The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete This clearly is an emotive subject for many editors but we have a very clear consensus that despite the good intentions of those who created the award centre the outcome is actually detrimental to the project. Specifically very solid evidence that the award centre has inadvertantly distorted the GA system and even FAC/FAR. On the plus side we see plenty of argument that this is a good thing that encourages users to contribute to the project. The trouble is that the evidence remains that this encouragement doesn't always lead to a useful outcome.
Wikipedia is a project to produce a quality encyclopaedia. The award centre is a net negative to this as it encourages quantity over quality and disrupts the work of those producing quality content.
(note: I have not worried too much about the obvious canvassing as I have assessed relative strength of argument against the aims of the project not headcount) SpartazHumbug!22:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 — MaggotSyn07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Sandy's concerns about canvassing, I'd like to note that the monthly newsletter, in its original form (the one designed by myself and sent out via Newsletterbot) simply linked back to AWC. All changes to the newsletter after that were not my doing. In regards to the assertion that the newsletter coincided with this MFD, the newsletter in in fact released monthly and as such it's issuing was by no means an attempt to purposefully canvass. --SharkfaceT/C03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 ChocolatetoFeatured 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 Scott06:13, 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 processDelete - 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]
Transhumanist has stated below that he can't monitor it and never intended to originally. I was prepared to support it if there was motivation to change the process. However no one at the award center wants to or has the time. The only way it would have worked would be if half a dozen regulars monitored it. I myself have offered to monitor it, taking the brunt of the responsibility for something I had previously had little connection to. However I cannot do it alone, thus, unfortunately, I must retract my support. Apologizes. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 03:02, 23 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]
Counting ones barnstars really isn't the end of the world, I wish all this snobby elitism would end. Who cares if people count their edits or barnstars, I really dont understand why the old timers get so annoyed by it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 07:46, 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. — MaggotSyn08:38, 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]
: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. :) — MaggotSyn08:57, 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. — MaggotSyn09:15, 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. — MaggotSyn09:57, 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 — MaggotSyn10:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Transhumanist's comments below (in the proposal section) so long as a new and better project is starting from scratch. — MaggotSyn09:52, 23 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." -- iMatthewT.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. -- iMatthewT.C.16:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I keep changing my mind, right now I am Neutral. I plan on working with some others on creating good challenges, per the AWC talk page. -- iMatthewT.C.15:54, 21 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 (asGiggy 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.--LAAFan13:15, 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]
Required reading from Moni: Punished by Rewards. 『... manipulating people with incentives seems to work in the short run, it is a strategy that ultimately fails and even does lasting harm ... people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives.』 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 21 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. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone13:29, 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•Contribs15:51, 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. – iridescent15:43, 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. macytalk17:50, 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. -DarkZorro22:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[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.--LAAFan00:25, 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. -- iMatthewT.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]
The page does have tremendous potential, I agree. Tremendous potential to do harm. Whenever you feel bored with the project, why not try writing an article? Or take a break? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary, as we discussed on my talk page,[4] 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/C23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the charge that the Awards Center is without benefit, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. These I found in under two minutes. The Awards Center has directly resulted in many articles being expanded and improved. --SharkfaceT/C23:57, 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/C00:44, 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 wood00:00, 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.--LAAFan00:22, 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. -- iMatthewT.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]
Delete. Promotes superficial barnstar-chasing, barn-star inflation, and my-space-ism. Hurts the grand scheme of building an encyclopedia more than it helps. --Dschwen00:33, 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 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 Transhumanist02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal withdrawn - because the future of this page is uncertain, and because the creators have decided to start over from scratch anyways, I believe it would be more worthwhile to take a new approach and create something distinctly different rather than try to rebuild this page. The Transhumanist21:01, 22 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 Transhumanist02:29, 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]
I don't see how one or two hosts could possibly monitor or oversee the activities of everyone involved on such a page. For one or two people to babysit the activity of every challenger is impractical. It places far too great a burden upon the hosts. Therefore, I agree that the AWC should be closed down. The concept of a centralized awards forum may be practical, but not in the way it was implemented this time around. I responsibly oversaw the challenges I presented, and that's about all I could handle. I plan on posting my future challenges on my userpage (or its talk page, or a subpage). I welcome your scrutiny over the challenges I personally present, and I am officially standing down as a host of the AWC.
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: [5] : ) 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]
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:
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 Transhumanist05:15, 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 Transhumanist03:50, 6 April 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 Transhumanist04:06, 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 Transhumanist04:17, 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]
GCF, you put that article up for Peer Review, which I responded to joyously. I notice you hadn't returned to respond. I didn't read the entire Awards Center until after seeing that Peer Review. It was then I realized what motivated you to ask for a review. Do you think you will get around to reading the David Garrow book for the article? I hate to say it, but I wonder, actually, if you read the material that's cited in the diff. Do you think you'll spend a year working on it, making at least a thousand edits? Would you go to ANI the minimum number of five times for the arguments that will arise in the edits to be made to the article? That kind of dedication is what is necessary to see an article of this magnitude through to FA. That kind of dedication comes from someone whose morals are grounded in King's philosophy, and who was so moved by his words and actions that they're willing to take the time, money, and effort to honor the man. The desire to see it through must come from within. I hate to think that you improved King's article because the Awards Center told you to do it, and once you did what you had to do, you left the article to be ravaged again by bad edits so the article will be in its previous dilapidated state within weeks or months. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Award Center did not tell me to do anything. I saw a challenge to add citations to articles, which sounded like a good idea because I was looking for something to do on Wikipedia. I looked through articles on topics that I find interesting, and I found an article that desperately needed it. I started out by sourcing the current content. To do so, I read through quite a few sources, including the full text of several of King's writings. Have I read every word of every source I added? Of course not. I read the relevant sections in those works. I would love to read the Garrow book. When I get a chance and when I find a copy of the book, I'll get to it. The same goes for the McWhorter work. I found your comments at the Peer Review eye-opening, and I'll admit that I probably won't see the article through the FA process. I realized that a more realistic goal would be to help it reach Good Article status. The peer review had no ulterior motives, contrary to what you are suggesting. The challenge was simply to add citations, not to have the article promoted. I notice that there was a task listed on the Award Center for improvements to the King article, but that was posted long after I started and a while after I initiated the Peer Review. Please note that I did not sign up for the challenge, as I saw no point in seeking a barnstar for something I was already doing. As for not responding to the Peer Review, I had a very busy week at work and then had to leave town for a while, as a family member was in the hospital. I appreciate the feedback received from the Peer Review. As for the article, if I'm going to be attacked for wanting to work on it, I don't think I'll pursue it any farther. Take that as you want, as your opposition to the Award Center clearly prevents you from looking at anything else objectively. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consider your position clarified, GCF. However, your later comments further illustrate my point about dedication. My questions pale in comparison to the scrutiny of FAC, and indeed, any arguments about content or NPOV that will arise when King's article is taken on by someone who intends to get it to FA. I don't quite know how I feel about your statement that you're abandoning the article because of my questions. But anyone should feel free to ask an editor about his/her knowledge of the subject. I find that with anyone who holds a strong opinion, including you and me, "objective" is relative. We all believe what we believe based on our experiences. In this case, my experiences lead me to believe the Awards Center is poorly designed and implemented. --Moni3 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, I'm really upset now. Dismissed is at least as offensive a word to use as deliberately.[6] Go wash your mouth out with soap and water young man. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:29, 23 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 Transhumanist05:26, 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 Transhumanist06:08, 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]
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]
But there is oversight. I've been overseeing the Citation Challenge and the Wish List. The Citation Challenge is a change in the right direction. The solution is to fix the page, not delete it. And that is done on its talk page, not at MfD. By the way there's a discussion started there concerning what approach to take. I suggest you get rid of the sections of the page that have no effective oversight, and keep the sections that do. Throwing out the good with the bad is a poor approach. The Transhumanist07:35, 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]
Ahh, I see, now I'm disruptive too. In the event, I happened to agree with Sandy that threaded discussions are best moved to the talk page. No biggie though, discussions happen whereever they happen, if you and Giggy think it should be here, not going to cause me any grief. I'm a little surprised you'd label that as disruption, the other term we sometimes use is "refactoring". Franamax (talk) 08:04, 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 Transhumanist07:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your earlier statement above that begins, in bold letters, with "Proposal to keep ..." can be seen as your official position on keeping the page. Please remove this item. --Laser brain(talk)14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen problems with the AWC at GA, and Laserbrain sums the situation up perfectly. Those putting the awards forward, and many of those searching for them, are doing so in good faith. But a few mischievous editors are causing more harm than the good the rest cause. Deletion of the AWC won't stop barnstars and good editing, but it will help stop poor GANs been passed, misguided AfDs, articles with poor infoboxes, etc, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just received my Awards centre newsletter and was somewhat surprised to see the awards centre nominated for deletion. I have been following the project for many months now and have in the past, both edited and improved some articles, and have posted some requests for improvements myself. I have always been strongly for the idea of an official group that rewards people for their contributions to the wikipedia. The awards centre is the nearest thing to anything like that and I strongly support the idea of awarding people for certain tasks. However I have to also say that I agree with many of the delete comments raised here, for the most part by laser brain and Sandy Georgia. The problems associated with GA nominations are a clear example of where the centre is causing trouble, as is the AFD, welcoming users etc. But I disagree with the statement: The Award Center has significant influence on the growing unhealthy culture of the pursuit of recognition and awards. I think for the most part the award centre helps expands articles and I dont see an unhealthy culture developing. So long as the awards centre is carefully maintained and awards are reflective I see no problem. I for one have made several contributions to article expansion requests, knowing full well I would never get them to GA or FA, but have expanded them regardless. It is with this point that my comment is focused - why not change the subjects for which awards can be given? Rather than say getting the article to GA, instead say expand with multiple references, add image, expand certain sections etc. I think the awards centre would be better as say the 'awards centre for article improvement'. Why not just concentrate on article improvement only (and not to GA or FA) so that each individual editor can be recognised according to their own contributions? This I think would satisfy most of the criticisms raised here. What is needed is reform. If this can be made I would support the continuation of the centre without equivocation. LordHarris10:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, what is the purpose of noting "Newsletter recipient" beneath the statement of someone who begins with "I have just received my Awards centre newsletter..."? Naerii (complain) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to not be accused of leaving anyone out or being biased. So much for thoroughness; you can please some of the people some of the time and all that ... :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per nom, SandyGeorgia etc. You need a reward/incentive to improve an article? Use this, which shows you how many people across the world read your article everyday. indopug (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about "reform" I'm going to lay out why I'm pretty dubious about reform working. Just a month ago when someone enquired on the talk page as to why the AWC was in user space, this was the answer:
"Basically, a userpage gives us the freedom offer challenges that would be highly contentious in the projectspace."[7]
However, it's blindingly obvious from this MfD (and prior discussions) that this "userpage" has counterproductive, and in some cases downright harmful, repercussions throughout Wikipedia. Is the basic idea expressed above still going to underlie the "new" AWC? In other words, will it remain a place where "highly contentious" challenges can go ahead with no perceived need for input from the wider community that will be affected by them?
One of the fundamental problems with the AWC is that it is currently a dysfunctional hybrid. In some respects, it behaves like a project or program in Wikipedia space - newsletters, members, coordinators,[8], etc. It also advertises itself around Wikipedia in a way that makes it look like it's in project space and widens its influence even more, e.g. the Geography Project,[9] the Geography Portal where the advert is placed in the Wikiprojects section, [10] and the Time Portal. [11] And in less official-looking ways by contacting individual users or announcing barnstar offers on various article talk pages.
On the other hand, there is no sense of the collective oversight or responsibility that is found in projects, no use of the talk page to discuss and refine challenges before they go "live" or to discuss even more fundamental changes to the program. The only time it happens is post facto, when outside editors themselves start discussions (or MfDs) about the problems the AWC is causing. Then we get answers like:
"In the final analysis, it is up to [Sharkface] to make this page work smoothly."
"I think that the general assumption is to think of ways the challenges can go wrong. I believe we should not assume anything. If a challenge becomes a problem, it will be closed, and we move on."
"We don't do the preapproval thing on Wikipedia."
"I think all of this talk about having challenges that could cause trouble is pointless."
I asked this back in April:
"Posting challenges here first would be a way for the proposers to get some advice re the possible pitfalls and unintended consequences of their challenge, as well as some tips on wording to avoid them. It's up to them whether or not they want to follow the advice or not. Do you find that undesirable?".
The answer was:
"Consensus is binding, and comes from discussions, so your statement above strongly implied a proposal process with approval/disapproval. As soon as several people disapprove of something in a discussion on Wikipedia (with little or no opposition), you have a consensus not to allow that thing."
Have these attitudes changed? Or are the prime movers and defenders of the AWC planning to continue in the same vein? No prior discussion of challenges, even amongst themselves? No collective attempt to reflect on some of the problems that particular challenges might cause? Just deletion after they've already caused the damage?
And how will you know they're causing damage? So far it's only been when outside editors point it out to you. Transhumanist still sees the "reformed AWC" as:
"more than anything, [it] is a method of delegation. Delegators should be responsible for the tasks they delegate."
Does anyone else besides me see a problem with this? It's all well and good to say:
"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."
But what do you do if the "delegators" aren't checking responsibly and monitoring the ongoing effects of their challenges, despite the "new instructions"? How will you even know that they aren't doing it without a culture of collective oversight and responsibility? In other words, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Voceditenore (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while this sounds like a good idea in principle, it is clear from the above that it is encouraging inappropriate behaviour in order to get awards. Insisting on further reform is pointless, as the project has had plenty of time to sort itself out. It's clear the project does more harm than good. Hut 8.513:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trans, while I admire your efforts to try and improve this page, most of the opposes include opposing not just based on the failures of this award center, but are opposing the whole concept of such an award center or program, based on various reasons. Most of the MfD has commentary not suggesting how such a program can/should be improved, but rather that such programs are problematic by nature and we'd prefer not to have them. As I said before, if this gets deleted, I would hope whoever wants to start a new one would read this MfD in its entirety and understand why it was deleted, or any future programs will likely be quickly brought to a new MfD and deleted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs16:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about the AWC page having been blanked. I thought that wasn't supposed to be done during an MfD. Is someone going to add a link at the top of this page to the version before it was blanked so at least newcomers to this discussion will know what we're all talking about? Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It took me years to learn about the information provided on this page. I am not interested in collecting Barmstars or other awards by following the directions on this page so that is not why it is of interest to me. Even after being on Wikipedia since early 2006, I still learned about unknown (to me) areas of Wikipedia by reading the page. Perhaps it can be reformatted in a way that will not be objectionable to so many other Wikipedians. It did function to inform me and clarified how to do things I had been curious about. It is not easy to find one's way through Wikipedia, even after three years here. For example, I received several barnstars before I even knew what they were or that anyone could give them out. I did not find out about GA and FAC until I had been here over a year (I am guessing). –Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if drastically changed. I agree that, in its current form, the page is doing harm. But, if The Transhumanist's proposal works, it might be improving the wiki. Barnstars are of almost no meaning. If some user wants barnstars and does good editing to gain them, we might as well give him a barnstar. It doesn't hurt anything. Besides, the users going bananas over it would probably go bananas anyway. Barnstars will still exist whether or not this page does. Bart133(t)(c)18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's fair enough. But if this page didn't exist, barnstars would more likely be given for quality edits not simply the quantity of edits. Peanut4 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stick with my delete vote, but I feel you have a very fair point. If it is kept, then I suggest no awards for "get X articles to FAC", "create Y infoboxes", "send Z welcome to new users". While all of those are challenges in good faith, they are not the best way the AWC could work. I would suggest the AWC works similar to how barnstars were originally created - for editors to recognise good work and use their own opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page itself is not harmful. The behaviour of certain participants is, but deleting this page will not alleviate that. Naerii (complain) 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- You guys cannot serious in deleting this. Wikipedia:Bounty board receives almost no support while this does. This page is responsible for some of our best work and still will be. By deleting this, the encyclopedia will suffer, and that is why we are all here, no matter how much irritation it may cause.-- penubag (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he opined that some great work stemmed from challenges or task on this page. Although, diffs would help. Wisdom89(T / C)19:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure one of the things that makes the bounty board unpopular is that it deals in actual cash, while this one merely deals in frivolous barnstars. I'm very skeptical of his claims of vast improvements to the encyclopedia due to the lack of evidence, and indeed, the abundance of evidence that it's actually detrimental to the encyclopedia. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article survives the MfD, I suggest that we remove all "Do X of Y" tasks, such as "Make 10 articles FA" or "Adopt 5 users". These encourage users to do the minimum. Tasks like "Get X article to FAC" shouldn't hurt, though. Bart133(t)(c)19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c) I see that many haven't looked at the page yet. The page has been wiped out basically. All of the challenges have been removed already. -- iMatthewT.C.19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have a noteworthy point, Sandy. But doesn't it count that, as far as I can tell, this is the first time the page has been "blanked" with a temporary template that indicates a major revamping or overhaul? Seems like the regular maintainers of the page are taking this wholly seriously and some changes might be implemented afterall. Wisdom89(T / C)20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to note that I am sorry if I offended anyone. My temper gets the best of me sometimes, and I hope you will notice me by my contributions, and not by my temper.--LAAFan20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator's explanation says it all. Regarding reform, it doesn't matter. The point is that we don't need "better versions" of this. We don't need contests sitting in someone's userspace that attract sticker-oriented editors who are choosing to engage with this page instead of the normal areas of the encyclopedia where people collaborate and plan (i.e. talk pages). Others are perhaps afraid to state the obvious, but the "Awards Center" feels very childish. Isolation booth (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does not make Wikipedia more sticker oriented, and I don't think Wikipedia will ever be sticker-oriented. The Transhumanist and Sharkface have worked hard to create a wide scope of ways encourage the improvement of the Wikipedia. Mac Davis (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally, I really dislike this approach quite thoroughly--its not the sort of thing that motivated me in elementary school, and it still doesn't. But it does seem to appeal to numerous editors, many of whom do write good articles. That's reason enough to keep it. The point of being here is to write an encyclopedia, and if something helps, it helps. DGG (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the AWC appeals to some editors, or that a few of its participants have done some good and truly productive work (primarily the AWC's maintainers, to their credit) is not a valid reason for keeping it. The same could be said about any unsuitable, counter-productive page. Every time they come up for MfD, they alter or remove some of the challenges (although many of them get reincarnated). This has been especially true since this MfD started, the only one which they seem to have taken seriously because it was not allowed an early close. You have to look at the totality of what has gone there over the past months to see the net loss. These are just three of the most egregious examples:
The disruption caused to the GA process and the contribution to bringing it into disrepute
Encouraging and actually rewarding inexperienced editors with no background in the subject area to "vote" in AfDs. Many of them casting four or five votes in as many minutes.
Encouraging and actually rewarding inexperienced editors with no background in the subject area to tag articles for speedy deletion.
Take a look at what challenges have attracted people over the past months. The overwhelming majority have been the ones that you can "win" with minimal thought or effort, preferably using an automated tool, e.g. "voting", tagging, making 1000 "edits" in one month, etc. I've seen the results of those. That's how I stumbled on this place as I tried to clean up the messes they created in just the one small area of Wikipedia where I work.
Reform of the AWC is not going to work because its prime movers are still missing the key point. They are still refusing to provide any kind of oversight or take any responsibility for what goes on in the page they host and actively promote. Even in this MfD, they wash their hands of the innappropriate challenges, the actual damage they have caused, and the rewards that have been given for it. It's all basically, "Nothing to do with me, mate". We didn't write those challenges, not our job to see if the challengers are doing their job properly, etc. etc. They have also flatly rejected any notion of working out the wording and suitability of challenges on their talk page before going live with them.
If the decision is to keep, I strongly recommend that the AWC be moved back into Wikipedia space. Not because it's a valuable addition to Wikipedia, but because it will at least be open to scrutiny and editing by the wider community that they have affected and will continue to affect. Voceditenore (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those who want to keep the Award Center, keep in mind that it's not only damaging GANs, it's damaging newcomers, making think that Wikipedia is only for "welcoming X users" or "nominate Y AfDs and get a barnstar". Also, the AWC is making users to distract from our main goal: build an encyclopedia; and they start thinking that Wikipedia is a place to have many barnstars or beautiful userpages. macytalk18:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—have we forgotten how to deal with disruptive editors who abuse the challenges? Warn, then block disruptive editors, and ban from GAN/FAC/AfD until they have the maturity to contribute constructively to these areas. EJF (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to monitor the Awards Center and make sure all of this "banning" (which would be unprecedented, by the way) is going to happen? Impractical suggestion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the responsibility of the award sponsor to monitor how the tasks are being undertaken; they should bring any concerns to WT:GAN—Sharkface217 should also be overseeing the tasks as the host of the award centre. If this is not the case, the sponsor and the task should be removed; if in addition Sharkface217 is not fulfilling his role as host correctly, his removal and a move to the Wikipedia space for the award centre, as Voceditenore proposed, should be considered as a way of encouraging the community at large to scrutinise the performance of tasks. If poor reviews are being given and the editor has shown no signs of understanding the problem or promising to stay away from GAN, an AN thread followed by a topic-ban should be an available option, as has been used for editors who disrupt the Wikipedia-space or Talkspace; it shouldn't be a big deal to remove disruptive editors from internal processes. If this is tried for the award centre and then shown to be unworkable, I would support deletion. EJF (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is he hasn't, he didn't after two previous MfDs, and he doesn't seem clear on the magnitude or nature of the problem, so I don't see how he's going to oversee the issue. And we've *never* banned someone from FAC or GAN as far as I know. Further, those aren't the only problem areas; there are almost no areas of the awards center that aren't problematic, and banning all the misguided editors who follow the page would be a drain on resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... the very reason for the strong opposition is that many of us are seeing very little upside and have never seen proper oversight of the award center. Now that there are claims that things are being fixed or going to be fixed, that still doesn't consider the "delete" concern of seeing awards/achievement based editing as problematic and bad for the project. No amount of oversight can change that concern and while I'm happy to see editors trying to fix something, I just don't see it as fixable. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the disruptive editors as a greater drain on resources than blocking/banning them; if some can be saved by mentoring/adopting, I'm willing to devote some of my time to that end (not with regards to GAN/FAC participation however, as I am clueless with that area) What I would have preferred is a good and proper discussion of the award centre and its reform, put on the centralised discussion template and a note on the watchlists; it is difficult to discuss reform within the confines of an MfD. Repeated listings at MfD and repeated "Yeah, we'll fix it sometime" is clearly not working—if this is kept, a centralised discussion should start as to what is the way forward; and if there is no way forward—deletion. Awards/achievement-based is a concern for some people ethically; while trying not to invoke "otherstuffexists" the community has approved the likes of the bounty board, where editors are paid for their contributions. I have no strong feelings either way on that matter. A proper centralised discussion is preferable IMO to an MfD discussion as an instrument for reform. I acknowledge the good points that the two of you have made. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to the Wikipedia namespace and keep it for historical purposes only - The page wasn't working. I admit I failed to design the page well - it was something new, and therefore it was an experiment, and a learning experience. It's obvious this approach didn't work. And while somebody else may be able to make this general approach work (after some refinement of course), it's not really what I intended in the first place. (continued below...)
(...cont.) It wasn't my intention to create a page in which I would be expected to "babysit" anyone and everyone on Wikipedia who decided to present challenges. I originally came up with the idea of creating a page to personally present challenges, and I thought "what the hell" and opened it up for others to post their challenges too. This gesture was intended as a courtesy. It was not my intention to create a department that would require all my attention. My attention has been directed elsewhere, and I don't have time to oversee how others offer awards. I created the AWC to attract volunteers to help build one of Wikipedia's contents subsystems - the Lists of basic topics, as my wish list posted on the AWC shows. Of the 200+ pages for that project that I wished to see created, only 2 were created by others. I still found myself doing the bulk of the work developing that section of Wikipedia. So the AWC hasn't been fulfilling the purpose which I intended it to. It did attract a little help, and so it was a net benefit to me, and I considered it a small success. I continued to apply most of my time to Wikipedia's contents, and I didn't pay much attention to what others were doing at the AWC. I did post a few other types of challenges off the top of my head to jumpstart the page (and I think these may have caused the problems), but for the most part my active interest in the page has been with the wish list I posted there. (continued...)
(...cont.) Meanwhile, the AWC took off in entirely unexpected directions. I think those have potential, but they go far beyond the scope of what I'm interested in. I wish to continue to direct my attention and the attention of others upon developing the lists of basic topics. The AWC has barely contributed to that, and so from my standpoint it's time to put it to bed, and for me to try something else. And because the page itself (and not the concept) was fundamentally flawed, I believe it should be rendered inactive and tagged for historical purposes as an example of what did not work. If others wish to try to create a new department with a new way of going about it (along with new instructions), then I look forward to posting requests for help there (in whatever form is encouraged or allowed there), but I doubt I'll be involved with overseeing the page. (continued...)
(...cont.) I've got my hands full already. I hope my above explanation sheds light on the whole matter. Good luck in all your wiki-endeavors. Sincerely, The Transhumanist21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In regards to Transhumanist's comments, it is unfortunate that AWC cannot stand on its own. In regards to my work with AWC, I must admit that as of late I have not been able to devote as much time as I would like to the page. While this summer I will surely have more time to oversee the AWC, I do not know if I can singlehandedly keep it in form, ensuring that it is unoffensive and does not draw the ire of other editors (my apologies to those who work in FAC). While I haven't been the best janitor for the page, I still stand by conviction that it shouldn't be deleted, and ask that if its destruction is inevitable, Transhumanist's suggestion of an archive is followed (similar to what happened to WP:ESPERANZA). If this is truly the end of AWC, I thank all those who contributed constructively to the page and to the mainspace so that Wikipedia as a whole could be bettered. --SharkfaceT/C03:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I also should note that with the 4 or so days remaining in this MfD, I will revamp and streamline the AWC in order to create a more perfect project. I ask that this discussion not be closed early, as AWC can always improve and change. I have taken the feedback here to heart and will do considerable work on the page until the end of this MfD. --SharkfaceT/C04:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the basic implementation seems to be the main concern. Challenges of the below form might be more beneficial. This example is designed to try and address the issues of "counting" as well as "sticker entitlement". Well, maybe. Can't say I didn't try, anyway! Also, I really need to go do some real work instead of hanging around XfD... --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Working together with existing editors, help edit some articles until you all think it is ready for a Good Article nomination. Sign your username and some articles you are working on below; User:Example sometimes checks this list and gives out awards!"
Keep although I'm quite open to the format it takes. There exist people who are motivated by golden stars, others are not. In order to be effective, the awards center should
Reward work that doesn't have its own reward--GA, FA, DYK, etc. already have a milestone or achievement built in. Adding another one is redundant.
Reward work that isn't getting done. That is, to issue a challenge for a reward, the task should have to be less glamorous yet necessary for the proper function of the encyclopedia. Thus, it's the exact opposite of the military medal, which are given for exceptional work. These sorts of awards should be given for dilligent and dutiful work, because that's the sort of work we need to encourage.
Reward work that is done well. But in light of the above exclusions, that means the task issuer has to take concrete action to evaluate the work being performed. I wouldn't mind requiring each task to have the completor post diffs, like the WP:CROWN process, to demonstrate and record their worthiness. For example, I think "participate in 25 AfD discussions" is nonsense, but "During AfD, meaningfully and substantially expand 5 articles such that they are kept" actually serves Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: If the AWC is kept, I believe there should be a criteria one must have to be able complete challenges. An exact criteria can be thought of later, but some set of criteria should be required. -- iMatthewT.C.21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There has been much talk about how AWC is resulting in damage to several areas of WP. For example, drive by voting in AfDs. Is there any statistical evidence that the voters motivated by AWC are voting in a way to corrupt the process by thoughtless, unknowledgeable, biased, pile on, or contrarian voting; or in short, skewing the votes in any way? — Becksguy (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't easy to judge after the fact how many AfDs might have gone the other way with more thoughtful voting since in many cases the articles are now deleted. But here are two examples of the kind of behaviour the "50 AFD Barnstar" [12] encouraged:
One double barnstar winner voted on 118 AFD's in a 24 hour period, often 1 a minute and so fast that several times they forgot to even sign before moving on to the next.[13]
Then there's the 13 year old with all of two months experience on Wikipedia who "won" two barnstars (100 AfDs) by opining "Delete Non-Notable" or "Delete Google shows no reliable sources" (quite wrongly as it happens) on such matters as a Sociology Professor and a Caribbean Soca band. He did his voting in shorter bursts, but each time it was 5-6 AfDs in as many minutes, never to return to see if sources had been found (let alone look for them himself).
When the May MfD started, the AWC hastily closed that challenge and replaced it with a new one [14]. Only 25 required, could be any XfD, but tighter requirements on the quality of the participation. Generally speaking this revised challenge produced less problematic results. However, see the nominator's rationale above for a remaining issue with it. The example cited there was an editor who did the vast majority of the XfDs in a single day with an average of one every 2 or 3 minutes. There's already quite enough drive-by, thoughtless voting at AfDs without awarding barnstars for it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe sufficient attempts are being made to improve the project. I believe it does not conflict with wikipedia or affect it enough to warrant its deletion. It is no different than me saying to someone on their talk page, I'll give you a barnstar if you expand this article. The awards centre does less damage than this project: Wikipedia:The Core Contest. The latter is a far great violation of what wikipedia stands for. I agree their may be an impact on GA/FA noms. But whatever happened to the idea of monitoring the GA/FA nomination process? LordHarris10:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid I can't agree that sufficient attempts are being made to improve the project. Despite the promises of reform after the last MfD, a few of the challenges were removed or slightly modified, but several equally (and some cases even more) inappropriate, disruptive and poorly monitored ones took their place (see the nominator's rationale and the multitude of comments by other editors here). See also the talk page archives here and here . Once it became obvious that this time the MfD couldn't be closed early and that a lot of editors were expressing the opinion that the AWC should be deleted, they started removing more and more of the challenges and eventually blanked the page. It remains blanked. Where's the improvement? Both Sharkface and The Transhumanist have admitted that they didn't monitor what was going on properly. Transhumanist says he still hasn't got the time to monitor it and doesn't want to. Sharkface tells us that this summer, he'll have more time. But what happens in September when he goes back to school/college? Assuming that is, that he actually does present a "new and improved version" before this MfD closes. Voceditenore (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS"It is no different than me saying to someone on their talk page, I'll give you a barnstar if you expand this article.". Yes it is. First of all the challenges are not innocuous ones like "I'll give you a barnstar if you improve this article". Secondly, it is centralized, permanent, and has a lot of different editors offering rewards (with no oversight of those editors or the nature of their awards). It's also promoted around Wikpedia projects and portals, e.g [15], [16], [17]. See also this exchange, which I find quite interesting. Voceditenore (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the detailed nom, and share Nousernamesleft's rationale and SandyGeorgia's and others' concerns. Essentially I had originally felt this was largely harmless but reading this debate I have seen significant evidence of (probably unintended) disruption to the encyclopaedia in pursuit of awards. The issues at FAC and GAN are most concerning, but it's not limited to those. Orderinchaos11:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although if it is kept, perhaps several tasks would need to be done for a barnstar. I liked the page because it always was a good source of many tasks that needed to be done. jj137(talk)15:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fundamental issue here, is why offer a barnstar in the first place? Would you still perform tasks if no awards were offered? I don't think anyone who has opposed this page has based their opposition on the organization of tasks, but that tasks are tied to rewards. If a task is done only to be awarded a barnstar, the award suggests the quality of the task is evaluated, but it's not. In fact, the way the page is designed, makes it almost impossible for anyone to assess users' contributions in the volume of tasks asking to be completed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, some people will do work they would not otherwise have done, if a reward is forthcoming. Barnstars have at least as much permanence as any of the MMORPG rewards--they're gold stars that you can show off to your friends who also are involved in the same online environment. That's just basic. The real question, then, is how or whether to motivate people in such a manner in an inherently open, egalitarian, and reasonably trusting place like Wikipedia. Obviously, a large number of people believe, with apparently good basis, that allowing anyone to reward anyone for anything in such an organized fashion has led to a large volume of substandard work. Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allowing anyone to reward anyone for anything in such an organized fashion has led to a large volume of substandard work - I think that is a slight misconception of the positions. I think that if editor A sees editor B doing great work in a specific area they should be encouraged to give a barnstar for that work. In that case, editor A is actually looking at the quality of editor B's work. On the other hand, giving barnstars without checking to see if quality work was done is cheapening the meaning of a barnstar and encouraging uninformed editors to be disruptive (even if the uninformed editors don't mean to be disruptive). Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement here--the "large volume" I referred to was not meant to imply that the majority of editors pursuing rewards were pushing out substandard work, but rather that a few bad apples were creating a disproportionate volume of substandard work in pursuit of such awards. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the most involved MfD nominations I have ever seen (not a bad thing) and I agree 100%. Reward-based tasks, while not inherently bad (I am certain that the centre was started in good faith), encourage people to do the minimum required, often with minimal thought just to get the award. Now, I'm not saying 'ban all barnstars', rewarding other users is good, I just don't agree with a rewards-board that focuses on 'do x of this', etc. As the diffs provided above demonstrate, such tasks often lead to problems appearing and poor-quality GA/FA/XfD participation resulting. RichardΩ612Ɣɸ16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even outside the "X number of Y" challenges there have been problems with poor quality work being encouraged by the pervading culture at the AWC. I am aware of at least 3 members of the AWC who have pasted huge chunks of copyright material into articles in efforts to win barnstars for article creation/expansion tasks. Each of those members has done it more than once too. This is probably less disruptive as Corenbot or other ediors often catch it. But in one case, the member had already been awarded two barnstars (for two separate plagiarised articles) only to have them taken away when the plagiarism was pointed out to the person who awarded them. All three were very new editors and two of them were also very young editors (the AWC seems to act like a magnet for them). They're clearly being sent all the wrong messages and in some cases getting themselves into trouble too, which can be very discouraging. Not a good way to begin their Wikipedia careers. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that brings up an interesting idea... if this is ever implemented again, awards should be tailored to folks' level of abilities. That is, no one should be encouraged to be a GA reviewer immediately upon being autoconfirmed, there should be some threshold of experience necessary to demonstrate probable competence to begin work towards an award. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the editors who seem most swayed by these awards seem very young, though I don't care to speculate on their ages. However, it may tie back to the aforementioned text on Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn. He makes the point that students in school learn to be motivated by rewards until they are unable to function without them, and indeed, aren't able to reason why work should be completed without a reward. If these young editors are still in school, then it might be a good guess as to why they are so motivated by stars. It often seems like a foreign concept in public education to do it because you love it, but quite a fascinating lesson to learn. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
