| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | This is the rough draft of what eventually will be the format for the new point system, please discuss the format and any other concerns regarding the Contest [[Conservapedia talk:Contest5|here]]. | | This is the rough draft of what eventually will be the format for the new point system, please discuss the format and any other concerns regarding the Contest [[Conservapedia talk:Contest5|here]]. |
| − | ==Contest 5 Point System== | + | ==Purpose== |
| | + | The purpose of the contest is to '''improve Conservapedia''' by tapping into the competitive side of our editors, fostering sportsmanship is also a goal. |
| | + | ==Rules== |
| | + | In addition to the scoring guidelines below: |
| | + | *Good sportsmanship is required and aspects of the rules are subject to change during the contest if consensus supports the revision |
| | + | *No editor is allowed to artificially make a page wanted, then create it. To prevent this - all wanted pages will be listed on a page (to be created) before the contest starts, and only those will count as wanted pages throughout the competition. |
| | + | *All editors must keep track of their score in a clear format: preferably: |
| | + | <pre> |
| | + | <nowiki> |
| | + | ==Type of Edit(Points the edit is Worth)(Number of this type made)== |
| | + | links to diff (no organization necessary). |
| | + | </nowiki> |
| | + | </pre> |
| | + | *'''-20 points to each user who does not keep track of their points correctly!!!''' |
| | | | |
| − | Things changed from Contest 4's:
| |
| − | <dl>
| |
| − | <dt>'''Increased the gap between quality and short articles'''
| |
| − | <dd>Normal articles can easily be transformed into quality articles - and thus there should be some more gratification for doing so
| |
| − | : Agree. Great suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <dt>'''Decreased the gap between normal and entertainment anything'''
| |
| − | : 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::: I think the judges should have greater authority to take points away from uninformative entertainment entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::agreed.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | <dd>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
| |
| − | : Same comment as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a fully copied entry'''
| |
| − | <dd>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
| |
| − | : 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a quality edit'''
| |
| − | <dd>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
| |
| − | : Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for an image'''
| |
| − | <dd>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
| |
| − | : Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for breaking news'''
| |
| − | <dd>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
| |
| − | : Why do we want to increase that gap? I do agree that quality breaking news should be highly rewarded with points.--[[User:Aschlafly|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--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a template'''
| |
| − | <dd>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.
| |
| − | : Don't know. If you say so, it's OK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | <dt>'''Redefined what a template had to have'''
| |
| − | <dd>read:Userboxes don't count
| |
| − | : Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − | </dl>
| |
| − | '''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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :: That's an interesting suggestion! I like it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 3 February 2008 (EST)
| |
| | ==Points== | | ==Points== |
| | ===New entry=== | | ===New entry=== |