541
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 87:
Line 87: + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Contest4 (view source)
Revision as of 20:45, January 12, 2008
, 20:45, January 12, 2008→Double counting: "Quality" here doesn't mean much, that's the problem
::I don't mean that you should only keep your very first score, but I don't think it's that radical to suggest that if someone creates a QNE that they should not get any points for fixing all their own spelling, say. And if you started out with a Minor new article but later improved it, there's no problem with claiming credit for the article as a whole. The only time there's "no incentive" is when you create a quality entry, but if it's already quality, how many more points could you earn anyway? If you can earn substantial points by improving it, it probably wasn't a valid quality new entry to start with. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:24, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I don't mean that you should only keep your very first score, but I don't think it's that radical to suggest that if someone creates a QNE that they should not get any points for fixing all their own spelling, say. And if you started out with a Minor new article but later improved it, there's no problem with claiming credit for the article as a whole. The only time there's "no incentive" is when you create a quality entry, but if it's already quality, how many more points could you earn anyway? If you can earn substantial points by improving it, it probably wasn't a valid quality new entry to start with. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:24, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:::My entire reply can be summed up with three links: [[Homosexuality]], [[Atheism]], [[Theory of Evolution]]. ;)
:::But I'll give a less silly version, anyway. The issue is that "quality" in the context of the contest means "''two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, several links to other entries, some in-depth content and designations of category''". That's really not much. I could easily reach "quality" level within minutes if I set my mind to it - without getting close to having an actually good article.
:::I could normally start with a quality article and add more pieces as I see fit. For example, our article about [[Barack Obama]] spends more than three full paragraphs only on the intro and his early life. Add a few more references to that, and you already got a QNE, so edits beyond that suddenly don't count anymore?
:::I could live with your suggestion (and it would help against potential abuse such as spending fifty edits to fix one typo each), but for it to actually lead to a better Conservapedia, the "Quality New Entry" (and "Normal New Entry") criteria would have to be WAY higher, or we'd need more levels. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:45, 12 January 2008 (EST)
====Handicap====
====Handicap====