Conservapedia talk:Contest5

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Discussion post February 13th

Point Discussions

Things Changed

Things changed from Contest 4's:

Increased the gap between quality and short articles

Normal articles can easily be transformed into quality articles - and thus there should be some more gratification for doing so--IDuan 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Agree. Great suggestion.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Decreased the gap between normal and entertainment anything

If someone spends the time to make a quality entertainment article, then they should still get close to the points of a quality regular article--IDuan 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Can't say I agree with this. Entertainment entries are rarely educational or informative in any meaningful way. Frankly, most are a waste of time.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
While I agree that many entertainment articles are pointless - I think it's also tough to say that ALL are. Like for example - articles on sports teams are entertainment - but at the same time sports do have a big history, and it's certainly encyclopedic. That being said, an article on Britney Spears' hairstyles would obviously be less significant. Perhaps we should figure out how to distinguish these--IDuan 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I think the judges should have greater authority to take points away from uninformative entertainment entries.--Aschlafly 14:37, 3 February 2008 (EST)
agreed.--IDuan 14:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Increased the amount of points for a fully copied entry

Only by a bit though - given that you have to go through and wikilink anyway - creating that entry is essentially the same as a minor edit--IDuan 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Agree. We reward improvements here. If well said by someone else and we have rights to copy (as in already paying for it as a government work), then let's use it and reward with points.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Increased the amount of points for a quality edit

It was getting almost the same amount of points as a short entry - when really, based on the description, it involved more work than a short entry--IDuan 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Right.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Increased the amount of points for an image

You could at least two minor edits in the time that you could find one image appropriate to the article you have, and insert that image appropriately--IDuan 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Right.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I see the warning for copyright violations but nothing written out about what the penalties are. Maybe that should be tightened up before contest time? JoeManga 16:22, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Increased the amount of points for breaking news

This was only so I could increase the gap between a user who finds a breaking news article, and a sysop who adds that article to the main page--IDuan 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Why do we want to increase that gap? I do agree that quality breaking news should be highly rewarded with points.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I honestly don't really want to increase the gap - but in the last contest a user complained about the handicap of non-sysops, so I added it for him. But I'd befine if you reverted--IDuan 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Increased the amount of points for a template

Templates take a lot - they should probably be getting the same amount of points as an ordinary entry, but I thought that doing that would be too drastic of a change.--IDuan 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Don't know. If you say so, it's OK.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Redefined what a template had to have

read:Userboxes don't count--IDuan 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Right.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

General comment: insightful entries should be rewarded more. Although subjective, these contests should create better incentives for the masterpieces, long or short, that deliver particularly good writing, insights, explanations, etc. Perhaps a "masterpiece" category that could be give special attention (and final decision) by judges after self-nomination of the best entries.--Aschlafly 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Ok! How about this: each team nominates ... about 10 ... of it's best articles, and then the judges pick the top two among those - and those articles will be worth 100 points.--IDuan 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
That's an interesting suggestion! I like it.--Aschlafly 14:37, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I agree that more complete articles deserve more points as they take much more effort. However, what makes an article better is quite subjective. Somebody may put a lot of effort into an article that doesn't make the top two and therefore doesn't get any reward from their extra work. I think this idea is trying to conflate two different things. Either have a competition where the quantity of a minimum standard is rewarded or have a competition for the best new article. Don't try and mix the two. I really think that the competitions try and cover too broad a range of things and that's why I think block and breaking news should be excluded. It becomes increasingly difficult to value contributions when they are for so many different things. This is why we are having yet another discussion about points. I think we are adult enough here to focus on expanding the number and quality of encyclopedic articles. Trying to include everything that can be done on the site only smacks of liberal multi-culturalism. BrianCo 18:04, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I'm only commenting on the first part of what you said as it relates more to what was going above - however I do think there is some conflict as to whether breaking news entries are rewarded - and I'll give that a section bellow. So, to your first part: The contest is not based on quantity or length - it's simply based on substance. If a user creates an article on a much needed topic - even if it's a stub, that user should get points for at least starting it out. If a user creates a 3 paragraph well cited article on a different topic - that user should also get points, and certainly more than the user who created the stub. You say that "Somebody may put a lot of effort into an article that doesn't make the top two and therefore doesn't get any reward for their extra work" - but, A) they are getting rewarded for their extra work - that's why more points are awarded to quality articles as opposed to stub, and B) the purpose of the contest is to improve the encyclopedia - as Andy has said, effort isn't what gets rewarded - value is rewarded.--IDuan 18:58, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Overall Comments

First of all I think we need to define the aim of the contest. I've said this before but an article remains in mainspace forever but a breaking news item is ephemeral even if it is archived. As main page items require sysop priveleges this gives an automatic advantage to admins - not fair. A sudden increase in normal articles on serves to increase the breadth and depth of the project permanently. What does a rush of breaking news during the period of the contest do? Make the front page even harder to navigate and distract from those items of genuine worth. The same goes for vandalism and blocking; should this be more rigorous just because there is a contest on? I certainly don't think so. I think the contest should focus only on articles, their creation, expansion and improvement.

  • Images - I would give separate points for finding an image and incorporating it into an article, as the same image could be used several times.
  • Templates - Although a userbox is a template of sorts, it only goes on a user's page there should be no issue about it getting points. Other templates can be time consuming to set up so maybe different points should be given to creating the template and actually adding it to a page.
  • Very short articles - can be quick to create but a quality longer article that is researched and not copied from elsewhere actually requires more effort to construct.
  • Normal and quality articles should have minimum requirements such as embolden subject, add categories, DEFAULTSORT, external references, internal wikilinks and quantity of text. Images and templates would be additional points.
  • Failing to categorize, title according to Manual of Style, include a default sort (for humans) or have no wikilinks for any new article should have points deducted.
  • A short entry should have at least one reference, one wikilink and one category. Even if it is copied then at least document where it came from.
  • The current definition of a quality edit gets more points than a new short entry. This should be revised or the points reduced.
  • A redirect should be meaningful, such as other name, abbreviation or accepted alternative spelling. A mis-spelling should not count.
  • I suggest an INUSE template should be put on a page while it is being worked on if there are things to be done. Once the INUSE template is removed it is fair game for corrections, wikilinks, etc.
  • All points claimed should be documented. Period! Vague summaries are simply not good enough.
  • Maybe we need some rules concerning multiple minor edits to extant articles.

There should also be a reasonable period of time between contests. More time should be given for team selection and the teams should be closed once the contest starts. BrianCo 14:31, 3 February 2008 (EST)

  • To the images: the only problem with the finding/incorporating thing is we don't want to award users who upload an image and then don't do anything with it - however, I'll try and think of a way to work around this. Maybe we can add a bonus of 2 points to each article the image is added to if the image was uploaded by the user making the edits.
Right, I never meant that an unused image should be given credit.BrianCo
  • To the templates: There is a different point value for creating a template or adding it. Adding a template gets the same number of points as a minor edit
  • I agree with you on the short articles stuff - that's why I increased the gap between a quality article and a short article
  • Ok - I think the embolden subject and categories are fair for the normal and quality articles. We already have a requirement for external references and quantity of text for quality articles.
  • Hmm, for the short entries I would agree on everything except the reference - because pretty much a normal entry is everything a short entry is plus a reference
Disagree. We need to have our sources cited. So a short article like a definition should say where it came from even if it is sourced from a book.BrianCo
  • Agree on redirects
  • Definitely agree on documenting points - I tried setting up a mandatory system last time and it didn't work, this time maybe we can deduct points if its not followed.
  • I think that multiple minor edits to the same article are a judgment call really - although most the time extra points should not be rewarded.--IDuan 14:44, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Should Users get points for Blocks/Breaking News

Breaking News - Yes

Breaking News (In the news) is still worthy of scoring points during a contest. Consider the following benefits of the Breaking News:

  • New articles are created
  • Existing articles linked from the Breaking News are improved
  • Liberalism is exposed and related to Conservapedia articles
  • Conservative News is highlighted and related to Conservapedia articles

Any administrator who has added articles to the news section can vouch for these benefits. It takes time to create a good news article with appropriate links and pictures to Conservapedia articles. News articles should be awarded points in every contest because they benefit Conservapedia. --Crocoite 07:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I used to think no on this, but I think now I'm more of a yes-man. The sysops advantage is present obviously - but at the same time the entire thing is a team effort - and to my recollection we've never had a "sysop vs. normal users" team. And it's not like users don't get any points - I mean at present (and I have just changed it - I had a big typo in earlier) the user can get 5 points for suggesting the article and the administrator can get 2 for putting the article up with links.--IDuan 16:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)
If it's a team effort then let the original proposer have all the points so long as they supply marked-up text. Recently it hasn't been a team effort as only the top 7 contributors have counted. BrianCo 16:46, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Having the top 7 contributors count hasn't exactly been a recent thing - that's been in every contest I've been in. (Correction - it has been in every contest I've been in.)--IDuan 16:54, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Breaking News - No

I do not doubt the value of breaking news items. However, I am trying to suggest ways of making the competition fairer and easier to mark.

  • Sysops have an advantage over ordinary editors in submitting breaking news items.
  • New articles are being created in the competition anyway.
  • An increase in breaking news articles just because of the competition only serves to devalue the important issues.

There are several things that may be of value but lumping everything together in the competition only muddies the waters. The competition should be run on an equal footing for all editors. BrianCo 14:54, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I also doubt the value of breaking news items. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 22:10, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Possible Compromise

Ok - why don't we try just reducing the total value for breaking news points. Like let's say they're worth only 3 points, and if a non-sysop suggest them, that user would get 2 points and the sysop who puts it up would get 1.--IDuan 22:15, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Ordinary New Insight

A quick question: what is the difference between a 12-point Ordinary New Insight and an 8-point Ordinary New Insight? The descriptions for both are exactly the same, I thought perhaps this might be a small mistake (or just not entirely clear). Feebasfactor 13:13, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Good catch. I think I fixed it. The rules are constantly improving and trying different approaches. How about joining the contest as the sixth player, Feebasfactor? I'd like to join my team unless the other side picks you first!--Aschlafly 13:19, 17 February 2008 (EST)


Could I possibly be a judge?! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 13:25, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Masterpiece winners!

To all of the contest players: You all did wonderful jobs - better than I could have done! :P Your articles were all very good but as required, I went through the nominations and chose the four best! Well, here goes:

1. Passover – Very interesting and educational!! Great job Fox!!

2. Deconstruction – I really thought this one had some great content. Good job,Sharon!!

3. Johns Hopkins University – I didn’t know half the stuff I read! Good job, Iduan!

4. Allan Rohan Crite – Great job! Nice quality! It is very difficult to find that many paintings from one artist – I know that for sure!! Wonderful job, Joaquin!

Again, wonderful job all. Those of you who didn't make it to the masterpiece list, please don't hold it against me or feel left out!! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 15:44, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Superb choices, Bethany. All the masterpiece winners are well deserved!--Aschlafly 16:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
Thank you!! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 16:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
I agree, nice picking--IDuan 16:10, 22 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks again!! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 16:11, 22 February 2008 (EST)
Personal tools