Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) at 07:05, 21 June 2008 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Sharkface217/Awards Center

The result of the debate was Speedy close per snow. As Wisdom noted below, deleting this appears too extreme for a good faith project in userspace. If certain actions by particular members or objectionable, bring it up with them and suggest changes be made on talk pages. And if that doesn't work, locate an admin, or follow the dispute resolution process. You could also inform a few of the members on how to properly bring articles to GA and FA status. I realize there is current dialogue going on, but you can forward that to the relevant talk pages, even this one. With that said, happy editing from — MaggotSyn 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-opening this debate. Two and a half hours is insufficient. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-ups to the re-opening moved to talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prior MFDs;
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Award Center
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Award Center 2

Evidence is mounting that while the Award Center was assembled in good faith, it is the source of too much potential for process abuse and is currently to the detriment of Wikipedia. Seeking awards, editors rapidly engage different process areas to gain awards and, too often, their focus is on the award and not on paying due attention and diligence to the work they are doing. Recently, Wikipedia:Good article nominations has been a focus of attention, where award-seeking editors rapidly review and pass articles, many of them severely deficient. Compounding the problems are editors who either ask other editors to nominate articles with the intention of passing them, or nominate articles and ask friends to pass them. The Award Center is contributing to the growing culture of award- and recognition-seeking and should be deleted.

I wish to emphasize that I believe the editors maintaining and using the Award Center are doing so in good faith, but that the Award Center's effects and influence are a net negative on the project. Editors have twice tried to delete this page. The most recent time, some seemed to agree to delete the "offending" (in the words of another editor) bits and carry on. The page's host, Sharkface217, resisted the changes asking to only "suspend" the challenges people had problems with while discussion was had. It is exceedingly difficult to determine whether and to what extent that discussion occurred, with conversations scattered all over User talk space like here and here, which apparently got deleted instead of being archived properly. Today, problem challenges like "Add an Infobox to 25 Articles" (which fails to inform participants that many articles are operating under a consensus not to have an infobox) are still there and they are the only things attracting work on the page.

I shall outline some examples of recent events directly influenced by this page.

Good articles and Featured articles

I first noticed the Award Center when I observed an editor attempting to promote the article Chocolate to Featured article status. He first posted it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (FAC), despite it being way under par even for consideration. It was not promoted, and soon afterward passed at GA without any problems identified or fixes requested. I delisted it for obvious problems after several editors agreed it was far from even GA status. The original nominator then began a long series of edits to Chocolate trying to get it to FA status. Many of these edits were disputed or reverted for misuse of sources. The same editor got The Muppets' Wizard of Oz passed at GA, with editors expressing concern that he had forged sources and falsified article fixes; he later left a terse message on the article's Talk page when he couldn't get it passed at FAC.

I observed the same editor passing questionable articles to GA status, causing an outcry from another editor after he observed that some kind of GA "contest" was involved. I also observed the editor giving himself barnstars for various GA-related tasks. It was this bizarre interaction that finally led me to the Award Center where I saw items such as: "Have 5 articles Pass their GA Nomination", "Have 2 articles Pass their FA Nomination", and "Review 10 articles at WP:GAN". After I pointed out some of these issues to the Chocolate editor and expressed my concerns, he eventually placed an "I hate Laser brain" userbox (now deleted) on his user page.

Adopting users

A lot of the awards offered at the Award Center are for potentially terrific tasks. The problem is, the tasks that attract activity are those that focus on the highest volume of low-attention, low-substance editing like welcoming users, adopting users, "brighten[ing] up someone's day", and so on. Even tasks that seem useful on the surface, like adopting users, are pursued only to the lowest threshold of what will glean the corresponding award. I cite for example the archived Adopt five users task. A user completed this task, marking his achievement with the phrase "Done! Now where's my award?". To earn his award, he adopted a blocked sockpuppet (who thankfully had time to get a barnstar for finding "RyRy's secret page" before being blocked) and Supeyman (talk · contribs), who engaged in user page creation, incorrectly placing article talk templates in article space, finding secret pages, and collecting awards before finally retiring.

Article deletion process

Another troubling area the Award Center affects is the article deletion process. At the AFD, etc. award entry, editors are encouraged to substantively participate in 25 entries at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. A user that embarked on this challenge declared it complete after leaving comments at various XfD venues citing non-criteria such as having barely any content and being a reasonable article. Apparently the The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) is causing some unreasonable delay in providing the important award, as evidenced by the user's mounting irritation here at not being properly recognized.

Summary

The Award Center has significant influence on the growing unhealthy culture of the pursuit of recognition and awards, directly and indirectly as noted above. Editors should be encouraged to pursue tasks out of motivation to improve the encyclopedia, not to obtain recognition. Barnstars and other recognition should be awarded randomly when editors notice a deserving act, not because someone "signed up" to receive one. Doing so puts their editing behavior on a negative course toward ulterior motives. Laser brain (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not seeing the problem here. If these editors are acting blindly then they probably would still be doing so regardless if they were motivated by a barnstar or not. I haven't looked at all of the examples listed, but some of them don't seem problematic to me. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, you'd see the problem here if you spent time in the GA and FA areas. My examples directly illustrate how those areas and other are being affected. --Laser brain (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with change in process - I know this wont make me popular with the Wiki elite and this probably throws any future RfA out the window - LOL. I have studied recent events at GA review aswell as the terrible behaviour of "Limetolime" towards "Laserbrain". That said its simply not enough evidence to demand the closure of this place, a place made in good faith and that for the most part is a net positive. A much better idea would have been to deal with the disruptive editers accordingly. Certain challenges should be banned and edits who abuse the principle of this place should be barred from it. The owners need to set up a few controlling rules and guidelines. This all seems to be a knee jerk reaction to recent events, reflection is needed not all out war. "Laser brain" is hurt/annoyed as are all of us at GA. However this isn't the way to go about it. The award center needs a maker over not a nuking. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Realist2, this is not a knee-jerk reaction. As I demonstrated, the last attempt to reform this page after a deletion attempt failed. The problems are real and current. --Laser brain (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ill do it myself and ensure its improved then. Dozens of other editors shouldn't be made to suffer for the mistakes of a few and the elitist desires of others. Ive only visited this place once before but I dont mind trying to help these good people instead of closing the place down and setting fire to it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 06:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep, and close discussion. Since I nominated the Award Centre for deletion in May, it's undergone improvement, and many of the challenges that concerns were raised over have been removed. I also note this fact as I see the nominator has raised them in the deletion nomination, but the fact that they have been removed from the award centre has improved it, and I feel that the major concerns of the Award Centre have been addressed. However, as I was reminded in the previous deletion discussion, MFD is not the place for discussing changes to a page, or removing content you dislike, that's what the talk page is for, and I found that discussing it constructively with the creators was more productive. This challenge is concerning, but this isn't the forum for that sort of discussion. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear: I don't want to change the page, I want to delete it. Some challenges may have been removed, but they were replaced with others that are equally harmful. I have demonstrated with several examples above how the page is currently being used and what "challenges" are attracting editors. Can you seriously look at what's going on and say the Awards Center is a net positive to the project? --Laser brain (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict- Again) Short answer? Yes, I believe it's a net positive. Long answer, well, I look at it this way. While I agree that barnstaritis isn't a good thing, and that doing something for nothing is a great thing, some users need that little encouragment, especially our newer users. The issue with articles being promoted to GA and FA status is concerning, but I feel that deletion isn't the answer, and that a talk page discussion would be more appropriate, which, as you noted with a link above, or at least linked to, did have results. I think that sort of approach would be more effective. Steve Crossin (contact) 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And close discussion without further insistence per these discussions and prior MFDs. Users operate at their own discretion and need not receive awards for dodgy work. Tweaking of the tasks is all that's needed. Deleting the page from userspace is extreme. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Change to Delete. (I've been persuaded by subsequent discussion.) There is clearly a problem here. There has also been insufficient discussion. I'm not sure that deleting this page will help; it may be that what's required is a more wholesale reform. But it's obvious that this page is part of the problem, as is amply demonstrated by the nominator here. I'm also surprised by the behaviour of those who want to keep the page; why not allow a discussion? This is very much not a frivolous MfD. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to ask you to reread Wisdoms comments. Clearly the nominator must have either not checked, or simply ignored the improvements the project has made since the last MfDs. I consider it either a mistake, or a bad faith nomination. — MaggotSyn 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an archived discussion from the page's talk page; it's not obvious that things have changed, per the evidence provided by the nominator himself. Indeed, if anything things seem to have gotten worse: viz. follower of this page creating userboxes to attack other editors. That's a disgrace. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree it has improved, I think this accidently went unnoticed. Whats more, if people have offered to sort the problems out (myself imcluded), things can only get better not worse. The user box incident was terrible, the editor should have been punished, not the community. Why would we want to punish the community over the few disruptive editors — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 08:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, what punishment would you have suggested for the editor in question? That's not how Wikipedia works. Better to look for the cause. That's what this nomination attempts to do. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)
            • I dont believe this place is the cause of that behaviour, he obviously had a bad childhood or something to write that he "hates" a complete stranger. It has nothing to do with this page. If an admin had warned him it would be the end of the issue. He hasn't edited in days anyway. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Claims of a bad childhood are hardly going to keep this discussion focussed. Please use the preview button more carefully :-) giggy (:O) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Likewise my friend, saying that someone writes "I hate ....." in a userbox all over a darn barnstar page is equally absurd. It has nothing to do with the page, more the people. If a few oddballs get attracted to the page that doesn't mean it should close. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Net negative, per nomination and my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Award Center (the ideology hasn't changed, just the image). Delete. giggy (:O) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Claims that taking issues to the talk page works are bullocks: User talk:Sharkface217/Awards Center#Limetolime. giggy (:O) 08:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • :o Again, thats the community, not individual users. If I was a part of that community, I wouldn't feel the need to respond myself. It appears one bad apple (or maybe two?) spoil the whole bunch then. :) — MaggotSyn 08:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find it strange that the entire community who has this page watchlisted (other than Laser brain, iMatthew, and myself) did not feel the need to comment on that issue. I don't think saying "it's up to the community" works in such situations. giggy (:O) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps I wasn't clear enough then. I was talking about the people who edit to the Awards Center. Their little community of editors. So I really have no idea what you are referring to. — MaggotSyn 09:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The ones who want it deleted should at least have let it cool a few weeks. In a few weeks it might not have seemed all so bad. Although my mouth did hit the floor when I saw that userbox. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's had two prior MfDs. It's had a lot of discussion. It's had lots of opportunities to cool, and yet the same problems recur with multiple users. I'm not convinced. giggy (:O) 09:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Neither am I. Its looking more and more like other steps in the dispute resolution process were missed somewhere along the way to this third mfd. Its painfully clear that whats being disputed here is the actions of a few users who happen to be participants to this Award Center. Does the Award Center condone these actions is a more appropriate question. That and is this Center asking them to do it? These seem to be the more pertinent points in this discussion, or else you fall back on users actions only, and not the appropriateness of said project. — MaggotSyn 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Does the Award Center condone these actions: Yes, else something would have been done when the issue at User talk:Sharkface217/Awards Center#Limetolime was raised. This isn't the first time a blind eye has been turned.
                  • this Center asking them to do it: I doubt it will say "go write crap articles", but yes, by promoting a barnstar-culture and an attitude of doing half arsed jobs as quick as possible, it is. giggy (:O) 10:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ever thought about helping them out? Its possible that this can be corrected by helpful advice, especially coming from someone such as yourself.of course I mean someone who actively handles FA's or GA's I forget which, apologizes — MaggotSyn 10:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close this discussion out, per my closing rationale, and discussion here. — MaggotSyn 09:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exists for the good of the project, encourages productive behaviour. Is easily an appropriate use of userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally believe the Award Center is getting a little messy. It needs work/clean up. Some challenges should be removed, things like "Get ArticleName to GA." Those are can possibly be combined into one challenge with a list of articles you should get to GA, instead of all with separate headers. I've archived some of my own challenges such as "Review 10 Articles at WP:GAN," "Have 5 Articles Pass Their GA Nomination," "Have 2 Articles Pass Their FA Nomination," and "Have 2 Articles Pass Their FL Nomination." -- iMatthew T.C. 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The communnity has brought up valid points, and I am also have been dealing with users that treat Wikipedia as a MySpace, and I'm sure this isn't helping resolve that issue. Delete. -- iMatthew T.C. 16:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless...
This project gives a permanent undertaking to keep all "Do X number of Y" challenges off the page. The challenges to improve or expand specific articles or portals are OK, although I personally find the whole barnstar motivation rather silly. But note that even there, there is the temptation to copy-paste large chunks from copyright web sites. I've found at least three such cases alone, and there is also a temptation to do deals to get an article GA status, as Laser brain outlined above. However, the other challenegs are more disruptive than productive. A not insignificant number of "challengees" on this project are still voting a mile a minute on XfDs, GANs, etc. They are also mass-tagging articles, and not always appropriately. Likewise there's no real quality control over the infoboxes, and the challenger hadn't even bothered to point out that some projects don't use them (I had to).
There's no use saying that the challenger will only award barnstars after carefully evaluating the "contributions" for these kinds of challenges. By then it's too late in many cases. The disruption has already occurred. And in some cases, potenially useful articles have already been deleted or appalling ones have been promoted to GA status, thus discredting the whole GA process. How on earth does that "help" Wikipedia? In April, I had proposed on the talk page of this project that all new challenges should be discussed there before being implemented. That was rejected with cries of "censorship" and "destroying spontaneity" and "fun". (I see now that accusations of "snobby elitism" are also being used to discredit the views of editors who are making valid and thoughtful criticisms here and have made them previously on the talk page.)
As long as this project continues to allow anyone to set up any kind of challenge, and only try to pick up the pieces afterwards, it has an enormous potential for encouraging thoughtless, impulsive, editing which has real consequences for Wikipedia as a whole and for other editors as well. And yes, it's true that anyone can award a barnstar for anything no matter how marginally helpful, or indeed awful, it is. But this project actually formalizes and encourages this behaviour, and applies no quality control or thoughtfulness whatsoever to the possible problems that new challenges will produce before they are posted and people sign up for them. It also implictly condones a culture of doing "just enough to get your barnstar" and as quickly as possible at that (as Giggy points out above).
This is why this project, as it is currently constituted and run, is inappropriate and counter-productive as a whole, not simply because of the actions of some of the challengees. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a good cause. While users are promised an award, it still encourages editing. If a user doesn't know exactly how to productively edit Wikipedia, they can be guided at AWC. However, if there are problems with GA reviews going bad, those challenges should be removed. I have two rules to finally say. Be bold. Ignore all rules (if it helps the Wiki). With these rules in mind, it should be kept.--LAAFan 13:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I've yet to see a single instance where anyone closely involved with this project has provided any significant long-term guidance on productive editing to the challengees. (They often fail to provide even minimally acceptable guidance when wording their challenges.) Nor does there seem to be any desire for this from either side. The challengees are basically concerned with claiming and getting their awards, as quickly as possible. They never seem to ask for guidance or clarification on either the project talk page or on the talk pages of the challengers. The challengers never seem to initiate anything like that on the talk page. In fact they seem to have a positive resistance to reflecting on where the project is going and why, unless outside editors arrive highlighting the problems it's causing. Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the excellent reasons already well explained by Voceditenore and Laser brain. I've not yet encountered a barnstar earned via this misguided stop on the checklist route to admin-coached RfAs that reflected serious article improvement, while I have encountered cases like those described above, where editors are using this center to beef up a "resume" for an RfA run. This tendency affects GAN, FAC and RfA and is cheapening barnstars awarded for serious content contributions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Voceditenore very eloquently made the arguments I intended to make here. I believe that this page was created in good faith, but I also believe that its very nature is encouraging disruption throughout Wikipedia. There may only be a small number of editors at any one time who, inspired by this page and operating under an ignorance of or misunderstanding of policy, cause disruption. However, this small number is causing a great deal of disruption throughout the community, and even as some of these users stop, more show up to take their place. As the disruption appears tied pretty closely to this page, I think the page needs to be removed. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete (ec) The award center has just caused problems. Editors, while in good-faith, will sign up to preform a task, and will carry out those tasks hastily and incorrectly in an attempt to make dozens and hundreds of the same edits. Most recently, there has been a plethora of quick GA reviews which has resulted in the passing of numerous poor-quality articles for GA. Do we really want to compromise the quality and process of Wikipedia for a barnstar? Also, the AWC has intruded AFD, adopting, and ultimatly, FAC. Anyone can award a barnstar for excellent or exceptional work, but we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to compete with the next guy to get a fatter award section on their userpage. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that it almost seems silly to come here and need to vote delete over such a thing, but it really is potentially damaging to the project with what I see as very little potential benefit. Wikipedia is not World of Warcraft, it's not Final Fantasy. "Achievements" for official accomplishments of this and that are really just ... silly. But silly is not a reason I would feel neccesary to vote delete on such a thing. And it isn't why I'm voting delete here. I'll elaborate. The very existence of the awards center, which is just a bit too well known for my liking, encourages all the wrong ways to start editing for newcomers. It immediately gets people into a social-networking/achievement mode (World of Warcraft) and the concept of the project itself seems to assume that this mode of editing is fine. I could care less why people come to Wikipedia to edit... unless they are being disruptive, let them do what they want. However, if newcomers have the chance to come to the project with the ability to develop as editors and help things here, then we shouldn't have these silly centers/programs which encourage volume, quantity, and speed over quality and a simple job well done. When I say newcomers I do mean that in a general term, but I also mean the younger crowd, as I believe they attract to this program for the same reason they like achieving unlockables in NBA Jam. Although the awards center isn't to blame, the total fiasco that most of the "adoption" programs have become can be somewhat attributed to programs like this. Encourage unexperienced, immature editors to "adopt" more of the like. Not only do you get a barnstar for this, but you also get credit and "adoptees" for doing such a thing. Meanwhile, the adoptees are actually getting negative guidance and start thinking about adopting someone pretty quickly themselves. It's a cycle, and it's vicious.
I'm not voting to "keep and improve" here because I don't see improvement upon a totally flawed concept. A more natural process of becoming involved with the community and editing articles should be encouraged. Does this sound like a fluff term? Maybe, it might be, it is hard to define. I'm pretty confident, though, that natural ain't this award center, and I'm bothered with the newcomers believing it is a legit program and a good way to develop here. Eliminating it will help these new editors, and it will help the project. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Sharkface been notified of this MfD yet? -- iMatthew T.C. 15:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a Talk page message but it looks like he hasn't edited in almost a week. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As Juliancolton almost says, this page (although it's toned down some of the extremes) recreates the faults of Esperanza without the upsides. It encourages people to carry out disruptive drive-by taggings and "per nom" voting. The legitimate challenges ("expand article xxx to GA status" etc) could function just as well at WP:REWARD; the "spam 100 talkpages" or "add 25 inappropriate infoboxes" type challenges serve no useful purpose. – iridescent 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: I don't believe I have ever participated in an MFD discussion before, but this is for a good cause. Although the overall idea of the operation encourages positive reinforcement (improve the Wikipedia, get a treat), I'm afraid it has created a monster that, regardless of attempts to cull it down, will continue to grow. From what I have seen recently at WP:GAC, this page encourages individuals to do whatever it takes to earn rewards; the more the better. In promoting vanity over the good of this encyclopedia we're trying to build, it's a complete disruption. It distracts users, especially new, inexperienced ones, from our main goal, sometimes to the detriment of articles and projects such as GAC and FAC. People should create/review/promote articles, welcome new users or fulfill needed tasks because they want to, not because it looks good during their all too imminent RFA. Barnstars are great and everything, but they should not be our main focus, which is what I feel this page promotes. María (habla conmigo) 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: iMatthew's thread on Specific challenges moved to Talk.
  • Delete. The nomination is pretty convincing. I think it does promote an attitude of doing the bare minimum in order to get some silly award and encourages an MMORPG atmosphere. The spamming ones need to go whatever happens in my opinion. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This case is a bit similar to the shops one, only that this is an award center instead of a shop. All this content is creating a MySpace, making users to stop contributing to the encyclopedia and begin welcoming users, or adopting lots of users, just waiting for their award. The first time I saw this, it was normal, but now, it acts like an independent project. macytalk 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My former adoptor said a comment from the second MFD for AWC that I want to say again:

Keep, It has boosted the enthusiasm of my recently adopted user. I feel that it could encourage younger users to stay long-term and not slowly retire like so many others. -DarkZorro 22:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--LAAFan 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)P.S. Please don't nit pick at my comments. It's a pet peeve of mine.[reply]
Sorry to say it, but the communities best interest and yours are not the same. Thanks for your opinion, but your concerns should not be voiced here.--LAAFan 00:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LAA Fan, who are you to tell somebody that their opinion should not be voiced here. You have no right to do so. If somebody disagrees with you, let it go. You will never find a situation where everyone agrees completely with your state of opinion. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use this opportunity to discuss and remove any tasks that editors agree are unhelpful or potentially harmful. This is also a good time to discuss what sorts of challenges are and are not appropriate. I, for one, have learned a ton as a result of this page. I'm a member of only one WikiProject, so there are times that I get bored and look for something else to do. Inspired by this page, I have become involved in (1) AfDs (after reading the criteria several times and ensuring that I always give a clear rationale when commenting—no "per above" or "WP:IDONTLIKEIT"), (2) nominating articles for speedy deletion (after reading the criteria carefully and avoiding nominations if there is a hint of doubt in my mind—in fact, I learned a lot by placing the questionable articles on my watchlist and seeing how experienced editors dealt with them, (3) removing inappropriate speedy deletion tags placed by other editors, (4) reverting vandalism, warning vandals, and reporting repeat offenders to WP:AIV, (5) copyediting articles and fixing typos, and many other tasks. Recently, I also signed up for the challenge to add reliable references to articles. As a result, I went looking for an article in need of help and was able to make significant changes to the Martin Luther King, Jr. article. I should also make it clear that I have no intention of becoming an administrator, so this has nothing to do with building a resume. I believe that this page has tremendous potential, and, although I realize that there have been a few editors who do poor quality work in a pursuit of barnstars, but I think that this can be dealt with (perhaps, since this is in Sharkface's user space, he woudl be willing to take responsibility for informing those editors that they are no longer welcome to participate at the Award Center. At any rate, I hope my experiences here can show people commenting in the MfD that positive changes can come as a result of the Award Center and that it's worth fixing rather that deleting outright. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gary, as we discussed on my talk page,[2] your listing of the San Francisco, California article at the San Francisco FAR provides a good example of the problem. You listed the article at the Awards center a full month before you listed it at FAR, and even though there were always numerous active editors involved with the article and who are now working on the FAR, you never mentioned any article deficiencies at the article talk page before you listed the Featured article review. The issues could have been more quickly and easily addressed, likely without the need for an award-generating FAR, if you had gone to the article talk page instead of the Awards center. The regular editors are working on the page because they want to, not because they're looking for a barnstar, and if you had notified them first, the article would have benefitted sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Malleus Fatuorum (SandyGeorgia and I have continued our discussion elsewhere) - I'm confused as to why writing an article would make for a good break from writing articles. By the same logic, alcohol would be a good alternative for alcoholics. The essence of alternatives is that they are different. People are needed to help in other areas of Wikipedia, such as the ones I mentioned above. I don't see why that wouldn't make a better alternative than continuing doing the same thing or ceasing to contribute altogether. If a few pixels that don't have an impact on anything convinced me to help out and learn more about how Wikipedia operates, I don't see that as "tremendous potential to do harm". I think people need to step back and realize that barnstars aren't real. They can't (or at least shouldn't) be listed on resumes. They can't be exchanged for goods and services. They don't make you more attractive to potential mates. If all barnstars were retroactively revoked, I wouldn't care. I see this page as little different from that bot that I've seen give suggestions to people on articles that they might like to edit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- First off, apologies for not getting here sooner: I am currently hampered with real life worries (school finals, work, college stuff, etc.) and as such I have been highly inactive this month. While I am more than willing to admit that the Awards Center is imperfect, I do not think it yet merits deletion. Significant improvements have been made since the last MFD, and I only hope that this time also results in the page being enhanced. While some may scorn the awarding of barnstars and decry such acknowledgment of achievement as "creeping Myspaceism", I hold firm that there is nothing wrong with properly and legitimately giving out barnstars for challenges completed. Does the Awards Center need a shakeup: the answer is a resounding yes. But does this mean the page, one dedicated to the (of all things) improvement of Wikipedia as a whole, need to be nuked? I hope that the bell does not yet toll for the Awards Center. --SharkfaceT/C 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! My mistake; those links go only to the challenges. One must take the initiative and visit the pages themselves. If you noticed, the articles were all improved due to people seeing the challenges posted on AWC. The history pages for each article can attest to that. --SharkfaceT/C 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for any of us who have seen what has happened at GA, the page histories don't necessarily attest to anything. A lot of edits in pursuit of an award doesn't necessarily equal quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Laser brain's links are extremely concerning; before this I thought of the Award Center as a rather useless, but good-faith, page which wasn't doing any harm and maybe even a bit of good. Clearly, however, it's doing more harm than good as the nomination statement demonstrates, and frankly, many of the tasks are a joke. I've read countless "Get Article X to FA Status" challenges which required only 10 major edits - 10! Sometimes even five or fewer for GA. The few that have been completed are still nowhere near even GA status, let alone FA. I don't think those participating in the project are aware the work that goes the development of an article. Of course, this is somewhat irrelevant to the main deletion argument, but I had to rant somewhere. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although I do believe that this can be a net positive if organized the right way, the rather blatant evidence that this is not the case is a bit too much. There's a limit to how far good faith can go before it simply becomes disruptive and an excuse to game the system for awards. Just give out more barnstars to people for their contributions, or organize stuff like Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Contest (which was actually really entertaining to participate in). The only possible solution I see is gutting the entire thing and absorbing it into the relevant WikiProjects for their purposes, but users can bring the same types of stuff up at local WikiProjects, where they can receive more collaboration on their work. Given that this hasn't been improving since the last MfD, I see no reason it will in the future. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. This Awards Center is indicative of what appears to be an inevitable human inclination to need external motivation for something that would serve people on the whole much better if it came internally. On the one hand, I don't feel as if I have the right to try to control what people can't seem to help. On the other hand, Wikipedia has the potential to be something new and different, to foster collaboration and learning for the sake of learning. Some wonderful articles are written by volunteers: people who work on and on for nothing, just for the love of learning. Others fight valiantly to make sure the quality of those articles remains high. Rewarding those efforts doesn't seem like a bad thing. But in practice, the editors who are in charge of handing out these rewards aren't asking those seeking the awards to keep their enthusiasm on target. Instead, editors are doing slipshod work, hoping to get the maximum result for the minimum effort, competing with each other, and apparently working behind the scenes to promote articles that are clearly not of high quality. These awards are false, and Wikipedia is hurting from the actions from the participants in this project. If you believe Alfie Kohn, people have the unfortunate habit of being led astray by mechanisms such as these, and then being unable to function without them. --Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone here needs to keep in mind WP:COOL. Looking at this page, I see a lot of rules being broken. Sure, the AWC is flawed, but they have some new tournament coming July 15th. I say let's wait and see. The tournament could just revive the AWC. Going back to my previous comment, I'm getting steamed that some editors discourage editing. As the rulebook states, there is no level of power, and everyone's opinion counts. Finally, I said don't nitpick my comments, but apparently someone didn't receive the memo, so DON'T NITPICK AT MY EDITS. I'll go to Editor Review if I want that.--LAAFan 00:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody seems to be keeping a cool head, and nobody is touching your comments, so I have no idea what you might be referring to. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also confused, LAA, and think that maybe this digression should be moved to the talk page. Who has lost their cool? Who is discouraging editing? Who is "nitpicking"? Furthermore, I think that during a discussion, rebuttals are expected, right? You cannot exactly turn comments on and off. María (habla conmigo) 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems LAA just retired? -- iMatthew T.C. 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He just needed to cool down for a bit. I convinced him to stay. --SharkfaceT/C 00:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tournament? Wonderful; we'll need to have all eyes on GA for faulty passes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotes superficial barnstar-chasing, barn-star inflation, and my-space-ism. Hurts the grand scheme of building an encyclopedia more than it helps. --Dschwen 00:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to my discomfort with the social-networking aspects of this. While finding innovative ways to get articles improved is a laudable goal, this page is too much of a chase-the-ball, get-a-treat approach, and seems to encourage superficial engagement oriented toward winning the prize. All that is noted above of course. The true reward for helping to build the encyclopedia is going to sleep knowing of a job well done - it's the internal rewards that we need to be developing in our editors. Franamax (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, puhlease, for the strong reasons given above. Apart from these, there's an inherent conflict of interest potential in these give-aways. The same potential is there in giving voters candy to vote for a candidate in a national election, or food in exchange for surrendering their voting card, as Mugabe's thugs are doing as we speak. And it makes WP look superficial. TONY (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
  • Proposal to keep the AWC, and request to let me refine it. I'd like to propose keeping the AWC, and refining the way it is operated. It has great potential for quality control. For example, I sponsored the Citation Challenge. I carefully set the award levels for balance there, to address the issue of barnstar proliferation. I also as a matter of course check every reference before granting the awards - this provides a very important feedback loop to the participants. They correct their entries, and then inform me when they are ready to be checked again. If I had not done this, the participants wouldn't have learned a thing about referencing and would go on posting unacceptable references (a rampant problem across Wikipedia). Therefore the Citation Challenge is providing a valuable service to Wikipedia. Guidelines can be created so that each challenge posted at the AWC provides a similar benefit. I've also had good results with my Wish List section. I guess it boils down to the challengers, the challenges they post, and how they award those who accept the challenges. Please let me conduct a discussion on the AWC's talk page to solve the above posted problems. I'm sure we can refine this page so it works. Sincerely, The Transhumanist    02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing this, I have little confidence the page will be monitored long-term, or that there is any acknowledgement of the need to eliminate everything from the page relating to pushing numbers at FAC, FAR, GAN, AFD, and a whole lot more. If we need a citation-adding Project, why not start that as a separate Project (in fact, I believe there already is one somewhere). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTH, you've had opportunities to restructure this place for months, since I first MfD'd it. What's been keeping you? giggy (:O) 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have carefully structured those sections I've been involved with, and they work fine. It's just a matter of extending the approach to the rest of the challenges. If the AWC goes to Wiki-heaven (or -hell, depending on how you look at it), I'll create a new page with a modified scope and new operating procedures within my own user space. So the feedback loop represented in this discussion will work one way or another.
  • I've had my hands full preparing for a major collaboration that will change the AWC and how it operates, and bring in co-coordinators to help manage it, but since it looks like the AWC may be removed, I'll probably run the planned event under another department or a new awards page. But I'd like to run it under the AWC, because it will do the page (and the effort represented there) good. It would also present an example of how to run challenges that are well-designed and operated. The collaboration I'm designing focuses on quality work and has quality control built-in to its operation. The Transhumanist    02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Transhumanist, as I stated in the nomination, I have no doubts about your good intentions. However, the Awards Page has not been managed and its negative affects are all over WP. As Sandy points out, the last MfD was closed with the very same promises. Reform, discussion, management. It hasn't happened. No one is monitoring what people are doing in pursuit of their awards. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary section break 1

Comment - Why not just simply eliminate all challenges that have to do with attaining a numerical goal and keep those which encourage actual quality enhancement to articles. By curtailing the actual number of challenges down, the page could easily be monitored by those watchlisting the AWC. Again, I reiterate a comment I made above that was subsequently moved to the talk page. I see absolutely (or virtually none) no harm in "help get X to featured article status". No stipulations. Just genuine editing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because 1) there have already been two MfDs withdrawn or closed because such promises were made (and apparently not kept), and 2) read the descrption in the nomination of exactly that sort of challenge that led to the Limetolime and other issues. And 3) we've yet to see an example of article improvements due to this Award-seeking process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I assure you, I read the nomination and realize the potential for damage. I can't say anything about point number 1, however, helping articles attain FA class is an absolutely noble effort, but with (and I guess this is just my own analysis) minimal detriment to the project. As stated, the worst that could happen is the article is bounced off of FAC so quickly the editor's head spins. And then they go back and try twice as hard the next time around. I mean, it could even be a means to teaching new editors how to improve/create high quality articles. Oh, and about the evidence: [3] : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a single FA that has resulted from the Awards Center? I can point you to many lost editor hours (e.g.; Laser brain's original post) and likely premature FAC noms and bad GAN passes because of the Center. I also don't see the type of editor participating in awards-for-hire going back and doing it better next time: instead, I see them putting up I-hate-so-and-so userboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something else to think about. One editor I recently had cause to complain about currently claims to have helped William Shakespeare to FA, despite having made only seven edits to that article, six of which were marked as minor. It's just a sad game. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those, and all the other barnstars I've awarded have been well earned. The Transhumanist    04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why were my examples moved. They were pertinent to this discussion, and were posted as evidence. They are not part of some meta-discussion about this discussion. So what gives? I'm moving them back. These are examples of awards given out through the AWC for quality work done. I would not have found these individuals, nor would these individuals have found me, without the AWC:
All right, they're not moved to the talk page (it's an illustrated MfD, point still escapes me, though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll explain the point in shorter steps, so you can follow. These are barnstar awards. They were offered on the AWC for creating the pages associated with them. Three people, attracted by the AWC and what it stands for came to the page and looked over the wish list that I presented there. In my wish list I offered to award a barnstar for creating pages to certain high standards. All three of these people did so, and so I awarded them the following barnstars. The barnstars below present the names of the 3 persons, the work they did, and my gratitude. These people found me, they helped me, and I thanked them in a respectful way. The AWC enabled this to happen. This is how I envisioned the AWC to work, and it should provide the model for the reform of the AWC, or for its successor. If you'd like further clarification, please let me know. Sincerely, The Transhumanist    05:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect most of us reading this know what a barnstar looks like; the issue is article improvement, not looking at the graphics which most can visualize. No one has yet shown what I've asked in terms of article improvement. No FA, no valid GA passes, no diffs demonstrating article improvement. I'd like to see facts, not graphics that don't demonstrate article improvement. You've been given concrete examples of GA disruption and gaming of the system to win awards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sample award barnstars
The Bio-star
is hereby awarded to Earthdirt for doing an outstanding job producing the List of basic cell biology topics, and for going far beyond expectations by including a definition for each presented topic. Thank you for creating such a useful resource for newcomers to this subject. It's fantastic! The Transhumanist    03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png The Geography Barnstar
is hereby awarded to Amartyabag for creating the List of basic India topics, to assist readers in virtually navigating the World and enable them to virtually explore India by providing this guide to India-related material on Wikipedia. Kudos. Thank you. The Transhumanist    06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Society Barnstar

is hereby awarded to Kanogul for creating the Political science portal, and doing a damn fine job of it. The Transhumanist    18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must profess to having no idea what relevance the above have to this discussion. giggy (:O) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uh, do those really need to be here? I don't see the point. (The first one is a redirect from a deleted article, so I guess it helps make the point about quality editing?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've been renamed since creation. But no, these were created by those accepting challenges at the AWC. They're excellent pages in my opinion. The Transhumanist    04:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are motivated by awards and recognition. Some are motivated by a challenge. The AWC provides both. That's something we should make best use of. The Transhumanist    04:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as WP:DGAF, and that is what most users should be following here. For example, I have been working in less seen areas (Africa etc.) pretty much since I came in January. While my award collection is mounting, it's still much smaller than those ones for "secret pages" to give the user some sort of bizarre confidence in their editing. And frankly, I could care less how many awards I have, as it doesn't make me better than anyone else here. I tell you, this starts to verge on social networking, with its own newsletter for god's sakes! At the previous MFD there was an urge for a massive reform, most of which was not done. We have Wikiprojects for users that wish to participate in certain areas. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 05:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the repeated claim that no article improvements have come as a result of the Award Center, I have already mentioned several. I believe that fixing typos in over 100 articles is definitely a good thing. In addition, there is The Transhumanist's citation challenge. As I showed above, this diff shows the article on Martin Luther King, Jr. before and after I added citations after seeing the challenge at the Award Center. I think it shows a major improvement in the article. Please note that, while I was adding the citations, I also noticed and rephrased several blatant examples of plagiarism, removed irrelevant content, added and corrected information, and reworded several awkward phrases. Since then, I have been inspired to keep working on it, so I have placed it for peer review to solicit feedback on what would help prepare it for a Good Article nomination. I think it would be hard to deny that this has improved the quality of the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(2xe/c) TTH, there's a lot of merit in what you are saying. Whichever tactic results in a better cyclo is a good tactic, and I for one will swallow my distaste for the cookie-culture if there are measurable results. What I think I see here though are doubts about how the initiative resounds through the other wiki-editors, especially concerns about compromising of the GA/FA process. It's fine and well to motivate people to make contributions - but if the edits they make then force other volunteers to do cleanup or extra quality-checks, then no net benefit is achieved. The quality control needs to be built right in whatever you do, so that it's self-contained. What measures can you put in place to demonstrate that? Franamax (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing that should be done is cull all the challenges that aren't working currently, leaving only those that are working. Second, disallow new challenges until some coherent instructions are written up. Third, write up the new instructions, which will specifically assign the responsibility of quality control to the challenger. The AWC, more than anything, is a method of delegation. Delegators should be responsible for the tasks they delegate. I think some of the challengers were just into the idea of granting awards, and lost sight of what this is really about: the tasks and their results. The new instructions of this or the next awards page will focus on results, and upon checking those results: actually looking over the work the editors did for you. I didn't realize others were taking a different approach than I was, and so I couldn't see the problem. Now I do. The Transhumanist    05:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of this chat belongs on the talk page; it's unrelated to the MfD. Anyone can pass a GA, so any challenge on number of GAs are inappropriate. And no one yet has shown evidence an FA has ever been written for a reward so they should go, too. And participating in AfDs for a rewards is just disingenous. How about the "add 25 infoboxes", when infoboxes aren't required and many editors hate them and they should only be added by consensus? I can't think of anything helpful here except maybe adding citations, and I believe there's a WikiProject for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing how the AWC should be fixed so it doesn't have to be deleted. That's exactly what MfDs are for: discussing the fate of a page. Please stop disrupting this discussion. Thank you. The Transhumanist    06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with below) Sandy, TTH is right in that this discussion is relevant. giggy (:O) 06:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so ... I believe the person who illustrated the page with three barnstars just accused me of disrupting the picture book because I don't need to see a barnstar to know what one looks like :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on barnstars (why are they still here?)... anyways, now this discussion is going off topic! giggy (:O) 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TTH, you speak of improvements. Go make them. You have 6 days of MfD left. giggy (:O) 06:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering to help. The Transhumanist    06:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's twice now; being flippant won't help when 1) there is no indication there will ever be any oversight on that page, and 2) there have already been two MfDs where change was promised that didn't happen, and 3) the resulting disruption has been demonstrated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TTH, we can all appreciate your passion on behalf of your subject. Please don't suggest that Sandy is causing disruption. Sandy is putting forth a well-formulated viewpoint. You can best respond with well-considered reasoning. Franamax (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was an honest assessment and request, referring to edits like This one (one of yours). The Transhumanist    06:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everybody! Pours a nice cup of tea. Lets cool down, people are passionate on all sides here but hey, chill out all round. We can work this out. Franamax (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one reading passion into this. I find the page useful. There's no passion in that. If the page gets deleted, no big deal, I'll create a new one that takes a more refined approach. The important thing is that we learn from the mistakes of the AWC and apply that experience somewhere. The Transhumanist    07:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards_Center&oldid=220722081"