[WikiEN-l] --Wikipedia Manager 2012

[Steven Walling]

On Sep 30, 2011 9:47 AM, "Bod Notbod" <bodnotbod at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

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