Good day Wikipedians,
I have of late got into a football management computer game. Don't
panic, I will be relating this post to Wikipedia, hang on. I'm really
enjoying the game. To such an extent that I've actually started to
follow football. I've never particularly liked football. I only
started playing the computer game cos there was a free demo. Now I
like the computer game so much I'm following football in the real
world.
After quite a few hours of playing it struck me that all I was really
doing most of the time was evaluating numbers: player abilities rated
out of 5, 10 or 20 depending on the stat in question. Numbers of
goals. Numbered position in league. Tier of football I'm playing in.
I don't know why this should be so compelling. Watching numbers
change. But the game is incredibly successful (some editions have
broken records for fastest selling computer game according to our
articles).
The numbers are clearly giving us players an emotional response. They engage.
Last year, during the Strategy process and before I started playing
this game, I proposed that what Wikipedia needed was "more rewards"
for editors. I proposed a few things. In the end we got Wiki-love,
which I support and like, but they isn't really like what I proposed
at Strategy. To be honest I can barely remember what it was I proposed
back then...
I still think we could do with more rewards and maybe this damned game
has given me an answer.
More editor stats.
All of us who have been around for some time know that edit counts are
not very reliable indicators of effort. Nevertheless we still do keep
a public record of editors with high counts. I think there's a reason
for that. I think it's because we still, despite protestations, know
that an edit count does tell us *something* about a Wikipedian. Even
if it's just "(s)he edits a lot".
I believe I'm right in saying that the Foundation is in the process of
setting up something like Toolserver. I suggest we plan to put it to
work. I suggest we expand greatly the stats we keep on individual
editors and form league tables from them. I believe that aiming for a
place in a table will motivate people. I realise that a) this is
unproven and b) there will be objections, particularly regarding
'gaming the system and 'unintended consequences' but perhaps we can
discuss those and mitigate them (more later).
New Stats that could be placed in league tables could include:
* Length of service (difference in days between first edit and last)
* Number of consecutive days/months/weeks where 5 or more edits have
been made (or 50 edits, or a hundred): in short there could be quite a
number of these tables that relate to consistency and number of edits
all of which, I feel, might spur people on to keep contributing.
* Most characters/bytes added (without being removed)
* Most blocks for admins
* Most welcomes, barn stars awarded
* Most reverts / undos
* Average reader-rating of articles user has edited at least ten times
You could also have these as percentage of number of edits and rank
for those too, eg welcomes, blocks or reverts as a percentage of total
edits, (with a minimum number of edits to qualify for inclusion on the
table).
Now, it could be (WILL be!) that someone decides "I'm going for the
revert league title" and starts doing things we wouldn't ideally like
(to put it mildly). However their presence at the head of the league,
I feel, will actually subject their edits to greater scrutiny. People
will look at their contributions and it may well result in needed
censure, showing their activity to be undesirable and action could be
taken accordingly. Also, you may have people in the top table who
aren't even *trying* and their presence at or near the top might cause
some examination of their contribs.
Perhaps you can think of some league tables that would really push
desirable behaviours at minimal risk of negative ones?
If you don't like this idea I'd like to hear the concerns, HOWEVER! I
would also like you to just entertain the idea and - even if you're
against - think of some individual editor stats that could be tracked
you think *may* provide useful feedback, even if you ultimately don't
think we *should*.
So: I propose we greatly increase feedback on user performance to
drive people on. Support editor stats today.
User:Bodnotbod
