Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/10

Featured picture candidates/Buildings along Chicago River
Tony claimed points for this FP- while it is not his own work, and the rules are clear that drive-by nominations are not good for points, Tony explained (with "you" refering to me) that-

You had previously said that for images that you hunt down licensing consent for you can claim them for CUP. In this case, I had to do more work than I do getting licenses because I had to contact the original photographer to get him to restitch the image. This entailed attempting to contact him on WP, through WP email and flickrmail. Then, I had to contact him several times to remind him to do the restitch. Finally, when I was told that I either had to allow this to close or get a new restitch, I had to contact him one last time to get him to restitch. Then I had to go through a bit of an ordeal to get the discussion restarted as no one would respond at FPC on proper procedure even after I pointed out that someone attempted to stop me from restarting the discussion by undoing my edits.

Seems a little borderline, so I just thought I'd leave a note here to see what people think about it. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The amount of times you had to "contact" him or how much trouble you had to go through in the FPC is irrelevant Tony. This is a drive-by-nomination, plain and simply. What is this, number 4 on the "list of how many times you've been either complaining about another contestant, or trying to game the system"? Knock it off Tony and follow the rules like the rest of the candidates. (Note: This is a possible COI as I am in the finals as well but if you take a look at my score, I don't have a snowball's chance of coming even close to him in the end)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been told that obtaining licensing consent is something that obtains points. This entailed more emailing than any license that I have obtained and I have obtained licensing consent on dozens of images on commons.  I don't think the spirit of this point claim is any different than any licensing consent claim.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The impression I get from that quote is that someone else did the actual work on the image? If so, then I would not consider Tony a primary contributor at all, and thus should not get points.  This contest is about content improvement, and we are not supposed to claim credit for someone else's content. Resolute 23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Primary contributor is not a rule for the cup since it has already been state that an image licensing consent may receive points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony should also not be given credit for File:20070130 Cato June at Super Bowl XLI press conference.jpg or File:Eisenhower Expressway.jpg. Nominating them is not really working on them. Stop gaming the system!--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both promoted versions are versions that I edited (the former an intermediate version &mdash; removing a logo for Cato June, which was further cropped in the final promoted version. Thus, without my efforts the promoted image would contain part of the cloned out image logo) and (the latter &mdash; blurring a bunch of license plates in Eisenhower Expressway).

WTF Since when do competitors rule on other competitors' points. We have three judges. I would pretend to not understand that not being a primary contributor is not a rule if I were partial. In the three years of WP:CUP, how many times have competitors been allowed to rule on other competitor's points?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We're a community- equally, it could easily be deemed as hard for me to be impartial, despite being a judge (I took part in that FPC nom, etc). I will ask Ed to look into this as an uninvolved judge. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to make more sense. I don't see setting a precedent that competitors determine each other's points makes any sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, yes, I apologise, I probably was wrong to bring this here. Hopefully Ed will be able to make a call on which of the three, if any, are eligible. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno, Tony. If you can whine about someone else "sandbagging", it is only fair to discuss whether you are actually earning the points you are claiming. Resolute 14:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note: I have seen this, but I have work in ten minutes and won't be able to give my take for a few hours. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember when this competition used to be fun, without competitors trying to game the system, or always complaining about others? This competition is meant to encourage people to improve content, and in that way it's a success. It's unfortunate that some are so egotistical and desperate to win that they try to ruin that fun. -- Scorpion 0422  19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * *waggles his 90 points in everyone's face* Staxringold talkcontribs 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "WTF Since when do competitors rule on other competitors' points." Tony, maybe if you'd stop being so paranoid and trying to game the system, you would not be seeing such input from contestants. I'll leave it up to the judges but it's a sad day when a contestant in a content improvement contest cares more about winning some pixelated trophy than improving the quality of this project. Give it a rest man, you did nothing in improving these images, you only nominated them and sent some e-mails.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing that strikes me about this scenario is that if Tony would have popped in here and explained how much effort he put into getting the image in (a handful took at least some effort and did improve it) then maybe other competitors would have been good sports and been happy to see the points earned. It understandably didn't work out that way but something to keep in mind for the future. I get that it looked a little cheap (I want to assume it was unintentional) but a simple request here before trying to get the points might have resulted in less of a conflict Cptnono (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the FPC and the two valued picture links given by WS, and I don't think any should count. Emailing can take some effort, but consensus in the past has been to only claim credit for images you have taken or restored, and you did neither. For the other two, one is up for deletion, and the other was not taken or uploaded by Tony. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The one nominated for deletion is not the one that was promoted, but the one that was was also not taken or uploaded by Tony- it was an edit of an edit (the first edit being Tony's). I don't think any of these can really count. J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Worry
I was randomly looking at some articles and discovered a GAN that I quickfailed (see: Talk:B. J. Prager). The worry I have though is that this might be a more generalized thing. I think judges should also check things like GAs that have passed in a dubious state. Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are actually much more similar ones by the user. Also, I went just through the GAs that have been submitted, and I can say that I found quite many with the text shorter than the infobox, or with less than 10 refs (in some cases even less than 5). I suggest judges take a look and disallow some of the points before the competition is over. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Number of refs is meaningless since it depends on your citing style. Me, I like one ref at the end of a paragraph provided everything used therein is from a single source. So my articles are not liable to have many refs, depending on overall length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I suggested to this editor in June that they withdraw three GANs that were obviously incomplete. They were left in the queue, all three were quick failed by another editor, and they have subsequently been re-nominated after extensive expansions. Resolute 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have contacted Tony about this and other issues, but, at the end of the day, this is not a problem with the Cup. If Tony is nominating poor articles, that's an issue with him; if poor articles are being passed, perhaps that's a problem with the reviewers. The fact that Tony is in the Cup does not suddenly make this the Cup's fault- Tony was one of the most prolific content editors long before he was involved in the Cup. Note also his mass nominations at the like of FPC and VPC, despite the fact he knows he cannot claim for the vast majority of them- Tony was a trophy hunter anyways. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But it appears that the wikicup itself is getting a very poor image in other projects, and ultimately the reputation of the project will suffer; future possible participants might also not want to deal with a project that is viewed poorly. Poor behaviour should not be encouraged, and neither tolerated. Nergaal (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I have talked to Tony. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that has had no effect, it might be appropriate to discuss with all the judges as what is the best way to deal with it. Also, other users might do something similar, and there are only 8 left. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, last year, during the cup, Tony came in and said, "I am surprised I was not invited to participate. Is it is because no one wanted to compete with the best?", he later went on to state that there was some kind of conspiracy to keep him out of the competition (even though at one point, iMatthew was so desperate for participants that he would have invited Grawp if necessary) and then started proposing a bunch of rule changes that would benefit him. As soon as I read that, I knew he would be trouble. --  Scorpion 0422  01:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FAC solved this problem by putting in place a two-week waiting period for nominators whose previous FAC was archived. This was necessary because FAC had become a revolving door for (ill-prepared) repeat noms, looking like PR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)  Added "ill-prepared".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We could have a similar rule- if a GAC fails, you are not allowed to nominate it again for at least two weeks. (Or, if you do, you can't claim points for it.) J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FAC also had to put in place a one-nom-at-a-time rule. So, to the extent many nominators are penalized by the abuse of few to earn WikiCup points, I think I may have answered your question :) We do have nominators who are more than capable of shepharding multiple well prepared articles through FAC at a time, so FA and Wiki loses here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was due to the WikiCup? J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at your, Nergaal's, and Resolute's comments directly above mine, and the finalists now listed on the WikiCup page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't follow. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Nergaal and Resolute do. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do, actually. The rules at FAC, and my suggestions to Tony both focus on the problem of using FxC/GAN as a peer review rather than a confirmation of a polished product. Since I've only participated in the WikiCup this year, and I know the two-week wait preceded this year's competition, I can't answer J's question of whether a previous WikiCup led to that rule. From my own history at FAC, however, I suspect it is not. The problem of editors using FAC to get a peer review existed long before. Resolute 23:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the solution for these clusterf#&* problems is to force nominators in the future to list their noms at GAN and FAC when they are submitted on their own page; and give more authoritative power to the judges such that if all feel is a good idea, users can be excluded from the wikicup because of creating problems. Nergaal (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sandy, it's late where I am and I've had a lot to do today. I really don't know what you're talking about. If you're scared of offending me or something, don't worry about that. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now located what I think is last year's list of contestants; is that correct? If so, some of the issues at FAC that led us to tighten nomination rules pre-date WikiCup, but WikiCup has helped perpetuate the pre-existing problem.  I think that's all we all need to know here :)  We should all aim to avoid having content review processes being abused as peer review in the quest for points-- FAC has handled that by changing instructions to prevent abuse, but I'm unsure if GAN, DYK, PR and others have.  I hope this answers everything.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Scorpion jogged my memory-- the problem pre-dates WikiCup. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Radical surgery
I'd like to put forward some suggestions for improving the WikiCup next year, which may be considered alone or in some combination. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Have teams rather than individuals compete, but perhaps only in the early rounds.
 * 2) Have month-long breaks between mainspace contribution rounds in which points are deducted for not assisting in DYK, GA, VP, FP and FA reviews.
 * 3) Limit the number of articles (or just DYKs) that can be created by individual competitors on particular themes. For example; species, NRHPs, athletes, and TV episodes are all overexploited.
 * 4) Add very small fractional points for mainspace edits to break ties.
 * 5) Add small fractional points for mainspace edits to competitor's total points.
 * 6) Get rid of the pools; they do nothing.
 * These ideas are really gonna have to be examined independently- you're suggesting some big changes there. Initial responses:
 * Why?
 * That really doesn't seem to solve the problem. That just means we spread it out.
 * An interesting point idea, but perhaps better is to incentivise certain types of content. Also, there would be a lot of issues in terms of determining what constitutes a category.
 * The issue of mainspace edits is an ongoing one. They counted last year (and they were all that mattered previously) but were removed this year by popular demand.
 * See above.
 * Again, why? They add a bit of interest- people can be top of their pool, which is a small achievement, rather than fighting for top overall.
 * And can I remind people that Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring is open for the discussion of how to work the scoring next year? J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having teams would reduce the over-competitiveness of the WikiCup, which is at odds with the collaborative ideals of Wikipedia.
 * Taking a break in which no new submissions can be made in order to bring down review backlogs seems like a good idea to me. Contestants would be able to review articles without feeling worried that they are being overtaken. Perhaps a one week break could be imposed for every two weeks of submitting.
 * Incentivising some types of content is much the same as depreciating certain types of content. But I think it may be easier to identify certain topics that are being over-used and cut the points awarded to them than to restrict bonus points to certain pre-approved topics. People may be more creative in their choices that way.
 * By breaking ties, I mean that if a tie occurs, the mainspace edits of the tied contestants can be counted and the tie broken. So I guess assigning points to them is not needed.
 * Perhaps points for mainspace edits can be assigned only to those edits that aren't on the contestant's submissions.
 * I perceive the pools as unfair, promoting contestants who did not get the same number of points. If, in practice, the pools didn't end up promote people with differing point totals, then they have no meaning at all. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Teams would only exacerbate problems with COI when reviewing articles, how is SandyGeorgia expected to know that three of the reviewers of an FA are in the same team as the nominator? The Pools by contrast reduce COI - if nominator and reviewer are both in the Wikicup but in different pools the reviewer has no COI and no vested interest in the article passing or failing. Incentivising people to review or penalising them for not reviewing is a very bad idea, a review can be as simple as I've read it checked this aspect and think it passes or fails. Or it can involve many hours of work, I hope both are appreciated, but it would be wrong to make them equal and award points for what could quickly become a vote. I competed in the cup in the year when mainspace edits counted and it was almost possible to get through the first round just on mainspace edits, I might be tempted back if they were reinstated. I certainly think that with some of our backlogs it would be good if the cup offered points for tag removal -- categorising, de-orphaning articles or referencing unreferenced ones.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to know what's up at WikiCup anyway (and they are supposed to declare their participation in Reward programs, but rarely do-- perhaps WikiCup could begin checking for that?). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is something that has been debated- is there a hard and fast rule at FAC? If so, I will certainly make sure it is in next year's rules. Obviously, we want the WikiCup to work with these processes, not against them. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmm ... problem. I really thought this was explicitly spelled out in the FAC instructions, but it seems that it's not.  Declarers are expected to divulge any involvement (WikiProject members, reward programs, significant contributors, GA reviewer, etc), but I see now that is not spelled out anywhere.  Strange.  We have had to make so many changes to the FAC instructions to stop the ill-prepared revolving door, that the page instructions have become a nightmare.  And yet, it seems we haven't spelled that out anywhere.    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a Wikicup issue, not FAC. It should be codified here, not there. Resolute 23:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep ... as I said, our instructions have already grown enormously to accomodate the issue discussed in the section just above this one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I say, there has never been any real consensus on this issue at our end, so I was asking if there was at yours. Obviously, it will be codified here if your policy is that it is required. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I've never done that, not even when I review ship FACs. My personal apologies for that. For Cup declarations, I thought it was made pretty clear on the talk page last year that it was necessary to state "I am taking part in the WikiCup" (or something like that) for both nominators and commenters – perhaps that was lost during the translation into this year? I definitely agree that this should be explicitlyspelled out in our rules. Thanks for bringing this up! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 2 hurts incentive. If we deduct points for not doing reviews, it actually hurts consensus and what if for that month you're on vacation or busy with college, school or work? That's a penalty people should not be forced to deal with. As for the problem with declaring. People don't think about that 90% of the time. If people remember it, its understandable. Considering I've not nominated anything in 8 months, it never really means anything to someone. If someone hasn't done it in a while, I can bet you people would forget. If needed, just tell them to do it ;). As I've said before, I'd rather focus Cup 2011 on maintenance rather than helping it, because writing is just what I feel like doing when I want.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Penalties are not the way to go. Instead require that each submission has a review done also: one GA takes a WC-er a GAN review done in detail (i.e. quickfails and quickaccepts are not counted). Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty lax in (as in, I dunno when the last time I did) mentioning I'm a Cup nominator. I'm not one of the mega-contributors here in the Cup (despite being a finalist), but I do apologize for that regardless. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say again that, while this has been discussed before, there has never been any great consensus. (There may have been something before I was a judge, I forget- I think I can remember notifying in my own nominations that it was a Cup nom.) I can't be expected to know what each process wants without being told explicitly. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See my above post –there was something last year. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary of problems
Kind of surprisingly (or not considering it is the final part and the events from last year), several major issues have been brought up lately. For the sake of not getting issues lost within the amount of replies listed here I am going to list the most troublesome ones about WC2010 (feel free to add if you think it is one of the major ones that have to be addressed by the next cup):
 * 1) it overburdened even FAC (one nom at a time due to the cup)
 * 2) it supra-solicited DYK
 * 3) it encouraged GAN submits of a dubious quality
 * 4) it encouraged competitivity without setting an acceptable maximum threshold

I am guessing all of them require probably solutions with judges putting more time into the process. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say I like the failed-nom points punishment idea. It might be a BIT tougher for GAN (so maybe make that a bit more lenient), but basically if you're putting really legitimate content out there then you're just doing what those processes want (so at least I wouldn't feel bad about putting lots of articles into them). It's only, as some have said, the PRs masquerading as reviews that are the issue, so target them. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what number 4 is meant to mean, and I do not think number 1 is a problem (FAC has taken its own steps, and Sandy noted that she feels the bigger problem lies with GAC and DYK). I think number 2 can easily be remedied by lowering the points awarded for DYK- to quote Nomader, "I feel lowering the point totals would go a long way towards alleviating our overloading of hooks". That just leaves the GAC issue, no? J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that these issues will be solved with rigorous reviews in the next cup and points being given to them for doing so. BS reviews or nominations should be struck down in the case of the nom or not given points in the case of the review. In order for this to work and to make sure that everyone is following the rules, we'll need several more judges though, possibly as many as 6-7? Any thoughts?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am thinking that if the review points are deliberately low - say, 1 point fora substantive GA review vs 40 for a GA, it might discourage gaming, as those interested in amassing points might not pursue it for that reason, while it just rewards (slightly) editors who perform more reviews in case of equal points of audited content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with lowering points for DYKs; a lot, like maybe to 2-3 points or so. I wasn't aware that there was a common problem with articles that barely qualified for the limit, but I do know that we competitors overloaded DYK with over four noms per day through the first four rounds. As for GAN overload problems I think that we can do one or both of two things. Award points for quality GA reviews and/or require a certain ratio of reviews for every nom. 1:1 would be ideal, but probably unworkable in the final round unless rewarded by points. I'd also like to spread the burden of reviews and writing out more evenly during the year so that large numbers of articles aren't saved up until the final round. I really like the idea mentioned elsewhere of having all totals from earlier round count for the final round, but not until then. So each contestant would still have to qualify to advance to the next round like normal, but wouldn't need to sweat so much in the final round, along with the reviewers and judges. I know that I held a ton of articles back at B-class once I figured that I would qualify for the next round in anticipation for the final round and I'd bet that many others did as well. Better, I think, to submit them when written to average out the burden of reviewing them over the year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, I try to keep a 1:1 ratio of GA reviews, and I know I owe a few, so my bad there. I am not a fan of having all points count in the final, as that effectively eliminates me because my editing style is not such that I would be anywhere near the top performers.  I'd rather an overall title be tracked, but kept separate.  Resolute 04:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just need to point out that requiring participants here to review articles is a major reason why the Awards Center was deleted. Participants colluded to pass each others' articles, and they came nowhere near close to the GA criteria. Think very carefully about this, please. --Moni3 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are too many Cup articles flooding the various content review processes, but the only in-house incentive to get people to review them is rewarding points. I haven't been paying as close attention to the scoring discussions, but I'm pretty sure there was an idea floating around that a judge would look at a random sample of reviews from each contestant to ensure that they were actually helpful (ie not just *Support ~ ); hopefully this policing would reduce any potential gaming to the system. I also think that if we implement this, any contestant reviewing a FAC/GAN/whatever should clearly and unambiguously declare that they are a part of the Cup. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick note on GA stats from the wikicup this year: in round 1, there were 104 GAs (out of 360 promoted in that time frame); round 2, 181 out of 820; round 3, 88 out of 204; round 4, 76 out of 376. In other words, slightly over one in four of all promoted GAs during that period were entered for the Cup; it's not dominating it to quite the degree it seems sometimes, but it's certainly very prominent. Shimgray | talk | 01:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding DYK: there has been discussion at WT:DYK/WC over possibly tightening our regulations on WikiCup participants. Obviously, that'd be an issue for us at DYK to agree on, but I thought I would also bring it up here as it would affect the tournament. As it stands, a lot of nominations from a certain user have been short of the 1,500 character minimum (which one expects he knows about). There's been a suggestion that WikiCup participants might have stricter restrictions of maybe a 3,000-4,000 character minimum. While this would help us weed out those who create barely-minimum articles and submit them in bulk, it would be good to get input from WikiCup about this. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've made my opinion abundantly clear over there, but to grossly simplify my position here: I'm not a fan at all. Resolute 04:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents: For FAC, I think it has self-resolved- simply by cutting it to 1 nomination at a time per person all cup nominations became indistinguishable from regular nominations. FAC is hard enough to get through that no one can really do drive-by noms and have any chance of success. An incentive to review articles would, I think, completely offset any additional burden tha the cup places on FAC. As for DYK, I agree with J Milburn. 10 points was too much- you could (and quite a few contestants did) bang out 4 "okay" articles that barely met the length requirements in a lot less time than it took to write a GA or FL-class article. Unlike FAC or GAN, the effect the cup had was very noticeable- they had to go from 3 per day to 4 per day and the lag time ballooned to more than a week/1.5 weeks between nomination and selection. The points awarded needs to be cut to 2 or 3 points for next year, to reflect that it just isn't that hard to write a DYK article as opposed to a GA/FA article. For GA- was that really a problem? I never saw that- what I saw was that people would write a lot of GA's, especially similar GA's, and that certain categories would be overrun, to the point that at least one editor refused to review GA's any more that were form Cup participants. There's no way to de-incentivise poor nominations, if true- the GA process should just not promote them if they aren't good enough. What we can do is incentivise reviews to counteract the increase. Looking at the numbers listed by Shimgray above, I think it's important to note that basically the top 16 contestants account for about 2/3 of all nominations for the cup, despite there being 146 total at the start. This, I think, is what made it appear that GAN was overrun- you saw the same names pop up all over the place consistently. There is no way to prevent that; what we can do is to try to get people to do more reviews to counteract that impression. As for "competitivy"... most people didn't get too worked up about the cup, even when they got knocked out by narrow margins (like me). We can't really get people not to take it too seriously, as almost by definition the people who make it to the top 8 are the most driven. I don't see what the cup could do to stop people from getting worked up, any more than it already does.

TL;DR - I agree with J Milburn- lower DYK points and give points for substantive reviews and the problems that cropped up this year should go away. Spot-check the reviews so that it's not too much work for the judges but keeps people honest. -- Pres N  04:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PresN, do you consider it to Wiki's advantage that all FAC nominators have to be limited to contain specific problems? How many more FAs could we churn out if capable nominators weren't restricted, and reviewers didn't burn out from ill-prepared noms?  I also strongly encourage the Cup to heed Moni's post-- unqualified reviews do more harm than good.  Another point:  clearly some people do get worked up about winning the Cup.  Durova did, and Scorpion highlighted TonyTheTiger's comments from last year.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely on this concern. I don't review for FAC specifically because I know I don't have the expertise to properly judge prose especially.  I try to help out where I can there, but I have a much better handle on GAN.  I would not support requiring reviews to score contribution points for this reason: I would become a net detriment at that point, and would have to withdraw. Resolute 04:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sandy: why doesn't FAC limit the number only to Cup nominators? 2) Review points: how about allowing only GANs but always request a second opinion (i.e. quick-passes are not allowed and judges get a good idea of how useful was the initial review by observing the comments from the second-presumably complete reviews would only need a thumbs up from a second reviewer who would not a be a Cupper also). Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are notable standouts, but 1) tracking who is in Wikicup is tedious, 2) most Wikicup participants are not abusive, 3) similar abuse has (sporadically) occurred from non-Wikicup participants, and 4) WikiCup is not the only part of the Reward Culture. It's hard to tell how much of the FAC backlog is due to WikiCup, so singling it out, rather than individual abuses, didn't seem to make sense.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think those arguments show fairly clearly that this is not a problem due to the WikiCup, but a problem that exists anyways. The kind of people the WikiCup attracts could easily be described as "trophy hunters" anyways (and I do not mean this negatively- I freely admit I love having articles recognised at DYK, GA and FAC). J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Timing query
This page doesn't tell me when this WikiCup ends, and when the next begins. Could someone clarify? I'd not like to start an RFC/U or discuss changes in FAC instructions until this WikiCup cycle is closed (I sense that is pending?). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiCup: end of October. There will presumably be two months of break. Nergaal (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... I was blindly clickly through all of the links in the box at the top of this page, and never thought to look at the main page here :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that you don't want to interfere with this cycle, but I don't think anyone would fault you for starting an RFC/U now.~DC  We Can Work It Out 06:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll sleep on it -- only because that's my policy :) And I'm going to have plenty of free time over the next two weeks.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This one ends at the end of October, the next one starts January 1. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Create our own review system
If low quality output is our problem we should make our own review system. The system would work like that: This method would increase the quality of the articles given out and it would make it easier for the other systems to deal with our input, because they know they get only reviewed stuff. --Stone (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Create a DYK or GAN or FAC like article.
 * Put the article on the wikicup review page and announce that what kind of review you want.
 * Wait for 10 (or better 15) people giving a comment. (might be possible that a lot of negative comments yield a cup penalty)
 * Than you are allowed to put it into the official system.
 * Articles without that review either do not count at all or failing articles without that review yield a high penalty from the cup.
 * I like the idea, but 10 or 15 sounds high. It effectively makes you all police of your own process, so other content review processes don't have to be. WP:FAT worked that way-- their articles didn't go to FAC until the "coordinators" said they were ready.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right the number was only a guess. 4 would the lowest number I would go to.--Stone (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * :That's not very workable; I suspect that it would quickly spiral into reviews from only judges and a couple hard-working competitors. Plus, it's hard enough to get more than three or four people to comment at FAC – why would the Cup be able to attract five times more? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If only judges review it will take for ever to get points and this will people force to do reviews. And I would only review articles of people who also have reviewed others. If you do not review you will sit in the queue foever.--07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would go that far to nominate in a way like: stone (N:5/R:0) nominates article Platinum for GAN telling you that I have 5 Nominations already, but I did zero Reviews.--Stone (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But WikiCup wouldn't have to do the reviews-- just agree they could go forward. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes much more sense, but there is still a problem: if the article isn't up to par, we would have to do a full review so the nominator would know what is needed to get the article to a GAN/FAC/etc. level. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a little bit of reviewing like telling people what is good and what still have to be done.--07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs)

Shut down
Actually, I think we should just delete the WikiCup. It doesn't actually encourage article participation, as the participants do that all the time anyway, ie it didn't reform any career hat collectors, IRC chatterboxes, political posers. Instead it has only created endless floods of micro-DYKs, DYK fine slicing, GA stub flooding etc etc. That leaves FA, but then only a guy who writes popular topics and has a circle of interested/friends/wikiproject can win, as their FAs will get passed each week, and people with unpopular topics and no bandwagon will only pass one month. Actually, just kill the WikiCup before it turns into a farce like a gold medal won by a "female" Chinese/East German swimmer  YellowMonkey   ( new photo poll )  02:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Time to just count prose, instead of # of GA/FA/DYK, or else kill the worthless cup  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aww, no I think aiming for "staging points" such as GA or FA is a good thing for the 'pedia as it moves towards a more maintenance phase. I am intrigued as to how the multiplier carrots might change editing habits too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not against deleting the cup, just stopping cheap shot noms that game the system.--White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 10:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This sucks! I pop in and check the table here and there. I even had a favorite a few rounds ago. I hope things get figured out since the talk page has definitely made it look like it strays from being about fun and improvement at times. Time to introduce yellow and red cards (tongue in cheek since that would be total drama).Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Monkey, every problem you mention we are working to remedy. Discussions about lowering DYK points, awarding more points to longer articles, awarding more points to important articles and awarding points for reviews (which would hopefully help remedy your FAC issue) are all ongoing. Honestly, if you feel there are problems, share them, and we can do what we can to remedy them. The WikiCup has its problems, but I still see it as a wonderful thing, and, looking at the content that is being doled out, something of which I am proud to be a part. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I am sure that there has been some good content added due to WikiCup, unfortunately discussions such as Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 14 and Wikipedia talk:Did you know are more typical of the game's effects. Simply put, WikiCup is creating a large scale problem for the service pages that it utilizes.  WikiCup actively encourages creation of large number of cookie cutter articles that just barely meet minimal requirements.  This creates problems by first clogging submission queues and consuming large amounts of reviewer resources.  Complicating this issue is the fact that the minimally qualifying articles usually require multiple rounds of reviews to resolve problems that never happen is WikiCup contestants took a little time to perform basic quality checks themselves. (How many times do DYK reviewers have to tell the same WikiCup contestant that the minimal article size is 1500 characters of readable prose?)  Low intensity conversations about potential changes at some distant future time are all fine and good, but if WikiCup continues to prove itself unwilling to address the plethora of problems it is creating then it is safe to assume the people being directly affected by the game's negative impact will be forced to take stronger action.--Allen3 talk 13:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Low intensity conversations about potential changes at some distant future time"? We're discussing how the Cup will work next year- this year's competition will soon be over. Those discussions will determine exactly how it will work next year. What you are saying is unfair (and a little fallacious)- yes, it is discussions like that where the WikiCup is mentioned most, but that's because people don't sit around and say "oh, XYZ is good"- people only talk when there is something wrong. That would be like saying "oh, MP expenses should be banned- when's the last time you read about them being used properly?" Furthermore, the fact people complain does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong- the GAC discussion seemed to mostly centre around the fact that there were too many articles (not that the articles were bad or there was any kind of abuse of the process). To give another comparison, that would be the same as complaining that there's too much food at a buffet- not that there's anything wrong with any of the food, just that there's too much of it. There was further upset in that discussion because of the (baseless...) assertion that being in the Cup would somehow make someone a worse reviewer. Again, if there are problems with the Cup, tell us, and we'll do what we can to fix them. There's discussion on how to deal with all of the issues you've mentioned. Only if the Cup was irreparably doing more bad than good, or if the basic idea of the Cup was broken, would outright deletion be necessary. As a final point, making judgements about the entire Cup based on the actions of individual people taking part is ridiculous. Would you support a WikiProject being closed down because a single user (or even a couple of users) were causing problems? No; you would raise the issue with the user(s). J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any system based on rewarding its participants creates a culture where obtaining the reward is the goal. The byproducts of the Wikicup may be more DYKs, GAs, or FAs, but you have a time-limited system in which to rack up as many points as possible. Anyone who participates and bases their self-worth on winning this game gets no value from forestalling article assessment to review for quality. Those who are inherently talented or mature can write with quality and best sourcing, but people in this contest who are immature and have difficulty understanding the best sourcing and writing are not encouraged to improve their contributions. They are not encouraged to learn. There is a documented connection in academia between the plateau or decrease of quality in rewards-based systems. You can improve the rules and screen out editors you think are problematic, but you're still working within a game that rewards its participants extrinsically. I don't participate here because I see no value in it. I understand that some people do and it fosters some friendly competition, but there are excesses as there are in any culture. I think it's unwise to try to mentally wrestle around the issue that the system itself creates the conditions that participants abuse. --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted, but the point is that there are still standards (especially at the likes of GAC and FAC) that have to be met. These standards have been agreed on as something to aim for- surely anything that brings more articles to those standards has to be a good thing. I have seen plenty who have criticised various processes because they feel that we should be working on increasing standards generally, not getting single articles up to a top-notch level. J Milburn (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I, for one, would appreciate it if you didn't generalize all participants based on the concerns that rest largely with an individual editor, Allen3. Since YellowMonkey chose to spam his complaint across multiple talk pages, my response to the "damage" this project causes is lost in another thread.  Please see my comments at this discussion on the scoring page.  Also on that page, look one section up.  I think I can safely say that for most of us, the WikiCup is a friendly competition, and I would say that most of us recognize the need to modify things to reduce pressure on the DYK and GAN systems.  Keep in mind that this year's cup had vastly more contestants than in previous years - growth creates pressure.   Rather than making threats, your time here would be better served helping to achieve consensus on ways to reduce that pressure. Resolute 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the other responses, but I'd like to point out that I personally do more writing during the Wikicup than without it. I'm naturally inclined to do a little of a lot, but also competitive by nature, and the cup meant that I focussed my efforts on getting a couple of articles into a good state rather than, say, wasting my time on Facebook. So it must be of benefit in some cases, at least. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To the complainers: next year reviews in GAN/PR/FAC will most likely also be included. Feel free to drop constructive proposals regarding this issue. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this, if anyone violates DICK, they're disqualified? We'd let the judges decide of course.  <font style="color:#660000">~DC  <font color="#003300" face="Tahoma">We Can Work It Out 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, but I don't think it is practical. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just dickish behavior, rude, or aggressive commentary that is at the crux of the issue. It's overloading FAC, GAN, and DYK with articles that don't qualify, aren't ready, need a lot of help, and not helping to review because they don't get points for it (rightly so). When an article is not passed, it's immediately renominated without any substantial change. Either the participants who are abusing these systems don't understand what they're doing is problematic, don't understand what the standards for these processes are, don't care because they're more motivated that if they nominate an article enough times reviewers will get sick of them and pass it just to shut them up and they can get more points in this contest, or a combination of these and other factors. So how do you address this kind of abuse? YellowMonkey obviously suggests not having the contest at all. You could kick people out, which would really irritate them, and you'd really have to solidly justify it with "anyone who exhibits these characteristics and behaviors gets kicked out". I notice above arguing about points: how many points people get for what. It's an economic issue: at some point the folks in the contest are going to have to decide how much they are rewarded for their participation, offset against the work that goes into the contest plus the arguing and dickering on the WikiCup talk page. Is it really worth it? For now, for many, yes. In the future, for more, maybe no. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Moni: if that is a problem, then just propose halving the points every time a nomination is unsuccessful; if people care about the points so much, penalizing them would solve the problem. This would only require users to submit every entries they submit, before they get reviewed. Abusers would get disqualifed? Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)How about a reminder that all competitors should practice good sportsmanship, because reviewers at WP:DYK and WP:GAN are under no obligation to review your submissions if you piss them off. <font style="color:#660000">~DC  <font color="#003300" face="Tahoma">We Can Work It Out 20:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with giving just a single point for DYKs. Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Every newsletter has contained that reminder- as a judge, I've been doing my best to offer reviews, and I know other participants have too. Moni, right now, it's the last round. Things are certainly going to get hot. However, what you speak of (the renominating and renominating) is worrying- do you have any concrete examples? That kind of behaviour is problematic regardless of the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what this means:"That leaves FA, but then only a guy who writes popular topics and has a circle of interested/friends/wikiproject can win, as their FAs will get passed each week, and people with unpopular topics and no bandwagon will only pass one month." YM, could you clarify? Are you saying that FAC is gamed? Also, I hope WikiCup doesn't give points for reviews: FAC needs qualified reviewers who understand WP:WIAFA, not people entering declarations to earn points. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what he means, because I sure see it at FLC, is that the more popular the subject, and/or better known the nominator, the easier it is to attract reviews. The people whose names, that when you see them, you just know their nominations are going to be in order get better service, rightly or wrongly.  The people who commonly treat FAC/FLC/GAN as a glorified peer review service, well... reviewing their nominations is too much like unpaid work, so their nominations tend to proceed slower. Courcelles 20:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but I still don't understand. It may be different at FLC (I really don't know), but at FAC, I work hard to know "who's friends with whom", who's a member of what WP, who's competing in a reward program, who's scratching each other's back, etc., and assure that articles are well reviewed, including independent review, before passing them.  It might not always happen, because when an article sits at the bottom of FAC without independent review for a month, I eventually have to pass it anyway. I also try to keep abreast of which nominators frequently bring ill-prepared articles to FAC and treat it as peer review, but without Opposes, I can't close those FACs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, you are probably the best person to ask- do you feel that the Cup has caused any problems for FAC this year? J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Do you really think I'm going to answer that? :) I think I've made it known I'm not a fan of the "Reward culture", but if it produces a legit FA, "it's my job" to put my personal views aside, live with the headache, and let others have this debate. My "job" is to determine if there's consensus that an article meets WP:WIAFA, and maintain the integrity of the process. Competitions add to my work :) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gaming isn't necessarily the problem, but I do see a correlation at FLC between the nominator / subject matter and the number of reviews received; at least at FLC, that is a huge factor, as I usually archive more noms because of a lack of reviews than because the issues raised were insurmountable during FLC. Of course, certain editors benefit from this trend, and others are hurt. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) ::::Gaming isn't necessarily the problem, but I do see a correlation at FLC between the nominator / subject matter and the number of reviews received; at least at FLC, that is a huge factor, as I usually archive more noms because of a lack of reviews than because the issues raised were insurmountable during FLC. Of course, certain editors benefit from this trend, and others are hurt. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)We agree, but I'm still not sure that is what YM is saying. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See, you and Dambomb are directors. I'm just an insignificant reviewer. And even at that level I know whose nominations are going to be a pain, and that I just don't want to touch them. Surely you've noticed that some people... when they nominate articles, get independent reviews very, very fast? To take a recent example, this FAC had two supports within hours from users whose support is not easily won. It's not a backroom deal, or a WP... it's that the nominator is so well-known that anything they nominate can almost be assumed to meet the criteria, they have proven their knowledge of them so sufficiently in the past. And because they are so known as doing good work, reviewing their work is easy, to the point of enjoyable. And, even as a reviewer, I know whose nominations are going to be chock-full of problems... and which reviewers are actually looking critically, even if they find nothing to complain about, and which reviewers are just !voting. Courcelles 21:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This has gotten a little off-topic here. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't seem to be what YM is saying (still not clear). Editors' and reviewers' reputations are known, but that is based on their past work, not friendships.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For instance, there are a bunch of us who enjoy writing (and reading) biology articles, hence sometimes these articles accrue reviews alot more quickly than other articles that are more obscure, and hence acheive enough support to archive within a week or 10 days rather than languish with little interest for a fortnight or longer I think is what YM is getting at. (Though I challenge anyone to call J Milburn's or Sasata's support easy to gain - they have me running around tidying up all sorts of stuff :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about flat out FAC abuse, which is generally attempted by nationalist/ethnic fanclubs etc. I mean that DYK and GA can be abused by microslicing and attempts to take pot luck and hope for a joke pass, due to lack of restrictions on flooding and taking endless pot shots of the smae article without changing anything. But suppose the number is changed so that it is more weighted for FA. In that case if one's topic is not entertaining to the folks, one can't win; eg Hamiltonstone reviews lots and lots, but his articles tend to average 4 weeks on FAC even though there are never any substantial problems raised. Other folks with similar lack of problems get 1 week jobs, and can always get 4x as much points. So there isn't a level playing field at FAC, and for the other stuff, it's gaming heaven  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just now reading about the problems at DYK (from links on this talk page). Has WikiCup ever been to WP:MFD to see what the community thinks? Or is there a way to contain abuse from certain determined participants who flood DYK and GAN with ill-prepared articles, and before FAC altered its processes, was doing same there? Or is WP:RFC/U a better option on individual editors? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to think that the people interested in making this work deserve the chance to improve it before being hauled before the court of "IDONTLIKEIT". I mentioned it elsewhere, but this contest enjoyed a dramatic growth in participation this year, and that has created additional pressures that were not entirely expected - especially for a rookie like me. When I consider the work that the judges especially have put in, I think they deserve the chance to see if their ideas and ideals can be put into practice. Resolute 04:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree-- and hope no one does it at this time, but I'm asking if it's ever been done, and if an WP:RFC/U after the cup closes on individual editor abuse of content review processes might not benefit all processes. We've got now at least four processes discussing or implementing changes to accomodate a very small number of editors who abuse content review processes to win a prize. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there has been an MFD, no. As for an RFCU, given my history with the editor in question, I'll pass on commenting.  I am happy to see both DYK regulars and yourself representing FAC adding input though.  Your external thoughs can effectively serve as an unofficial RFC on the Cup as a whole. Resolute 05:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was late to the party; I just now finally came across the comment about me at DYK that not one editor on Wiki told me about ... hmmmm. Well, it's clearly unfair to blame WikiCup for the excesses of a few, and now that I'm caught up, I see that TonyTheTiger's excesses need to be reigned in.  I was not suggesting an RFC on WikiCup; I was suggesting an RFC/U on individual abuses. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The CUP went to MfD in its very early days, before all the regulars here got involved. It was kept. I worry a MfD for the Cup could become very unpleasant very quickly, as it is something on which many have strong opinions, and I fear there would be accusations of bad faith and faulty reasoning allround. You are of course welcome to start a RfC/U if you feel that is the best course forward, and I would feel compelled to contribute as a WikiCup judge. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am against deleting the Cup as a whole. Just because there are a few issues with editors ect.. does not mean everyone mush pay you know? I'm ok with an RfC/U.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 00:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)