Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:51, 9 November 2015

Please try to keep a level head in discussion here.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2016 WikiCup points discussions

So once again, it's the time of the year that we discuss the possibility of changing the points for the WikiCup. So, what worked this year? What didn't work? Are there new rules/methods of running the competition needed? Feel free to open subsections on different subject matters under this section and I'll add a straw poll section beneath this one.

There are several changes that the judges currently feel strong about however. The first is that Peer Reviews should no longer generate points. We understand completely that some editors will feel that they are needed to reduce the workload at PRs - however from our experience they are extremely open to sub-par submissions, and from personal experience I can state that for the first few rounds of the 2015 they made up about 90% of the claims that I threw out. It is the only area of the cup where there is no intrinsic oversight built into the system, so it is entirely up to the judges to deem whether or not a PR submission is eligible. As such we simply have to admit that not everything can be included in the cup.

The second change is that the Featured Picture bonus points system we introduced for the 2015 did not work. While in a perfect world, the bot would have been able to calculate it all but we managed to create a system which was far too complicated for it to update. So instead, we would like to move to a non-bonus system for featured pictures - and I specifically remember Adam saying last year that it wasn't right, and I'm not embarrassed to say that he was right. So the first straw poll will be on this subject, specifically about what to do about the scoring level for those. But please keep it civilised; I know such discussions have gotten heated in previous years. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed with PRs planning to be dropped from the cup as I was the one who pushed for it. But I think the problem is that it got lumped in with GARs and had the same points total, which isn't what I proposed as I had said they should be less than GARs. I had proposed a separate scoring system where there had to be a minimum of valid points made in each review and/or a minimum character/word count but that got lost in implementation. I would ask if the judges would be prepared to reconsider and give PRs another go with less points on offer to disincentive mass joke reviews. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a minimum size required this year, however you wouldn't believe the amount of padding out we saw in some cases. Even if a minimum number of points was mandated in each case, we then have to set what the minimum requirement for those points. We simply don't feel we should have to be the oversight for PR as in every other case where points can be scored in the cup there is an intrinsic means already built into the system for providing that. Miyagawa (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The minimum number of points I had initially suggested was 3 but if means are needed to ensure that it is a comprehensive review, then I would suggest a minimum of 9 valid and fully explained points for a PR to be valid and that it be worth around half that of a GAR (ie. 2 points) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The judges don't have time to count bullet points and make a call on whether each comment is "valid". I am inclined to say that (regrettably) the removal of PR points is the right decision. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured pictures

I find it rather disappointing that, with all the effort I put into the final round of the WikiCup 2015, I was unable to win the competition. I believe that a determined featured picture producer will always be able to beat a determined content creator because the review processes work in favour of featured pictures. I will explain:

Featured article candidates are limited to one solo and one joint nomination at a time. The candidacy process typically takes about four weeks, sometimes a little less and often rather more, and achieving more than 4 FAs in a two-month final round is theoretically possible but unlikely in practice. In common with other content creation categories used for scoring in the WikiCup, you are required to have done significant work on the article during the course of the competition to claim points.

Good articles can be nominated without limit to their number, the problem here being the backlog of articles awaiting review. If your articles do not get reviewed you do not score WikiCup points. DYK has a similar drawback. You can nominate an unlimited number of articles but there is a large backlog of nominations awaiting review and another backlog of reviewed articles awaiting promotion, and no promotion, no WikiCup points.

Featured pictures are different. There is no limit to the number of pictures that can be nominated at one time. There is a fixed period during which voting takes place and, with sufficient support, images are promoted ten days after nomination. There is no requirement for the nominator to have done significant work on the image during the course of the competition.

During the 2015 competition, which Godot13 won on the basis of his featured pictures, one batch of his images in the final round dated back to 2010, and others I checked dated back to 2013 and 2014. Only Godot knows how much effort he put into these images during 2015, but it is irrelevant anyway as there is no requirement in WikiCup rules for work having to be done on featured pictures during the course of the competition. Godot probably has a large supply of images on file from which he can draw if he feels his score needs boosting.

The bonus system in the Wikicup is designed to award more points for work on larger, more important articles, using the number of different language Wikipedias on which an article appears as a proxy for its importance. With featured pictures, it is not relevant whether the image appears in a more important article or a less important one, as no extra effort is needed for the former. I therefore think that there should be no bonuses of any sort for featured pictures and that their score should remain at the current level of 20. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

there is no requirement in WikiCup rules for work having to be done on featured pictures during the course of the competition Why do you believe this? There is no exception for featured pictures written into the rules in this regard. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

How interesting! I wonder what steps the judges took to check that all the FP submissions were eligible? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: @Sturmvogel 66: @Figureskatingfan: It would be interesting to have an answer to that question. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I normally checked one picture per set or each singleton. I didn't see anything older than 2015. If you've got specific accusations, please provide the details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am making an enquiry as a result of my new understanding of the rules. Have a look at the set "A complete typeset of the Confederate States dollar banknotes (1861–1864)". Scroll to the bottom of the page and click "show extended details" and you will see that the set was digitized on 19 December 2013. The 2010 images I noticed were "France – Winged genius on the sol (1791), écu (1792), livre (1793), and franc (1889) " Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "date digitized" in the EXIF will relate to when the museum (for example the National Museum of American History) digitized the image, not when Godot13 did anything with it. Godot13 only uploaded it in 2015, so 2015 is the relevant date. At the end of the day, I could spend the next year writing articles in notepad, and then upload them all through 2017 and win with ease. We can only deal with what happens on Misplaced Pages (and in this case, Commons), not off-Wiki. Harrias 20:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A quick comment - Some of the foreign gold coin images were taken in 2010, but were released under an ongoing OTRS ticket (and a long negotiation) and only uploaded in 2015. Some of the raw files acquired during prior trips to the Smithsonian (2013, 2014) were edited and prepared during 2015 and uploaded during 2015 (i.e., no work was performed on them previously, something that was specifically approved last year). Some people just love drama...--Godot13 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth- On a second reading, try being a good sport. Everyone who participated worked very hard.--Godot13 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Godot13: Your assurance as to your actions is entirely satisfactory and I congratulate you on your victory. I had no intention of questioning your integrity, but I had certainly misinterpreted the rules as they related to FPs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Straw polls for 2016

Featured pictures

Featured pictures should be worth the same points (20pts)

• Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, seems about right. Harrias 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, having seen Godot13's response, can I clarify what we're !voting on? Are we saying 20 points, with no possibility of bonus? Harrias 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Essentially this is lowering the possible score.--Godot13 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note - this is based on FPs base score this year of 20 points. I've added that to the subsection header for clarity. Miyagawa (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Further note - Also to add that the bonus system cannot be supported by the bot and so FPs are moving back to a base score only system for 2016. Please vote based on that. Miyagawa (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured pictures should be worth more points

• Support if bonus points are being removed, then FPs should have a higher base worth, at least equivalent to GA. Harrias 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support though the amount of increase should probably be a lot more if the old bonus system for articles is reverted to: the 2015 bonuses reduced the possible value of all article types quite a bit compared to the old system, so returning to the old system would penalize all non-multiplied content types

. Adam Cuerden 21:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Harrias at least the value of a GA.--Godot13 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured pictures should be worth less points

Unsure what this means

We're moving off (I think) of a complicated bonus system, where there were, in theory, multiple values for FPs. What, exactly, is this straw poll voting on? Keeping the base points (which were probably very rarely the actual value, so an effective drop?) Keeping the FP points and bonus system? Can this poll say what it actually means? Adam Cuerden 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The poll discussion above would be based on the base score for FPs, eliminating the bonus points. So that would be 20 points per image. Miyagawa (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So the bonus points aren't up for discussion? That's fair enough, but it could screw things over after some of the other voting. I'd also like to point out that I can't imagine that anyone not in Godot's situation could get beyond a couple rounds of the competition working in FPs as it stands. Institutional access to unique objects that do not need their initial scans substantially edited is incredibly valuable, but it's not likely to be repeated by anyone else, and using that as the baseline level of FP production needed for serious competition is probably going to screw over anyone not in that unique situation. Adam Cuerden 20:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the bonus points were so universally unpopular both by those doing FPs and those trying to see how many points that FPs were worth, and the lack of bot support for it means that it isn't worth the discussion. They didn't work, and the bot couldn't do them meaning that in the run up (specifically in the final round) you didn't have complete clarity about the scores. Miyagawa (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Miyagawa- Eliminating the FP bonus and keeping the base score the same is in essence reducing the value (yet again) of FP. Do we need to go over this all over again?--Godot13 (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

We're not saying anything. Bonus points are gone. The points score has to be set somewhere so that straw polls can be made. That is all. Miyagawa (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured articles

Featured articles should be worth the same points

• Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured articles should be worth more points

Featured articles should be worth less points

• Support, but only slightly, probably to something like 180. They are definitely worth significantly more than a GA or FL, but I think the gap is just slightly too big at the moment, and rather than increase GA and FL, which seem about right in proportion to each other, I think dropping FA very slightly seems to make more sense. Harrias 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional support Only if the old bonus point system is added back in without some reasonable caps for FAs. The possibility of an 1800 point FA would be ridiculous. Adam Cuerden 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: FAC is a huge amount of work, more than anything other than perhaps GA topics. Montanabw 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured lists

Featured lists should be worth the same points

• Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I think the current FL scoring is reasonable. Ruby 2010/2013 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, seems about right. Harrias 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured lists should be worth more points

• Support Because FLC and FAC are both for Misplaced Pages's best work, supposedly. Yet there is such a disparity in points between them. 200 vs 45. Should be raised a lot more.  — Calvin999 10:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured lists should be worth less points

Good articles

Good articles should be worth the same points

• Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. I could almost support the QPQ for GAs, but think linking them might be too restrictive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, seems about right, though see my comment on FA scoring above. Harrias 17:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Good articles should be worth more points

Now that an FA scores 200 points, I thing that the score for a GA should be raised to 50 points rather than the present 30. The effort needed to achieve a GA is not less than a sixth of the effort required to achieve an FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support There's too much of a gap between 30 for GA and 200 for FA. Preparing, writing and researching an article for GAN can take just as long as tweaking an article for FAC. Good articles should be worth 50 points. As it stands, editors would have to make seven articles GA in order to similarly match one FA points wise.  — Calvin999 10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Good articles should be worth less points

Good article reviews

GARs should be worth the same points

• Tentative Support I am all in favour of GARs getting points but I strongly feel that the points for GARs should never be greater than the base points for DYK due to the effort needed for DYK compared with GARs. All GARs require is analysing an article along the GA checklist and making comments on how to improve then saying yes or no. DYKs on the other hand require writing and rewriting articles, searching hard for sources and pulling it all together which takes a lot more time than a GAR. If base points for DYK go up on the other hand, I am more than happy to switch this !vote to support increase in GAR points. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be blunt, but it seems that, unless you're exaggerating, you are not putting enough effort into your GA reviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Am I? When you get GAs from others that only make 3 points or often want it changed to their visions or even state a picture is a requirement when it isn't, which I have had, it does suggest to me that the effort in GARs is not the same as in DYKs. When you try to piece together enough of a scarce amount of sources to make a coherent article which meets DYK requirements, it is time-consuming and requires a lot of dedication to do which is why I strongly feel that GARs shouldn't be worth more than DYKs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

GARs should be worth more points

• Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring, but maybe this could be worth a few more points. Am thinking 5 or 6 points. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support But only to 5 points. Having 6 points is an odd number (I know it's an even number, before anyone corrects me!)  — Calvin999 10:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I too would support a very small increase in GAC points, especially as we are dropping PR points (which I think, regrettably, is the right move given the difficulty in practice). Like Aaron/Calvin, I am strongly opposed to bundling GA reviews and GA nominations together. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, 5 points seems appropriate. Harrias 17:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I think this area gets "gamed". I'd suggest using the GA cup standard and, akin with what is done with DYK, giving longer, more complex reviews more points, and minimally-qualifying ones staying the same. Encourage people to not just check the boxes. Montanabw 22:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Minimal reviews shouldn't be allowed. Multiple editors in this years cup did reviews which were less than 5 bullet points long and the judges failed to remove them as drive-by and they got to keep the points. It's not fair. I've always given lengthy reviews which take a lot longer yet I still only ended up getting the same as the editors who did 4 or five brief bullet points. You could score more points from doing short reviews in less time than you could score more points from doing lengthier ones. And how would you distinguish between what reviews get how many points? You could get someone get 10 points for writing two paragraphs, or 15 points from 20 bullet points, and the one who did two paragraphs would say he/she wrote more but got less points. It wouldn't work. The judges need to be more scrupulous when it comes to what constitutes a drive-by and disallowing those who carry them out. You could do three short reviews in one hour while another editor does one long review in one hour. Yet the one who does the shorter, less helpful ones would get more points. I'm against DYKs getting more points if they are longer articles; it doesn't make the hook any longer or better.  — Calvin999 23:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

GARs should be worth less points

GARs should be wrapped into a GA nomination

By this we mean that GARs on their own would be scrapped - but in order to claim points for a Good Article, a Good Article Review would have to be conducted alongside it effectively as a QPQ review similar to the DYK system. This is an idea that has been thrown around by a couple of competitors and this shouldn't be seen as an endorsement by the judges - we have an entirely open mind regarding this. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly. This is complicating it way too much. I don't even fully understand what is being proposed here. I already review way more reviews than I submit nominations. I've made over 80 articles a GA in 5 years, and reviewed more than 240 nominations.  — Calvin999 10:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Did You Knows

DYKs should be worth the same points

• Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support But DYKs as a result of GA should 100% be allowed.  — Calvin999 10:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but DYKs as a result of GA should continue not to be allowed, as it's just two lots of points for the same thing. Harrias 12:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • But you've still worked hard on expanding the article, Harrias. You either get points for all DYKs, or none at all. You can't cherry pick which ones you do and which ones you don't get points for. It's a non-starter because look at how many bonus points you can scored from multi-wiki nominations for GAs and FAs. They work out at an awful lot more points than getting 5 or 10 for a DYK GA.  — Calvin999 12:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Calvin, I think you need to rethink your position, or at least your argument. What you have said makes very little sense. Of course "cherry picking" is possible- there's a coherent difference between DYKs which require a particular level of work and DYKs which simply require promotion to GA (something we already reward). One of them, to draw an imperfect analogy, is a prize for work done. The other is a prize for winning a prize. And I fail to see what bonus points have to do with this issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If you've worked hard, and expanded an article 5x, then nominate it for DYK as such, and then separately score points for a GA. If you've expanded it less than that, then you get the points you deserve from your work for the GA. The DYK nomination doesn't involve any further substantial work on the article, and therefore should not add any additional points. Harrias 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I disagree with both of you. You can't say some DYKs are eligible and others are not. We can now nominate DYKs which have recently passed as a GA but can't submit any of them to our submissions? You can still wait weeks, if not months, for a GAN to be reviewed, and only when it is passed can it be nominated at DYK. Even then the wait for a reviewer and sent to prep can be very lengthy. So it's hardly a quick process. What's the difference from creating or expanding an article 5x, then nominating for GAN? You would still get the same points if you do it the other way round, so it's not fair to disallow a DYK as a result of a GAN. Meanwhile, multiple editors did drive-by GAR and PR reviews and got away with it. My position does not need rethinking.  — Calvin999 23:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support – but no points for DYKs as a result of GA promotion. One should not get incidental points for doing nothing; for GA→DYK, you merely have to nominate the article, while you have to do significantly more work from DYK→GA. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Doing nothing? Are you being serious? I had three DYK submissions removed as a result of them being nominated out of becoming a GA, and I'll have you know that I spent a lot of time improving those three articles. I'm offended by your implication of sitting and kicking back "doing nothing".  — Calvin999 23:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Go ahead and be offended – your problem not mine. Your "spen a lot of time improving those three articles" was towards getting points for GA. The removal of those DYK submissions is due to the fact that you insisted on submitting these new GAs as DYKs for points when the current rules stipulated otherwise. You got your 30+ points for each GA and that's all you should get. You merely had to nominate them to DYK after GA promotion (i.e. doing nothing with regards to adding content). Conversely, going from DYK to GA requires significant improvement to the article in question. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

DYKs should be worth more points

Support if GARs become more valuable, then DYKs should be worth more too for reasons I explained above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYKs should be worth less points

• Conditional support If the old, larger multipliers are being brought back, I'd say DYKs should be reduced a little bit, as they're more "gameable" multiplier-wise than other content, as the bar to getting an article up to DYK level is substantially lower, since you don't need completeness. Adam Cuerden 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, you do need completeness. I had DYK nominations which were held up because of the articles not being complete enough. DYK's are not worth much anyway. 5 points is fine.  — Calvin999 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Good/Featured topics

Good/Featured topics should be worth the same points

• Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Good/Featured topics should be worth more points

Good/Featured topics should be worth less points

Article bonus system

Article bonus system should remain the same

Article bonus system should revert to the 2012/13 scheme

For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Misplaced Pages) on which an article or portal appears as of 31 December 2015, the article or portal is awarded an extra 0.2 times as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article, featured list or featured portal. (Note that this does not apply to in the news, featured picture, good topics, featured topics or good article reviews.) For instance, a featured article (normally 200 points) appearing on 21 Wikipedias is awarded 160 bonus points (an extra 80%). A short DYK (normally 5 points) appearing on 65 Wikipedias is awarded 13 bonus points. Miyagawa (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: There was no consensus for the 2015 change and the old system made the competition much more exciting as it was unpredictable and people had to work through the whole round rather than sitting on points earned at the start. Though I assume the pre-2010 article bonus points will stay. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support' I liked this idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support It worked so much better like this and was so much fairer.  — Calvin999 10:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. As C said above, there was no consensus for this year's change (and I don't believe it would ever have been reached had it been up for discussion). Also, I would like FAs to go back down to a base point value of 100, otherwise a bonus on top of 200 points may become excessive. But I'm willing to listen to arguments for keeping FAs the same – what do others think? Ruby 2010/2013 15:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say that we'd have to cap FAs or drop their points a lot. I think the max multiplier was round x7 to x9, so GAs could probably stay uncapped without breaking things, but FAs would need a cap around, say, x3, or at least, a reduced multiplier. FAs were worth, what, 50 points in 2013? Adam Cuerden 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• FAs were always 100 points until this year. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – per C and Ruby. Bonus increases for every 5 wikis are more fair than the arbitrary jumps of 20 wikis currently in place. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Article bonus system should revert to the 2012/13 scheme but have a cap

This would be as with the 2012/13 version of the bonus system explained above, but capped at a specific number of Wikipedias for a maximum bonus level. Miyagawa (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support There were, as I recall, 7x multipliers. With the higher FA point value, a single high-multiplier FA could dominate the competition to excess. FAs are valuable, but I can't see a 1400 points from one FA being fair. Adam Cuerden 20:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, this seems a better approach, offering a more incremental range of bonuses that probably reflect "importance" more. That said, there should be spotchecks that users haven't created very basic stubs in other languages this year to boost articles they will promote next year. (I've seen it before...) NB: Switched from above after reading Adam Cuerden's point. Harrias 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)