Wikipedia talk:Wikiwork Brigade

This page is just a beginning. As we better understand our needs we will create software automation which will make it possible to track hundreds of thousands of pending tasks or more, we will have the ability to define automatically reoccuring tasks, and we will be able to view the task history by article, by user, and by task type. In addition to the technology, our practices and policies will evolve. We will invent ways to decide what is important, ways to rank the tasks. We will come up with ways to encourage all our contributors to spend at least a part of their time working on tasks which we, as a group and as a project with a unified goal of creating a free content encyclopedia, think are important. Through Wikiwork Brigade we can begin crossing the next set of barriers which inhibit the success of our project. To complete these lofty goals, your comments are needed but so is your work. Please complete a task, and provide a comment on this project. --Gmaxwell 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Points for barnstars?
This seems a great idea, there's lots to do! Automation of understanding what needs doing would be great! There are projects that categorise their own articles, maybe some of them could benefit from this automation or share techniques back. One quibble though... points for barnstars? Maybe some other kind of award would be better, I'd always heard that barnstars should be spontaneous gifts, not earned. + +Lar: t/c 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We could call the rewards something else... Doesn't really matter what we call it :) Suggestions? --Gmaxwell 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Service stars? (But that might be too military-ish for some people.) Kirill Lok s hin 03:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's always "badges of merit"... + +Lar: t/c 03:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They'll be a separate class of barnstar, and everyone will know that they're earned by doing Wikiwork tasks, so I don't see any problem as long as they have a unique name. --bainer (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't agree... First, I don't know that everyone WILL know how they were earned. Second, call me a fuddy duddy but barnstars have always been a certain way and I'm not sure I think changing that tradition now is a good idea when something else could be used instead. So I'd advocate not calling them that. + +Lar: t/c 14:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Somewhat more curiously, is someone actually going to hand out these not-barnstars to the deserving? ;-) Kirill Lok s hin 16:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Libel check
Is there a good primer on what constitutes libelous material and what doesn't? Since libel is a legally-defined term, it's a little bit daunting to read an article and pronounce it ok. -- SCZenz 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Perhaps we should change our language here. What we want is for people to check for material which is likely to really anger the subject, stuff that can potentially damage their reputation... and make sure it's cited with a source appropriate to the seriousness of the claim. If the material meets the legal definition of libel or not isn't our main concern... we already have rules that reject original research and demand citations, but the project isn't ready or able to apply them with an iron fist everywhere, but we do have some hope of applying them more strictly to living people. --Gmaxwell 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "defamation" or "slander" might do. They're both legal terms as well, but perhaps more commonly understood in a "non-legal" context, if you knowutimean. Her Pegship 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hooray
I have to say, about damn time we have something like this. Good show! —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia crackdowns
If you've noticed, I've taken the liberty of adding to the Wikiwork Brigade page: a crackdown section. While specific article goals are great, sometimes you just need to focus on getting a certain number down. I've always wanted to find a way to organize the effort on citing sources, and I feel this is the best place. If you have any concerns you'd like to bring up, please do so. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * May I be so bold as to suggest the last 24 featured articles without references be added to the crackdowns or sources section as appropriate? Maybe a few at a time. Some are up for WP:FARC for having no references. - Taxman Talk 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section, not for any dislike of the goal but the method needs to be changed. We need all items on here to be specific and actionable. Something where it's fairly clear what you're supposed to do, and fairly clear when you've finished it. So if you want to get a 'number' down, please convert some number of them into tasks and list them directly. We have a large number of things which exist only as numbers already, we need to convert them to jobs to get them done. I would have done it myself but there are too many outstanding of mine that no one has worked on yet. :)  --Gmaxwell 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Libel check lists the wrong sort of people
I do not think that the libel check sets its priorities right. The libel check now lists famous and or heavily controversial people in Wikipedia. I think for these people the libel has most probably been checked and edited away. I think it is better to start with less famous and in Wikipedia less controversial people. I think you will have more chance to remove libel there with less effort. Andries 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)