Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/1

Scoring for next year
For next year, I suggest removing DYKs from the contest. Including it encourages people to start articles that are not really needed, instead of working on important stubs and start articles that need improvement. Also, I think that people get a whole lot more points for an FA than for work on pictures, sounds and other items that are not nearly as time-consuming? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [Copied from Signpost]
 * Featured pictures often take several days of solid work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but FAs take weeks and often months. I'd give it 100 points or more.  Even a GA should be more points than FP or FS, as getting an article up to GA is a major undertaking.  I have nothing against FPs or FSs, I'm just saying that the points ought to reflect better the average (median?) amount of time and effort necessary to achieve each of the scored content.  Also, I'm not sure about portals and topics: - aren't these basically copies of articles and other content reorganized for convenient viewing?  Should copying articles to portals and topics really be scored?  Or am I misunderstanding what is meant by including topics and portals? IMatthew and Juliancolton, I'm copying this to the contest talk page.  Best regards!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that for the 2009 Cup, designated FA and GA points were supplemented by mainspace points for the work of building the pages. So a typical GA drive actually earned considerably more points than a typical featured picture drive.  If edits to Photoshop counted I'd rival Rich Farmbrough. ;)  A certain amount of reassessment will probably occur before the new Cup begins because it appears that raw mainspace edits are likely to count less next time (if at all).  Durova  355 21:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who has put a featured portal together, let me say there is a lot of work involved. Mostly technical, behind the scenes stuff? Yes. But a lot of work. And the FT points are a good idea, IMO. They aren't a huge amount but promote unified content creation exactly as FTs are supposed to (in other words "extra" points for a whole bunch of FA/FLs on one unified subject, rather than just doing a bunch of easy discographies or something). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, having helped Staxringold a bit with his drive am in complete agreement. A key issue with portal drives is the underlying strength of content in the subject. The textile arts portal drive, which I did in 2008, involved several DYK and featured picture drives plus raising nine biography articles from start- or stub-class to B class. Overall, that was comparable to the effort of featured article drives.  Durova  355 21:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the suggestion to not score DYKs makes little sense. If a subject meets the notability criteria, we do want to cover it in some respect, so why penalize people who do important work on smaller scale articles? Aside from which, as a DYK reviewer, the vast majority of DYKs that I review are expansions of existing articles rather than new creations. A better solution, if you want to prioritize work on core topics, would be to offer a bonus for such articles. For example, I think the FA on Fungi was much more valuable to the encyclopedia than an FA on an individual fungus species, and you could offer an extra 10 points (or something) to any successful GA or FA of a core topic. Geraldk (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geraldk regarding DYK points. I'm not sure what starting "articles that are not really needed" means. Who gets to decide which new articles are "really needed" or not. And expanding stubs (and many start-class articles too) can easily get you DYK credit, so I am not sure why you would want to discount DYK points if you wanted to encourage people to work on "important" stubs and start articles. Rlendog (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I had actually thought of that as well, but Geraldk beat me to it. Not to put down people who work on less-popular topics (I do it too), but the focus should always be on WP:Vital articles and other highly visible pages. These very important or broad topics, or those with over ~1000 hits a day http://stats.grok.se/, should be worth double or even triple points. Also, these are some of the most difficult articles to improve because they are so broad, so contributors deserve extra incentive and contest points. Reywas92 Talk 23:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can have a top important article that is 15k and a low important article that is 80k. I've had both. It might be a little unfair going off the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well a 15k article is unlikely to get to FA, but if it does, then good for them for working on a topic that will be seen by many more readers. Most of the important articles should be able to become a large article. I see what you mean, but in my opinion it is much wiser to improve articles that more people will actually read. Many of your literature topics would qualify, and I think that in many cases these important articles may be much more difficult. Reywas92 Talk  23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You could use both scales (Core Topic status and page views) or just one. Regardless, they both go to useful points. Core topic improvement greatly improves the project, and highly visible page improvement helps the image of the project. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Points for core topics seems intriguing. Not sure about page views though, since certain articles become very popular for a brief time and other popular pages might be kinda tangential to the site's primary mission.  Durova  355 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To sort out temporary spikes we'd surely look at averages or trends, and, although I can't stand her, I'm all for an FA for Hannah Montana if that's what the public reads the most! Honestly, how many of the topics at WP:FAC have you/most people heard of? Not that those aren't important too, but I think the emphasis needs to be refocused toward more vital and popular pages. Reywas92 Talk  01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think one of those three should be on the core topics list........ I'm all about Spongebob. Geraldk (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about simply 3xGA or FA score for WP:CORE and 2x score for WP:VITAL? Sasata (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm 100% against this above idea. There would be far too much controversy over what's a core article and what isn't.  iMatthew  talk  at 01:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they're rated by the WikiProjects. But there's no real safeguard against Cup participants gaming the ratings.  IMatthew raises a very good point.  Durova  355 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about anything on WP:Vital articles/Expanded or with an average daily viewership of 1000? I have no problem with setting up a subpage for queries. I and hopefully others realize that to cater to our readers we should concentrate on the articles they read the most, and extra Cup points is an incentive. I don't think project ratings are the best because they are project-specific. Reywas92 Talk  01:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * iMatthew, the core and vital lists are fairly set. Core was established by the 1.0 editorial team, and can't be changed. Vital requires significant discussion before any changes take place. At this point, they are a fairly objective criteria. I'm not sure that 2x and 3x is appropriate, but if the goal of the WikiCup is to create incentives for significant improvement to wikipedia, this is a good way to do it. And I find it hard to imagine that a cabal of wikicup participants would float over to Vital and successfully game the Middle of Nowhere F.C. onto the list. Put another way, what would you rather the wikicup motivate me to work on, the articles on Sophocles and Hammurabi I got to GA years ago and never took further, or the articles on Shelter in place and Angakkuq I expanded for dyk today? Geraldk (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As to core/vital articles: core is the only viable option IMO, as the vital article list is too long and could result in bickering later on. The core list is very set in stone, it seems like.
 * As to FA points: the points for FAs have to be increased, I believe. No offense to Durova, but I could get a FA in the time she does 10 FPs. Granted, she is rather fast at restoring pictures, but do you see my point? Creating a comprehensive and detailed article can take a month; heck, North Carolina-class battleship took me 3 to 4. I think that a move to 100 would be very appropriate and would better reflect the amount of work put in.
 * GAs are a little different. Perhaps a move to 35 or 40, but they aren't necessarily very good. If all GANs were MILHIST and were reviewed as well as MILHIST's A-class nominations, then I'd say 60–70, but (no offense) fictional episodes of television series can be <10k&mdash;random example from WP:GA: Sexual Harassment (The Office), ~8kb, 8 refs, including one to another Wikipedia article. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  06:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Judges
Shouldn't there be an odd number of judges in case of a split decision. Most panels of judges are composed of odd numbers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, we'll live I think. Ta. GARDEN  20:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Garden. I think we'll live.  iMatthew  talk  at 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and so does the Ed :) Nah, I wouldn't worry about it. If necessary, we'll just fight to the death. J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony's right as it could come to consensus. Mitch 32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the above (Gardern/mine/J's comments) that it's not hard for us to agree on things! :) We'll be fine, we all get along very well, and are all interested in what each other has to say when it comes to decision making. I don't see any major problems coming up, but if there ever was, there's one person I can think of we can turn to for a fifth opinion.  iMatthew  talk  at 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup/2010 scoring
I have created this page for discussion of the scoring- hopefully we can have all the necessary discussions before the competition begins. Suggestions/discussion welcome on the talk page. The current rules are on the page as I write this, as understood by myself and iMatthew. They will be subject to change, pending talk page discussion. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Prizes
How would people feel about taking in donations to set up an actual prize or prize money. It won't be much, but it might be nice if the winner got something more than a jpeg on their user space. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the prize be a taxable bonus? I don't think it is such a great idea.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell no. We're all volunteers; if you don't want to volunteer, you don't have to. I'm assuming, if there's prize money, I will be paid at least minimum wage for my judging? J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about something like a year-long subscription to a database of your choice? Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And who's going to pay for that? We have plenty of volunteers willing to enjoy the Wikipedia experience, and enjoy the WikiCup. Why so serious? J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what she means is to seek outside sponsorship. WMF is an educational charity, and organizations sometimes donate services for that sort of undertaking.  Might be worth exploring.  Durova  357 19:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J Milbrun. This is an event where anyone can join to have fun. By offering prizes, it'll lose is specialty and turn a fun event into a competitive sport. Also, I don't feel comfortable with Wikipedia offering real prizes. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is already competitive. Awadewit (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bragging rights is prize enough. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't we already have a bounty board to serve that purpose? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Creation of a WikiCup rules page
I believe we should create a page that talks about the rules of the WikiCup, to make newcomers at this understand what to do and to raise interest in the WikiCup. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiCup/2010 scoring is where we are discussing points costs and other issues for next year. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions
The pages under Wikipedia:WikiCup could use a clear naming convention :) Suggestions:


 * Rather than "WikiCup/History/2008", how about simply "WikiCup/2008" ?
 * Then for the future you can use the same format: WikiCup/2010
 * Rather than "2010 Rules" "2010 History", these can be subpages; /2009/ and /2010/ as subpages seems like just what the tool was designed for - it makes sense for everything that happens in 2008 to have a breadcrumbs link back to WikiCup/2008.
 * To the above point, WikiCup/Rules would be for all years, and if necessary "WikiCup/2009" could list variations from the normal rules, or modifications made during the course of that year.

+sj + 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The rules vary so much year by year that there aren't really any universal rules. I agree we could have more standard naming, but I don't have time to do it right now. J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Judges [2]
Hey J, G, E. I'm too lazy to go to your talk pages. What's a good time to chat tomorrow, if everyone's around?  iMatthew  talk  at 17:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, Sometime in the morning. Maybe 10am GMT.  I'll be at the football in the afternoon. :)  GARDEN  22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's 5am here... in which case.. not gonna happen. :P  iMatthew  talk  at 22:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pfft, America. Maybe at night then? :/  GARDEN  22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I might not be home. :-/  iMatthew  talk  at 22:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup should be restricted to editors in good standing
Editors under restriction should not be eligible for Wikicup.Bobanni (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? If someone ends up getting blocked or banned, they'll be removed. If they want to participate, we should let them. While we're at it, why not remove editors who aren't in good standing with the community. I know I'd be screwed because at least one of the judges hates me and has tried to have me blocked. -- Scorpion 0422  00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a judge, I do not think it should be part of my job to decide who is in "good standing". The WikiCup is open to all who are here to help our encyclopedia- those who aren't will be blocked and removed, or eliminated fairly quickly anyway. What's the harm? J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And who knows? Maybe the WikiCup will encourage editors not in good standing to contribute more positively to Wikipedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For this comment, you deserve a little sunshine: [[image:WikiThanks.png]] +sj +  02:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with other contests
Has there been any thought of having satellite contests around the wikicup? The infrastructure needed for gathering, tracking, reviewing, and scoring submissions varies a bit from project to project, but a lot of the overhead seems to have some similarities... from registration (and possibly chosen teams or tracks) to a way to actively submit entries to tabular listing of rankings. The contests I recall fondly are old article contests Danny set up and two media contests I worked on around older Wikimanias, and it would have helped all of these to be part of an annual schedule of contests.

We are just starting an article-writing contest on the Swahili Wikipedia (see below), and the process and amount of template-use involved is unfamiliar to both the participants and most local admins. There was also interest in taking part in some casual cross-language contest, either organized around a shared date (like the wettbewerb was once, I believe) or in some more connected way. +sj + 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Help for the Kiswahili Wikipedia Challenge?
We're trying out a six-week article-writing contest on the Swahili Wikipedia -- and have a *lot* more turnout than expected (800 registrations so far). Google helped promote the event, organized afternoon-long workshops at two universities, and donated a number of serious prizes. I'd love it if people familiar with this process could help out there (see below), but wonder more generally about organizing a better network of contests.

Help from people who have worked on or closely observed the WikiCup would be appreciated, in English would be normal though Swahili familiarity is a bonus. Two of the organizers are native Sw writers, but many of the active editors there are not, and we mainly need need a lot of template and categorization and process help (including properly welcoming participants so that they know how to properly take part, and guiding judges on implementing a simple judging protocol). Participants tend to be bilingual, and the contest rules were initially developed in English -- as much as that galls me! -- as both the Nairobi Google office and half of the interested sw:wp editors were more comfortable working on large blocks of text in En.

The central purpose of the contest is to attract more interested swahili speakers, and short articles on articles that are of interest to students, to help get the swahili-fluent community past the tipping point of. +sj + 02:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created a userpage there. Please ping me if I can help in any way. I also see that you are trying to teach people how to edit; if anything in User:the ed17/Classroom could help, feel free to steal it. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Could IP's signup
I'm asking this question because if they can, I might sign up for the WikiCup next year as an IP. Secret Saturdays  (talk to me) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they can't.  iMatthew  talk  at 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to register as an IP and not under your own account? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured topic scoring
Does the scoring for featured topics need to be a fresh nomination, or simply inclusion in a FT? I ask because I've already authored/added 30 Rock (season 3) to the topic Seasons of 30 Rock, but I'm also working on 30 Rock (season 4) and will try to FLC it eventually once the season has completed. Taking that as an example, if 30 Rock (season 4) was confirmed as a FL would I get 40 points just for the FL, or 55 points (40 + 15 for a featured topic entry)? Note that season 4 is already in the topic as a peer reviewed list, so it wouldn't even have a supplementary nom. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, what point value will FPs get? The update I got said nothing about FPs or FSes. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Promoting an article that is already in a featured list does not get any additional points. See WikiCup/2010 scoring for the rules as they currently stand, and the talk page for any ongoing discussion. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you mean topic? So because Season 4 is already a part of the topic as a peer-reviewed item it would gain no points? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Schedule
This schedule has been agreed upon by myself and Garden thus far, and I'd like to bring it here to hear any comments or suggestions you guys have about it. Note that the rounds end before the month ends: this is to allow the judges a few days to close everything and prepare for the next round.


 * January 1st - February 26th
 * Unlimited amount of competitors
 * One pool with all competitors in it
 * The top 64 in that pool will move on.
 * March 1st - April 28th
 * 64 competitors
 * 8 pools of 8
 * The top 3 in each pool, as well as 8 wildcards (32 total) will move on.
 * May 1st - June 28th
 * 32 competitors
 * 4 pools of 8
 * The top 2 in each pool, as well as 8 wildcards (16 total) will move on.
 * July 1st - August 29th
 * 16 competitors
 * 2 pools of 8
 * The top 2 in each pool, as well as 4 wildcards (8 total) will move on.
 * September 1st - October 31st
 * 8 competitors (Final 8 instead of a Final 4)
 * 1 pool of 8
 * The top 1 will win.

 iMatthew  talk  at 21:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The top 1 in each pool, as well as 8 wildcards (16 total) will move on. you meant top 2? Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that must be an error, otherwise there'd only be a total of 12. Useight (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Typo corrected. Thank you both. ;)  iMatthew  talk  at 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Moar souls for the Wiki Gods! Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One little niggle- round two- top three from each pool and eight wildcards- perhaps top two from each pool and 16 wildcards? J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds a bit more fair - more wild cards makes it about more skill (or effort) and less about luck. Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neah, giving 16 wilcards opens the possibility of having three complete groups being promoted to the next round. Then there would be little incentive to not getting the last place in the group. Nergaal (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares? The groups are an arbitrary construction, the goal should be creating maximum content (or in this case being among the top however many in content work) not simply winning an arbitrary group. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, last year we ended up expanding the number of wild-cards mid-contest. It would be best if we agreed on the numbers before the contest begins this time around... J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Side question about schedule and scoring. The scoring section says the article must be nom'd and promoted during the contest, so come December 25th or so can I start work on the articles I will ultimately nominate on January 1st? Or, does the work have to be done in that period as well? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with the former, but I believe iMatthew has some strong feelings about this... I know I claimed points for things I had worked on before the start of the contest with the blessings of Garden last year. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)