Forum:Two week trial of the Wikia achievements extension

Forums: Yew Grove > Two week trial of the Wikia achievements extension

Hello folks, I haven't made a large bought of drama here in a while, so here I am :D

I would like to propose a two week trial of Wikia's achievements extension. At the end of those two weeks, we will come back to the polls and see whether or not we like it.

Wikia's achievements extension automatically awards "badges" for various things around the wiki. See w:c:glee for an example of them. There are many users that create an account on Wikia, edit once or twice, but never really get involved. This extension provides a reason for people to get involved, and excels at that function. While it does create incentive-based editing, and some bad edits as a result of it, the net improvement is well worth the cost. This extension has a habit of doubling the number of active users on a wiki, and quite a few users who start editing because of the badges end up continuing to edit because they like it - in my experience, you do get quite a few users who start out editing for the badges, and eventually realize that they like editing for the sake of making the wiki better.

As Spam Me Plox, the activity on this wiki is decreasing, in fact it has been for a while now. We should do something to get activity back up to its previous levels, and quite frankly, nothing will do it like this does. We can play around with things like Wikicapes that only slightly promote incentive based editing, but honestly, what we need is something big. I strongly doubt that wikicapes will reel in the editors, nor will personalized messages, because what we ultimately need to do is get those new editors involved.

It is possible to modify the badges, and to disable them for yourself if you don't like them.

Now, I know that all of you conservatives out there who are afraid of change will be instinctively opposing this - I ask you, please, give your brains a chance. Read through it, think through it, and then make an informed decision. For crying out loud, I'm proposing a two-week trial, not the end of the wiki. Also, if you have questions ask, don't do a stupid oppose instead that gets people arguing over it.

Thanks for your time, and please discuss.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:05, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Support two week trial - As nominator.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:05, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - We might as well try it if we're trying to increase active editors. We can always undo any bad edits. Plus, it's just a trial, if we don't like it then we can get rid of it. Template:Signatures/Rsa23899 22:09, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - For Christ sake it's a trial, let's at least give it a shot. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:10, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It is just a trial, and we can stop any gaming the system if they're making pointless edits, such as changing spacing and then changing it back.

1. REDIRECT User:TyA/sig 22:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I must reluctantly admit that something has to be done about our decreasing activity and that this just might do it. Of course, if it doesn't work out, it can always be removed at the end of the trial period. Might as well give it a shot. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 22:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support trial - I think a two week trial would be good to show what kind of abuse it attracts, and what kind of extra edits it attracts, which we can compare then. this kind of things will happen, and as we are such a big wiki we will attract even more. I'd also like to see the good things it attracts, so I support a trial. Maybe it should be one week because that also shows what good effects it has, but if it's being abused it won't be abused that long. 2 weeks is just fine too. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 22:47, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - For the same reasons that I mentioned in the last thread(s) about this topic. Achievements are simply some stupid set of brass that incenvitizes editing. We as a wiki are not supposed to be promoting that kind of stuff. True, we need more editors, but in this case the ends do not justify the means. If we attain the end goal of more active editors through the incorrect means of incentives, then we'd be compromising our principles and be worse off than we are now. Therefore, I am and will always staunchly oppose this addition.

As for the two week trial part, I just have to say that it's pointless. Two weeks are not long enough to see if we have any significant progress; these things take time to accomplish. By the time people realize what achievements are and how to get them the two weeks will be up already and we'd be no better off then than we are now with speculation.

If the proposal is to add this and require consensus to remove at the end of two weeks, then I will upgrade this to an extreme oppose. If the proposal is to try this for two weeks and require consensus then to keep it, then I will stay at a strong oppose.

Cheers, --Liquid^Talk 22:49, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's quite logical the achievements get removed after the two weeks, and then it's being discussed. Getting consensus takes too long to let it be the other way, and then we'd have it for a lot longer than 2 weeks very soon. Atleast, that's what I assume. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 22:56, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

I may have to upgrade to an Extreme support. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 23:21, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Also, if it's the former (require consensus to remove at the end of two weeks) then this is just a very sneaky way of trying to usher in the achievements extension under the false premise of a trial, since requiring consensus to remove in two weeks is no different from officially adding it now, as anyone can start a thread to remove it then or any other time. --Liquid^Talk 23:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

I find this quite funny, coming from the person sporting the green name and proudly displaying the admin userbox on their userpage. Not to mention all the times you've talked about how you're a "senior admin" to me, and how high your standards are for adminship, etc. Also, how does this "compromising our principles" any more than UoTM, featured image, featured article, and those wonderful rights which everyone likes to collect?

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:31, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - You are supposed to edit to better the internet and having shiny medals will just will be false status symbols and attract glory-hogs. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 23:11, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Something which, I assume, we don't already do?

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:02, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - this is just like the featured articles of the Wiki, it encourages people to continue editing. Smithing 23:20, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Despite this extension to be enabled for two weeks, I dislike the notion of a leaderboard on a community project. The extension has benefits of both positive and negative as pointed out by other editors. People might make multiple edits to an article to get a certain badge or categorize to their hearts content, whatever is the case no previous edits will be accounted for and should we use a trial of this extension, all data will be erased upon removal should we wish to use it again. While I don't mind awarding users for valiant efforts on improving the wiki, I do not accept the concept of a ranking among editors for any reason whether it be by edit points or achievements.

I know I hide the extension only on my userpage by checking "Don't show points, badges and ranking in my profile page" in the Misc tab of preferences, but this does not remove me from the leaderboards should I rank high enough. The only competitive place should be the game itself and not on the wiki. However, I would sway differently were this ScavengerHunt, an extension that is meant to be a game of hide-n-seek on the wiki without rankings for text and/or imagery. I, for one, dislike being put on a list and not allow to omit myself from it should we pass this discussion. Ryan PM 23:33, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

This leaderboard you speak of.... --Aburnett ^(Talk) 23:54, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Defunct and barely working since Monaco was removed. I had forgotten about that short list, but I didn't care for it at the time when I joined in 2008. Still do not care for it today. Out of sight, out of mind. Ryan PM 00:13, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - Umm what bad can come from a 2 week trial? Fill me in plawks.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 23:42, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Does adminship force users to strive to do better just to have accomplished something? Of course not. It's these sort of things that can ruin the wiki. --クールネシ^トーク 00:22, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Ruin the wiki by making it more active, and increasing the quality of the articles because of it... yep, that is definitely ruining the wiki. Also, the people with four, five, six, or even seven attempts at an RfA would tend to disagree with the first part of what you said.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:31, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Could be fun :) Jack Spiral1 00:34, April 4, 2011 (UTC)