training (cc: User:TeriEmbrey, User:I JethroBT, User:Keilana)
 * UCSF Medical School uses it in their 4th year editing elective (cc: User:Amin Azzam, User:Doc James)
 * The game has been incorporated (not by me) into our general Welcome template (cc: User:Technical 13, User:Biblioworm, User:Darylgolden)
 * The premise of the MFD is merely inaccurate: Games are not toys nor are they just for kids.  Games are rule-bound interactive challenges for mastering skills and developing motivation.  Games for learning real, important, applicable skills are a well-established component of education, corporate training, and even military development.
 * Wikipedia is a 'webhost' for many Wikipedia-specific learning tutorials which editors have created over the years, each with their own focus, approach, and strengths.
 * The 'javascript automatic editing feature' is a) disclosed on the main page of the game and the second page of the game; b) went through an extensive discussion at AN/I; c) was built with guidance from WMF technical staff; and, D) is hosted on a mediawiki page that only admins can edit. (cc: User:Mattflaschen) -- Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 15:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is confirmation bias. Anybody who could be assed to complete this "game" probably has the mindset that would be attracted to it&mdash;only kids will bother to do it. Professors, industry leaders, and other experts (the type of people we should be reaching out to most) would be completely turned off by the childishness of this drivel. Also, nice work canvassing your keep voters here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In our statistical analysis, increased communication among editors exceeded mere confirmation bias and achieved a level of significance beyond that you would see from only game-players opting in with a biased disposition. That has survived a rigorous two-staged regression model that I don't understand as well as the NYU PhD student who helped us with the still-ongoing analysis (publication forthcoming).  The other stats about increased editing activity, honestly, did not exceed potential for self-selection bias, as I indicated in my parenthetical comment above.  That's because, and this is a methodological quirk of the setup--you're not really testing the game per se, but the invitation to play the game.  In other words, receiving an invitation leads to increased communication but not increased editing activity overall.  However, the fact that game-players respond with consistently positive qualitative feedback strongly support the notion that those who play it benefit from it.  And there is no evidence at all that those receiving the invitation are harmed or turned off.  That said,  I'm open to experimenting with other types of invitations, or invitations that involve different or multiple choices. Ocaasit &#124; c 17:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Different people like to learn in different ways how to edit. I do not see any thing wrong with this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Last year I looked at every single Wikipedia tutorial and beginner's guide that I could find (there are several dozen) and this was far and away the very best. Nothing else came close; most WP tutorials are horrible, although the Help:Cheatsheet is halfway decent. Softlavender (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The browser hijacking is concerning, and I am surprised that WMF technical staff has not intervened in something like this. --Rschen7754 15:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Rschen7754, I worked very closely with WMF staff, particularly Matt Flashchen, to integrate the Edit:API into Guided Tours. No one is making an edit for anyone else.  An editor who plays TWA themselves triggers a message with the Edit:API and sends messages to themself throughout the game.  This is stated up front on both the game's main page and also the second step of the tour.  Ocaasit &#124; c 16:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Every week I refer new editors to TWA and every week I see badges from editors who have learned how to edit from its lessons. I see no sense in deleting it, as if its presence was somehow damaging to Wikipedia. It's not in article space so only those editors who are referred to it are likely to come across it. A lot of work went into creating this learning tool and it sounds like some editors find this embarrassing for some reason or think it is destructive. Most editors I've seen use it for the first few weeks as an introduction to editing on Wikipedia and then they move on to regular editing, just as TWA intends for them to do. Liz  Read! Talk! 15:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't see this as a way to attract anyone. It's one of many ways people have developed to help to teach people how to use Wikipedia. It's not just for kids -- I know many adults who have used the Adventure and have heard positive feedback about it -- but kids do use Wikipedia whether we invite them to or not. I do prefer Training and would like to see that be the default place we point newbies (as well as a link there from WP:TWA even along the lines of "looking for more boring training for new editors...?"), but none of that is relevant to deletion. I guess my question is what benefit will deleting it have for the project? The only one I can think of is that it's possible someone will start to edit, see the "join the Adventure" message on their talk page, and confirm an existing suspicion that this place is run by kids. But even in that case, the answer isn't to delete TWA -- it's to alter that template or how editors choose who to invite. And this isn't the venue for that. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea of linking to STUDENT from TWA or the related invites in some way. It is best to offer people choices they will like and alternatives if they might not.  Game-design, and teaching in general is motivated by empowering meaningful choice from learners.  Let's talk about this. Ocaasit &#124; c 16:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments: Now that I check, this seems a bit of a bad-faith nomination in my view, in that the nominator !voted delete at the previous MfD 1.5 years ago, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, which closed as Keep by a very wide margin (38 to 15, if we are counting). I'd like to add that the TWA is not focused on or targeted at children, teens, or college students, in my eyes. I'm wondering if those who object to it have actually done the procedure and compared it to the rest of Wikipedia's motley and scattered and mostly useless guides or tutorials. Although on the surface this "game" may look outwardly insipid to experienced editors (that was my reaction until I had a brand-new editor do it because I could not for the life of me find anything decent to show her the ropes), it's not. So please don't judge a book by its cover. Softlavender (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Wikipedia is certainly not a game, but game dynamics can go a long way towards helping newcomers feel comfortable and learn the norms as they enter the community (especially when they encounter a widespread climate of suspicion/hostility upon making their first edits -- see WP:DNB). TWA also makes an excellent teaching tool (e.g., I had an excellent experience using it in one of my classes where many of the students otherwise found Wikipedia a somewhat hostile, alienating environment upon first trying to learn to edit). If the nominator and others have issues with the technical implementation (putative browser "hijacking" etc.), that's a totally different matter and does not seem sufficient grounds for deletion. Likewise, if the nominator and others don't enjoy games, that's fine -- there is nothing obligatory about TWA for them or for others. It is one potential pathway into the community among so, so many. Deleting the game would be a heavy-handed attempt to define what editing the encyclopedia is really about and reflects a narrow-minded vision of The Right Way to experience editing. The whole rationale behind the proposed deletion is thus totally inconsistent with the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:CIV and seems like an instance of bad faith to me. Aaron (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Allow While I think it is pretty silly and cannot imagine who the target audience is supposed to be, I can't think of any policy based reason for deletion(and I really tried). Chillum 16:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. We're bleeding people here, if this thing helps us attract one valuable wikipedian a year, it's still worth keeping.  // Halibutt 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'll give some credit: Some months ago, I created a separate account especially for the purpose of testing the game, and I do think it could be slightly modified so as to make it just a bit less...condescending. However, I was the one who proposed including a link to it in the welcome template, which succeeded; there was almost unanimous support for the proposal.


 * Wikipedia is having problems with retaining new editors. Admins and veteran editors are retiring. This problem will be exacerbated if we purge Wikipedia of everything imagined to be not directly related to "building an encyclopedia". Of course, content is the most important thing on Wikipedia; it obviously wouldn't exist without it. However, my point is that a super-serious, figure-it-out-yourself environment will not attract new editors. (Nonetheless, all of us should remember that we are very serious and terrifically important.) In fact, When I first starting editing here almost ten months ago, I was rather confused; I had no idea where to ask for help and how. I should mention that I already had almost four months of experience on another wiki. This is why, despite it being listed as a perennial proposal, I still support the idea of a bot that welcomes new users. On the said wiki which I previously edited, we had such a feature, and from my observations, it worked well.


 * Finally, as Chillum mentioned, I can't think of any reason to delete this per policy. If there is a solid, legitimate grounding in policy, Reaper, please give an example. If such an example cannot be given, I, with all due respect, must suspect that this nomination is simply a case of IDONTLIKEIT. -- Biblio worm  19:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the nominator has no policy-based reasons for deleting this page. All the nominator's comments thus far simply make assumptions (e.g., all adults want nothing but absolute seriousness), are logically invalid, and really seem to be nothing but mere opinions, albeit strong ones. (Without wanting to "blow my own trumpet", keep in mind that I, a supporter of this, happen to be a person very interested in reading and scholarly topics; in other words, an "intellectual" of sorts...) In fact, I unfortunately see that they border upon incivility, since almost all of them include profanity and rather inconsiderate terms such as "drivel". Furthermore, I hardly think it wise to turn away ordinary readers from contributing and instead make a great effort to attract academics by deleting everything which might be perceived to turn them away. Of course, experts are certainly valuable, but it is ultimately ordinary people who are the heart and soul of Wikipedia; not PhD-holding professors. -- Biblio worm  02:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC), edited @ 14:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It is not a game, it's visual guidance. The signboards we see on the road. "Drive Slow", "Diversion Ahead", "Hospital Area-No Honking": They are not games. C E  (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Extremely strong keep I run a GLAM project and have been actively recruiting editors outside of the traditional male 18-40 demographic common to Wikipedia to date. These new editors serve as Wikipedia Library Interns and Wikipedians in Residence.  These editors frequently have had no exposure to HTML, Open source programming, or intense use of the web.  They LOVE, LOVE The Wikipedia Adventure!  It helps them get editing quickly.  They then go on to use the longer tutorials.  Deleting this important resource for expanding Wikipedia editorship would be short sighted.  We should be looking at ways to encourage people to use and edit Wikipedia, possibly even expansion of The Wikipedia Adventure! TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm voting in my staff capacity since I was occasionally involved in the development work in a supporting role, but I would also support it in my personal capacity. The nominator does not cite even one thing that has changed since the previous nomination. They also don't cite any applicable policy that forbids this. There is no policy forbidding educational games on Wikipedia. There is a policy, "You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia", but that forbids hosting web pages that are unrelated to Wikipedia. This clearly is related. The nominator apparently has a viewpoint of Wikipedia, in which we are trying to attract only "professionals and intellectuals", but not students, stay-at-home parents, retired people, etc. Even if this were true, though, I think the assumption that professionals and intellectuals could never benefit from educational games is mistaken. It's clear that some people have difficulty adapting to Wikipedia's norms, and if this is helpful, that is worthwhile. The game is not about rewarding people (via leveling up or any other means) for making actual article edits. They are only rewarded for learning how Wikipedia works in a simulated environment. The suggestion that the JavaScript opens a "security hole" is false. It does edit using the user's account, but this is fully disclosed ("When you play this game, you send some messages to your personal Wikipedia page, any time you see * in the blue button."). This does not allow any other script to make edits, nor does it allow editing using someone else's account. Finally, nominations should be made without incivility like this. Cursing and inflammatory language are not necessary. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that TWA does not create any security problem whatsoever, nor allow any other script to make edits, nor cause any browser problems or issues. Softlavender (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can sympathize with the nominator, but I'm most convinced by the data-based arguments of Jake Ocaasi. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Data doesn't lie. The data Jake shows what a resourceful source this is for people to learn how to edit Wikipedia, and I see immense value in it. Matt Flaschen's points also resonate strongly with me. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  22:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you've ever taken a course on how to influence others with debate, you learn very quickly that statistics are the most powerful lies in your toolbox. You can construct any "true" statistics that bolster your argument, but when examined closely, really are meaningless. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" eh? But well analyzed stats generally reveal the truth behind them (or that there is none). What statistical deceptions or methodological flaws do you suggst warp the data that has been presented to us? You ahven't yet suggested anything specific, except for confirmation bias. Some of that is no doubt there, those initally atracted to this "adventure" are more likely to be the kind of people who will think it a positive experience, perhaps. But that doesn't explain their reported longer retention and greater numbers of edits compared to the control groups. What do you think those data show? DES (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. These sort of pages contribute to a sense of community amongst Wikipedia editors.  Some Wikipedians see little value in this, but it is of no harm to them, but value to others.  Do not make Wikipedia into a cold business environment.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Not everyone will find such an "adventure" intersting or worth while, although I don't think 's assuption (apparently not based on any data) that only childern could possibly react positivly to this is well founded. If this were a gateway that every new user had to pass before editing, I would strongly oppose it. But it isn't. It is a link that any user need never follow. Only those who choose to click the link will experience the "adventue". So the real question is, for thsoe who do so choose, will it, on average, turn more people off from editing, or help more people learn a bit about how to edit here, and perhaps assit them to become beter and more skilled editors. I think the burden is on those arguing for deletion that it harms more than it helps at least, and perhaps that it violates some policy or its deletion helps the encyclopedia. I don't see that any case has been made for any of those, and I do see evidence presented that at least suggests that of thsoe who chose to start this "adventure" more are affected positivly than negativly. DES (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Does not fall under WP:NOT. Evidence, per statistics provided by, is compelling, especially that around improved/increased communications with other editors & increased edit counts by participants. WP:TWA may not be for every editor, but it seems to be working for those who chose to use it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a basic first effort demonstrating the Guided Tours technology. It is at least useful as a demo of that technology, which others can hopefully build upon to make better accepted and more useful guided tours to various aspects of editing Wikipedia. See the documentation for this system for more information: Help:Guided tours and mw:Extension:GuidedTour. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, it may not be my style but if it works for others I see no harm in it. If you don't like it you can live a long, happy life without going near it. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 16:44, 31 May 2015 (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.