Conservapedia talk:Team contest

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Scoring System

I suggest including edits to Template:Newsline, Template:AboutC, and Template:Tfa, since they help this site as well. Crocoite 09:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent suggestion. Contributions to the front page are always very helpful. ~ SharonTalk 09:57, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for adding that Sharon. I also suggest adding points for Welcoming new users. Crocoite 10:33, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
I have added welcoming new users to the scoring list for one point. ~ SharonTalk 07:24, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Sharon. --Crocoite 08:05, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Now we have a link from the Main Page to older news. We have only started retrieving the Previous Breaking News articles. I suggest adding a point to the scoring system to encourage other sysops to add to this valuable archive. --Crocoite 15:26, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

At a quick glance, it seems like giving points for blocking is going to put teams with members that don't have blocking rights at a disadvantage. Plus, you also have a bit of dumb luck there too, depending on the quantity of vandals online when a particular sysop is online. Also consider, you are saying 5 blocks = 1 Quality New Article in point value. The time taken to write a quality article is much greater than the time it takes to block 5 people. Just my two cents. --Colest 10:07, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

It is expected that all team members will have blocking rights. If they don't already have them when chosen to be on the team, then they will likely be given blocking rights for the contest. Note that a good block is valuable and draws upon skills, even if it doesn't take much time. Time is not the only consideration for rewarding points. So I don't see a reason to change that point scoring basis.--Aschlafly 10:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for clarifying. --Colest 10:54, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Does uploading a file have any points? (?) --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 16:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Quality

How will quality be measured? BritCon 11:02, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Judges will be picked after the teams are determined. Would you like to volunteer for possible selection as a judge?--Aschlafly 11:09, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
According to the Rules A panel of judges shall be chosen from among the Sysops.... As far as I am aware I am not a sysop. Are you making the rules up as you go along? How will the judges measure quality?
BritCon 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I see. You're right. No, I'm not making up the rules as we go along (note that the contest has not yet begun, by the way). Obviously the captains (I'm not one) will have to agree on the rules, rule changes, and any judges chosen. You might still volunteer to be a judge, but it seems less likely you'd be chosen unless you become a Sysop (a process open to all, by the way).
The judges will evaluate quality, not me.--Aschlafly 11:26, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Scoring system

I suggest that the points awarded to a new entry be decreased from 6 to 5, and the points awarded to a quality edit of an existing entry be increased from 4 to 5. It seems to me they should be rewarded equally, as they are equally valuable.

Also, a quality contribution to the front page is worth more than 2 points (and takes longer also). How about 3 or 4 points for that? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Your suggestions are excellent. ~ SharonTalk 22:37, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
I would like to see at least a vague definition of "quality new article", so we can know what we are aiming for. Also, if the description merits it, more points should be awarded to quality new articles, and less for blocking/categorizing. Also, perhaps giving points for blocks is a bad idea - it would give an incentive to block users who may be new or inexperienced, and don't mean any harm. This works directly against our goal of attracting new editors. My $0.02. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 22:46, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, you'd make an excellent judge.
Better you, would like to organize a public school team to take on the winner of this contest??? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I would revel in such a... marvelous opportunity, if I can find out who on CP is educated by the public school system. Also, I do not think I would like to judge, as I am still waiting for a response from Conservative, re his spot on Team 1 (he expressed disinterest). Thanks, --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 12:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
On second thought, I would be glad to be a judge, provided it does not interfere with the plans being made. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 12:50, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I heartily endorse Hoji as a judge!!! You'd be fantastic. As soon as Joaquin and Sharon become aware of this and approve, I'll add you Hoji to the judges' confidential namespace. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Excellent! Hoji has my full support as a judge. ~ SharonTalk 13:00, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Hoji is fine for us. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Judges' pages

Andy, should't the judges have their own confidential page?

Also: the judges will need access at least to a roster of each team in order to tally points or to evaluate each team's point claims.

Last of all: I propose that the team gets its two points for a block, so long as the judges determine that any reasonable and prudent non-competitor would have acted similarly. Anyone can have a block reversed, but still have good and sufficient cause to apply the block at the time. But I wouldn't want to encourage even the appearance of someone blocking without cause merely to earn points.--TerryHTalk 06:44, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Great points, TerryH. The judges (and I hope you've agreed to be one) will have discretion to add or subtract points as prudent, just as a referee has some discretion in sporting events.
I'll set up a namespace for the judges now.--Aschlafly 12:30, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Record pages

I've given two contestants a notification that their record pages should be located at "User:JohnDoe/Contest" (with "JohnDoe" being the user's name), for the sake of simplicity. The only other logical thing I could think of is "Conservapedia:Team contest/JohnDoe". Input? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 18:19, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

It think a common page makes more sense for each team, so that players can easily see the contributions of teammates. That's what I'm going to set up for team2 at Team2:Record.--Aschlafly 20:01, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Team2:Record cannot be seen by the judges, correct? And several users have already set up user:.../contest pages to record their submissions. Wouldn't it be best to stick with user:.../contest, but to transclude (i.e. like a template) those individual pages into Team2:Record? Philip J. Rayment 21:55, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Variable scoring?

I realise that I'm a bit late to bring this suggestion, but instead of having the following:

  • Quality new entry: 10 points
  • Any new entry: 6 points

We should have:

  • New entry: 6 to 10 points.

(And similar for editing existing entries)

The point being that some "new entries" might be very minimal, while others might be much better, but still not enough to qualify for "Quality new entry". I believe that the judges should have the discretion to allot points anywhere between 6 and 10 depending on the quality.

If we don't do this, it raises another (minor) problem. If a competitor creates a new entry that is more than just a very minimal one, do they list it as a "new entry" or a "quality new entry". If they list it as the latter, and the judges deem it to not be so, what happens then? I guess they can reallocate it to "new entry", but if they are going to be deciding which it is, then there's little point in us competitors trying to decide which it is (quality or otherwise).

Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm just afraid by the time the judges get down to determine if an edit is a quality edit or just a generic edit, it might get awfully tedious looking at 14 different users everyday; they may not have much time for anything else. That's why I suggested an honor system, where the contestant nominates certain of his/her edits for higher credit. It might save some time. Also, a judge could upgrade a generic edit or entry to quality if he was impressed. RobS 22:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Apology

Just wanted to apologize for my absence from CP for the past week or so... I was out of state for the week without internet access. And I'm really mad I missed the joining of the teams. Is there any way I can still join one and help? Thanks! DeborahB. 13:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

You're on team1 now, DeborahB.! See Team1:Players for your own team info. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Moving goalposts

Why are the scoring rules being redefined/defined now, after the contest has already started?? Sorry, but I just don't follow anymore. This is creating more grief than its worth I think, especially with having to break down our own edit histories, decide what qualifies as what, create new articles, all while fending off the constant flow of vandals and trolls and watching RCs to revert their contribs too. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

We're not redefining any rules, but we are clarifying them as various considerations become apparent that weren't apparent before. And remember, your blocking actions do your team credit, too. -- Judge TerryHTalk 15:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Clarifying? They were fairly straight forward before, now the "clarification" has effectively redefined them. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:17, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Hmm. If Fox is on team2, then I think he has a point. However, if he is on team1, then he should be ejected from the contest and all of his points should be given to team2! (specifically to me) Bohdan 15:19, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Don't get angry Fox, this was just a joke Bohdan 15:29, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
You just wish you had him on your team ;-) Learn together 15:33, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

ACE (baseball) and the contest

Is this a result of this contest? It's essentially useless. It has one sentence of inane content, a completely unrelated picture, some unrelated external links, and then an obviously cut-and-pasted list of external links to glossaries, four of which don't mention this term. The title is malformed (nobody types "ace" in all-caps), even the single-sentence is highly debatable, I've heard the term used to apply to any good starting pitcher, not just a team's best (which may not actually be very good).

I just see a lot of mass creation of what I can only charitably describe as entires of questionable quality and it seems to be part of this contest.

By the way, I made a point of not looking at the article history. I don't know who made it, and I don't want to know. I'm just afraid that the admirable goal of helping the encyclopedia has sort of been lost in the rush to rack up raw numbers. (E2's experiences in this regard may be enlightening, although it has a very, very different mission.) AManInBlack 10:20, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Fix it if you don't Like it :P And as for the quality of entries, you obviously don't remember wikipedia when it first started. It was a mess of cruddy one liners (and it still has a whole shed load of crappy one liners, except they justify them by tagging "stub"...); over the years, some were deleted, some were expanded, some were merged into more cohesive units. What is it with all the critics here who expect every entry to be a graduate-level thesis on the subject? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:28, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Heh, {{sofixit}}, then, huh? ;D

Well, the problem is that I can't fix it. It's misnamed, and the article is useless. There's also almost nothing to say on the subject that doesn't belong in, say, pitching. Its origin comes from the use in common English of "ace" to mean "the best." Its use in baseball is exactly congruous to its use in English.

Wikipedia dealt with this problem with What Wikipedia is not, which attempted to narrow things to encyclopedia articles. (A full history on this obviously requires more space than this really needs.) Everything2, which admittedly has very different goals from this project, dealt with this problem by automatically adding public domain content outside the individual-user reward scheme.

I don't have a problem with short articles other people can fix. (These are a Good Thing.) Indiscriminate, contentless articles nobody can really fix aren't so hot. AManInBlack 10:43, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Currently, not only is the article useless, but even if I could think of something worth adding, but the page is protected. I can't quite figure out what from. AManInBlack 12:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


I looked at the history to see who created it, and I'd like to say that it wasn't done by one of the contestants, but instead I'll point out that you don't (yet) know how the contest judges will score it. Philip J. Rayment 10:38, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Right, I don't. I was hoping bringing it to the judges' attention would help make sure this sort of thing doesn't get scored. AManInBlack 10:43, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Uh, actually, it was created (and protected) by a contestant (unless your "I'd like to say that it wasn't done by one of the contestants" meant to imply "...but that would be incorrect"). Unless Team One suddenly fired its own Captain... ;) Also, the article has as many references as it has words (not counting the "Ace:" part). Plus four external links. I think this is a case of trying to insert more links and refs to boost the score. I honestly can't think of another reasonable explanation why a one-sentence(-fragment) stub article has nine outgoing links, five of which are supposed to be references. --Sid 3050 16:29, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

That's not the only one. Does Conservapedia have an AFD? Or {{db-empty}}? AManInBlack 12:19, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Not the only one by a long shot, wouldn't you say? ;) --Sid 3050 16:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
But think of the points being racked up! Let alone the, um, value added to the encyclopedia. --Colest 16:41, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
You're missing the point of starting with these small glossary entries. Look at [1] and then look at Perils of the Sea; in writing it I discovered a great artist whose work I intend to write about, a movie I want to watch, articles we still need (piracy eg)... Yes, I can see why its easy to criticise the contest, but it IS adding value. WP incidentally doesn't have an entry on Perils of the Sea, more's the pity :( File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:45, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
No, the point would be to start your research with such a glossary (for example) and then writing an article based on it. I fear we're talking of more than a thousand glossary stubs by now (since you lurk on RationalWiki, you most likely know of my June 23 list - I linked to it from the Team Contest article there - and the copy-pasting started earlier than even that), and their information value is LOW. It would have made WAY more sense to just make a huge (and public) list of sources and then encourage people to actually write articles about them instead of just mindlessly copying. Tell me, how many of your copied articles (86 during their first 12 hours of the contest alone) have you actually expanded with your own writing? How many will you expand? Or is this a case of "Not my problem, you do it if you feel it's lacking"?
At the same time, what is your comment on the below comment?
Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying. - Aschlafly 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT) on his talk page
This kinda looks conflicting to me. --Sid 3050 16:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Sid, I don't "lurk" - you all know I read it, you all know I occasionally post there - "lurking" is somehow insulting. Are you "lurking" here? As for your points above - that is why we need a robust {{db}} team/procedure - I've said elsewhere, we need to create stubs like these and see what we can do with them over time. Should they go? Should they merge, expand? The contest is a bit of fun, don't forget. Why are you so against us having fun here? Yes, I've been stubbing the shipping thing, but that's because its a subject I worked in professionally for a long time and I can see how I can develop some monstrously good pages. And check Ship's Bells - you know YOU didn't know that before now: it IS educational. Its hard enough for us to be constructive while you lot are running your vandalbots. This site is very very young. You people have never appreciated the benefits that contributions such as mine can make in the long run, and you just want to destroy and make conflict. That's not the way. If you don't like it here, please leave. Trashionalwiki needs you. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:05, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't lurk here. I just had been banned for the past three months. ;)
Copy-pasting technical glossaries IS useless, especially when it's done in this quantity (especially compared to the total article count and the number of unbanned editors). It's just a glossary mirror, filled with orphaned (and often dead-end) stubs. Any Google query gives the source (which says exactly the same content, minus potentially hilarious grammar slip-ups) and half a bazillion more comprehensive articles.
And funny how you...
  1. insert the mandatory "Don't love it? Leave it!" line (I mean, dude, I just came back! :P) and
  2. don't comment on how Andy's opinion apparently did a 180° turn.
Here's a (late) suggestion: Just post links to all those glossaries and then make a project out of it. Instead of mindless copy-pasting with the "Work on it later" tag, create meaningful articles from scratch. That would put an emphasis on quality instead of quantity. Keep in mind, it's not only about how things look in five years, it's also about the impression you project to outsiders right now.
And I let you guys have as much fun as you like, but you most likely also read my analysis of how the scoring system is critically flawed and thus encourages mindless copying (I predicted one of the key strategies before you guys even had your own namespaces). I would gladly have a contest in which the focus is the creation of GOOD and actually USEFUL articles. --Sid 3050 17:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Because, of course, so many of you can remember how WP was when it started. Not. Get over it, Sid - your dislike of CP is political, not "educational". I don't criticize Andy, because he is the person keeping this site online; but at the same time, I'm not a sycophant, as RW has occasionally recorded. I'm just a person who wants a reliable small "c" conservative online encyclopedia that I can contribute to, which doesn't contradict the edicts of my faith and that of my family. You have WP and RW, leave us to have CP. Left wing = the most vicious fascists of them all, even to the point of "thought control" by trying to stifle this site... Hypocrites File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:44, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I think that the scoring system is just about useless. I knew this was going to happen as soon as i sam the scoring system. What needs to be done, is all of those articles merge/redirected to baseball. If was judge i would not count the points for those entries, or others like them. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 17:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
The last time I looked, you weren't one of the official judges. Please confirm your identity via ASchlafly, or I will consider your account to have been hacked. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 18:34, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I think he was speaking in the hypothetical, there, and just missed the "I" in "If I was judge..." AManInBlack 18:37, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Just my final comment since this is quickly becoming sheer name-calling (Vicious fascists? Come on...) and because we both have more important things to do (I'd guess): It's VERY difficult to directly compare CP and WP in their first years. The entire landscape changed. WP was effectively the first of its kind to actually take off slowly. See also the sudden boost in editors once CP became more well-known. As such, making "They did it, so there" statements is a bit off. Especially when this site adds a "but we still criticize them for doing it" to it. --Sid 3050 18:03, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Um. Can we get back to the problems instead of cattiness? Ace (baseball) is still contentless, unexpandable, and page protected. Wikipedia did it to make stubs that could grow into full articles. That's okay, I guess, but if I wanted to merge ace (baseball) somewhere, I couldn't, because it's protected.

This content isn't just promoting the creation of junk; it's promoting a possessive attitude towards junk. "This is my junk, and you can't touch it or you're sabotaging my efforts in the contest!" is the implicit message when a one-sentence stub gets page protected. AManInBlack 18:36, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

*is drawn back here by the recent WTFness* Actually, it's not even implied anymore - it's said explicitly. Quoting Joaquín Martínez: "Baseball articles have been made according to Rules. They may stand in place till the end of the Contest. After that they can be deleted if they are not useful." (on his talk page). --Sid 3050 19:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

CPAdmin1

I fear this is related to the contest... are people questioning his identity because he pointed out that the rules are effectively useless (they are, I fully agree with him)? Please tell me there is more evidence than just "Because he said something I don't like to hear". --Sid 3050 19:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?

I've made this debate because I, for one, am saddened by what is happening to Conservapedia during this Team Contest. It seems like editors are so point-hungry that they are forgetting that people actually use this resource for important information. I would make some quality edits but I've been slapped with a big project at work; hopefully something nice can result from the debate. Jinkas 19:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

So, is what you suggested regarding improving articles already here something beyond your own means? Karajou 19:39, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
"I would make some quality edits but I've been slapped with a big project at work." Between work and my family right now I have very little free time available; certainly not enough to be doing original research and writing good articles. However, hopefully that debate topic will touch someone who does have more time and who can make a significant contribution. Jinkas 19:42, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Jinkas, if you've got the time to make complaints on talk pages regardless of work and family, you've got the time to make quality edits. Karajou 18:52, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't there at least be quotation marks? For instance the page on Admiral R. E. Coontz is just plagarism, plain and simple. Jazzman831 21:34, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
We own US government work. We paid for it. Some of us have even produced work as US government employees. By law, US government writings belongs to all of us. A quotation attribution something factual or historical to the "US Government" would be silly.--Aschlafly 21:40, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

20 July

Results: ? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:27, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

  • They're dancing as fast as they can!  :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools