On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Re the suggestion that edit count is the only universal metric for success. Editcount is a very long way from being the only universal metric for success.
Length of Tenure and cleanliness of block record are just as universal.
Adminship and other userights, are also universal, though I'd concede that adminship on some projects is seen as easier to get than on others, but then automated and semiautomated edits are perceived as less worthy than manual ones.
Featured content is at least Wikipedia wide, though I confess I don't know wiktionary or Wikisource well enough to know if they have an FA style system.
I'm pretty sure that Barnstars are universal, though maybe someone could do a survey of the wikis to check that.
Linguistic skills. Babel boxes are another thing that matter in all our multingual wikis.
Wikiness is a new one on me - http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/xcontribs.php?user=WereSpielChequers I've just come across it in the Stewards elections, so it is both somewhat specialised and at the same time something that editors from many different wikis can appreciate and clearly many are judging each other by. You could argue that it is a function of editcount and linguistic skills, but I think it more than that as I probably outscore some editors who are far from monolingual.
Toolserver access and the ability to code are universally valued. As I believe are various other editing skills.
If you want more I'd suggest creating some modules of Computer based training, with of course appropriate userboxen for those who complete them with a high enough score. It would be great to have one for Newpage patrollers to guide them through the minefield that is speedy deletion tagging, and there are several other areas where a shift from learning on the job to learning via a gamelike training modules would raise quality, reduce angst and I believe greatly reduce levels of newby biting. If we invested in some for new admins we might even address the two most common reasons for block histories amongst our most active editors.
WereSpielChequers
The point is not that there aren't other things worth valuing or that some set of very, very experienced people in the community value. It's that there are ways we could make things other than edit count a core part of defining identity in the projects. Because they're not right now.
Toolserver access? Clean block log? Barnstars?
How many times have you had to take time and explain what those even are? Most people who've ever edited don't even really understand the concepts much less think of them as metrics for success. Ask 100 random Wikipedians -- especially those with an edit count lower than 1,000 or who aren't in a big project like English or German -- about any of those things, and I bet you they won't know what half of them even are.
It is not universal if it's only visible and understandable to people who are already extremely active in Wikipedia.
I absolutely agree. We keep running into this problem (edit count as the only universal metric for success) all over the place. You mentioned the Wikimedia Labs project (i.e. the Toolserver
equivalent),
but I think one thing we could do now would be to go take a look at the mockup currently built for GlobalProfiles and let engineering staff know what stats/info you think could/should be included in order to mitigate
the
"editcountitis" issue. Note that it's just a proposed design doc, so if
you
agree that we need better indicators of the work people do for the encyclopedia now's the time to speak up.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mediawiki/wiki/GlobalProfile/design
Steven _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l