User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Updated Intro

This is intended as a page to discuss how, if at all, we might be able to go ahead with at least some form of Appreciation Week in January. I have been informed that the note I sent out may have implied to some of you that I was in some way criticizing the deletion of Esperanza. I want to make it clear and unequivocal that such was not the case. I was simplying trying to imply that the existing method of achieving the proposal was very unlikely to work if it relied on the involvement of an entity currently being very likely for deletion. This page is being created as a hopefully more realistic way of trying to achieve the goal of somehow communicating to our some of our more valuble editors our appreciation for them. For any of you who may have had substantial contact with any agencies employing a lot of volunteers (like all of us here) it is standard procedure to use awards as a symbol of appreciation and as a relatively effective way of ensuring that people remain volunteers.
Specifically, the original proposal was rather ill-defined, as this one still is, but was one in which we would basically have all the entities of wikipedia, including WikiProjects and other departments, recognize those editors who have contributed most to wikipedia, in whatever way. That is still, basically, what this proposal is. I had first contacted the various WikiProjects directly, as any such effort would almost by definition require their active support. If it is to be enacted, I would think that almost all the "work" involved would be by the projects themselves, with only a minor amount of MC duties being performed by anyone else, like on most of the televised awards shows. The basic existing proposal is to perhaps gets some of the WikiProjects and other groups of wikipedia to use either the day of January 15, 2007, or the week beginning on that day to specifically remember those contributors which those groups individually deem to be deserving. If there is sufficient interest, which I hope there is, then we may even be able to get some sort of official awards ceremony off the ground, probably either on the 15th or sometime during the following week. Exactly what might happen is pretty much dependent upon the amount and nature of the response to the proposal, and, potentially, what might be permitted by wikipedia as a whole. I'm really sorry that I can't be much more specific, but the details are going to be more than a little contingent upon the amount and type of response to the basic idea itself. Also, as indicated below, if they were to choose to do so, the projects which involve themselves could use the significance of the day to wikipedia as a springboard to try to cause an increase in the amount of project-related activity by their members, possibly even completely clearing their old to-do list.
Lastly, as in most of the televised awards, I think that it might be appropriate to choose some sort of "Person of the Year" award. This award would be given to that individual (or individuals, that can be determined later), who have most significantly contributed to wikipedia and who can thus be seen, as it were, as some sort of "role models". If anyone is interested in such a separate proposal, I have listed a few candidates (though far from all potential candidates) at User:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week/WikiHalo. Yes, this is more than a little manipulative, in a way, but it is also almost standard procedure in cases like these, generally well received by those individuals involved, and tends to work fairly well despite the transparent manipulation involved. Badbilltucker 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial comments

Well, I have no idea how this sort of thing is supposed to work, but I'd like to help. --Masamage 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't assume I actually do myself. I've never done anything like this before either. But, if there is enough interest, we should be able to have at least a few more people from wikipedia who might be able to assist with the publicizing and other aspects. Badbilltucker 19:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have an objection to the start date of this project. Jan. 15 is Martin Luther King Jr. day in the US. ---J.S (T/C) 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand the objection above, as a citizen of St. Louis, Missouri. However, please note that as indicated on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day, that is also the date that Wikipedia started "flying solo" and it is on that basis also within wikipedia commemorated as Wikipedia Day, which is wikipedia's pretty much only so-called "holiday". Also, unfortunately, I think we would probably find pretty much the same objections from either the US or some other country for pretty much any day chosen which might have less importance to wikipedia. Also, if (so I'm not real sure about this myself) there is enough interest to actually pull this off with any degree of support, it might only be the "signal" date to start the occasion, with most of the real activity happening later. Badbilltucker 19:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Same as Masamage... I think its a very good idea ^^ --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's Maximilli from the Paintball WikiProject. Just wanted to let you know that I think it's a fantastic idea. Editors can very easily feel like their contributions aren't worth much, and I've always tried personally to make sure people know it when they do a good job. If you need any help whatsoever, go ahead and drop me a line. Congrats on the good idea. :D ~ Maximilli, 19:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jared (JP06035) from the Olympic WP, here. I'm not sure of the logistics of this thing, but I would be willing to help do some little things if necessary to get the ball rolling. It seems like a good idea, even though I'm not totally certain of its objectives.... → JARED (t)  20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to give it a go - I would guess it would consist of acknowledging the editors that aren't often acknowledged, i.e. people doing small but vital copyediting/typo fixing/image uploading/formatting, and those that do help out but just arent noticed. Barnstar mania maybe? RHB 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I love the concept too, and I would be willing to help. Barnstar mania works for me, anything to spread the WikiLove! Should we start a list, and have an AWB add the barnstars (if that is the consensus)? Royalbroil T : C 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
David from WikiProject Halo (and Strategy Games and more), here, and I think this certainly seems fair and a great idea. I think Wikiprojects themselves are sorta undervalued, and this could be a great antidote... ok I lost my train of thought, but either way, if we can hammer this out quick we should be able to do this. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Random thought as to method; if we want to focus on individuals, wikiprojects are a good place to start... how about we try and figure out a nomination system where wikiprojects can vote on who they think was their MVE, and sort of pool them? David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all wikiprojects really have a MVE. Wikipedia:WikiProject Redwall, for example, is fairly new and struggling to get off the ground. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This is certainly true, I'm a member of a rather recent Wikiproject as well. But like I said, it's just a thought. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what all this is about - and I'm even more puzzled after seeing the entire Esperanza project up for deletion (is the purpose of the project up for deletion too?) - but I'm game. Just please post where and when we should get togther to talk about this - and a precise topic of discussion would be nice, too! THEPROMENADER 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong to assume this was part of all the rest. Of course this is a good idea - but I would like to see it extended to areas beyond wikiprojects; most contributors - and I'm sure the largest ones - do not limit their work to projects only. THEPROMENADER 00:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to figure out how to get WikiProject Louisville's members active again. It seems like the work has just died off over the past couple months. If I can't get them active again, I don't know how I will manage to get them worked up over this certainly good idea. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, receiving an award tends to reinforce activity, particularly for people who are basically volunteers at a non-profit organization. By definition, all of our editors are volunteers at a non-profit organization. I've got to leave for the day now, but I'm going to send the rest of the notices to the projects and other entities out tomorrow. Maybe, if we're lucky, this thing will help to revive some activity in lots of projects. Actually, that's basically one of it's primary goals. Badbilltucker 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that I think most of the members of my project aren't even checking into Wikipedia any more, so they might not even find out about Appreciation Week. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good idea, it has my full support, anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask

†he Bread 23:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Please let me know how I can help. Is there a way to determine a WikiProject's effectiveness or activity? Maybe the award could go to the WikiProject participants as a group instead of an individual editor. I think that this would help unify the project participants and build the team. Postoak 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC), WikiProject Houston

I like that idea. Energizing an entire team is what we want. With WPLou, there have just been a few major contributors, but recognizing one of them won't do much to pull others in. And we need many more major contributors with us pushing near 1,000 articles in our project. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. This is an interesting concept, I'd like to see how this ends up. I assume that awards are necessarily limited to members of WikiProjects, but especially non-members as well. There are many non-members that I see that contribute significantly to articles within our scope, and I would like to thank them. Regards, Tuxide 00:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC), WikiProject Retailing

Sounds wonderful! This year, the two projects I'm in and speaking for have had events that either have never happened before in the Project's history or only happen every three to five years, and we've been working under much different circumstances in both projects. I think the editors that put their time and effort into making Wikipedia as good as it is need to be recognized. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)/WP:PCP and WP:TVS

I have a few other suggestions for Appreciation Week:

  • Each Wikiproject member will attempt to make as much edits as possible to articles within the Project's scope
  • Each Wikiproject will try to clear its to-do list
  • Each Wikiproject will pick an article within its scope and form a collaboration to improve it to GA/FA status--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Minor tweak:
  • Each Wikiproject member will attempt to make as much useful and constructive edits as possible to articles within the Project's scope
Other than that, I think this is a good idea. Please let me know what i can do to help. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Thereen from WikiProject Musicians, I think this is a wonderful idea. Like those Wikipedians above me have stated, some recognition for participants in their Wikiprojects would be nice. Barnstar mania sounds like a good approach :) Who doesn't love Barnstars? Message me at my talk page if there is anything I could do to help Thereen 00:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

this is Lucy-Marie from WikiProject British Crime This sounds brilliant I propose a freeze on new additions to to-do-lists on January 14th to clear the current backlog and that collaboration between memebrs to aid in wikiprojects is a great idea and should have been suggested earlier. I also think that the well established veterans at this should helpp the new guys get started.--Lucy-marie 00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea - build on the good will of the holidays to create a greater sense of community. I don't know all the "players" quite yet, being so new, but I'll do my best:).Nina Odell 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sharz from WikiProject GulfWars, and my dwindling project members have agreed not to partake simply because the work that we still have to do is so immense that anytime off (But rather the distraction) would cause major disruptions to our project of catergorization. --Sharz 00:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Who doesn't love a barnstar? Boo Wikihate! Hooray WikiLove! If you need admin help, I'm available. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, grovermj from WikiProject Golf here. Along the lines of alot of other wikipedians above, i'm having a bit of trouble getting the participants motivated for work. It certainly is very hard work, and I think this would be a great idea for many WikiProjects. Very good thinking :). Grover 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Zach from Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology; sounds like a great idea, but not sure if I have the people to do this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dev920 from WP:LGBT here - good idea, dumb name. Have something more festivaly: WikiGras or something. I know I'm the heartless and cold bastard that nominated Esperanza for deletion, but I think this can really work. We can have competitions to see who can sort most stubs in an hour or something. Ok, weird ideas, but I'm just brainstorming here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This looks good, I support the thing. This is Terence from WP:SG!, not sure whether the SGpedians' are willing to work together and needs a bit of time. This is a good time to appreciate a user's contributions to this wondeful encyclopedia. Nice proposal. Terence Ong 16:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

i think it's a great idea, we might need to get a step on it though we only have a few days till it's the 15th. But i'm a full supporter Three ways round form Paintball WP 1:14 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On wikiprojects

Ok, I'm making a header (gasp) because following the thread of conversation was getting confusing. One thing several people have said is that their Wikiprojs. are too small, too new, unmotivated, et al... if we were to do something, it would have to address those issues. That said, this could be a good way of getting exposure to wikiprojects. All I know is as long as this stays loose we're fine; don't need to go all esperanza-like and create a seat of councillors, and all that rubbish. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with creating the new section. Also, I want everyone to know that honestly even if it is just a new WikiProject, if you believe that there has been a person who has made significant contributions anyway, they should be more than eligible for recognition. If this does work this year, we might even be able to set it up annually. Certainly, I hope so. And, in direct response to David Fuchs' good point above, I really don't see that there would be a need for a council or anything like that for this to work. This is I hope going to be basically a place where all the individual projects can get together to maybe give out some recognition in the eyes of the larger wikipedia community. The one possible proviso would be for the Person of the Year, on the accompanying page, which could, if all else fails, be done like the recent ArbCom elections, with regular voting and maybe a final selection from among the top candidates given by our founder if required. Badbilltucker 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Will the header appear at the top of the Wikipedia site for a period of time, like the week of January 15? If so, that sounds good. I do believe that very few Wikipedia contributors are even aware of WikiProjects. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question. Actually, when I get through notifying all the WikiProjects in a bit, then I go on to the various other entities of wikipedia. Considering the response this page has already gotten since yesterday, when it was created, I can really only say that I hope and think that there is a very good chance that it will. Badbilltucker 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Gnevin from WP:GAA i really dont see how this would work and if it does what benefits it would bring . Many project like WP:GAA have enough trouble with basic issue like tagging pages ,images without getting distracted by this. (Gnevin 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
Point taken, however this could also be a chance to identify specific wikiprojects that need help and direct more attention to them in particular.Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, an alternate possibility. Maybe we could arrange something like a huge [:[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF|Core topics collaboration]] effort in which we try to get the editors collectively working on some of the core topics and trying to bring them up to some higher standard? Many/most of the projects deal to some degree with at least one or more core topics, and they could probably all use at least some degree of work. Badbilltucker 13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion with WP:VIC on 07:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC). I've asked longhair to make the call. -- Punk Boi 8 07:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Given all WP:VIC and WP:WPGC members a barnstar for Wikipedia Week to thank them. -- Punk Boi 8 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Magic

I recommend against anything having to do with magic. Most of the magic pages are terrible, and the people who have the ability to finish them and fix the vast amount of misinformation (magicians) generally don't help. They are insulted by the fact that magic secrets are openly discussed on Wikipedia, even when doing so violates other Wikipedia policies against material without verifiable sources or against turning Wikipedia into a "how to manual". Kleg 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized awards

How about making a set of two or three standardized awards, asking each Wikiproject to nominate/vote for who should get them, and displaying them all on a central page? --InShaneee 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of it, sounds good. Terence Ong 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree, but what would the awards be? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Just some simple, easy to agree on things. "Most active", ect. --InShaneee 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that might work, with one possible problem. I think that for some projects, like maybe WikiProject Comics or WikiProject Military history the "most active" person would possibly be the person already most recognized by the project, maybe in these cases User:Steve block and User:Kirill Lokshin. Maybe if we added qualifiers for those who aren't project coordinators/directors/whatever. Not that I don't think either of the gentlemen above don't deserve recognition, but I don't think we necessarily want to see them win their projects' awards each and every year. Badbilltucker 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Maybe things like, "Most active editor working on X" or "Most active new editor". Either way, those were just suggestions to give you a feel for the format I was thinking of. --InShaneee 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caution and alternative day

I just want to advise caution. Someone tried an elected award a long time ago, but that created a stir, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikihalo. I think it may be worthwhile to review the discussion there, and also the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza. This could be viewed badly. Let's remember that we shouldn't really be here for the awards, and maybe a better way of celebrating Wikipedia Day would be for each project to get one of their articles up to featured status. Anyway, just my quick thoughts. Steve block Talk 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Certainly, the idea of an individual "person of the year" award is the less important aspect of the proposal. Also, I do agree that trying to improve one or more of the core articles which might relate to the individual project is probably a very good idea. Badbilltucker 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject massive editing force

Per my previous comment above, what are the opinions of the WikiProjects?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Here was my comments above: Each Wikiproject member will attempt to make as much edits as possible to articles within the *"Project's scope

  • Each Wikiproject will try to clear its to-do list
  • Each Wikiproject will pick an article within its scope and form a collaboration to improve it to GA/FA status"--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations

Are we allowed to nominate people for this award?--Xxplosive 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Which award? Badbilltucker 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I mean, can we nominate people for this appreciation week thing? --Xxplosive 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely sure of your meaning. I guess my response would be that right now, I think the "Person of the Year" award is probably, at least this year, a dead issue. What I'm hoping will happen is that the various WikiProjects will themselves try to ensure that all the individuals that they think deserve such recognition receive it. As the awards are, as I see it developing, based more on the WikiProject-level than the wikipedia-level, mentioning specific individuals you think worthy of recognition to the various relevant WikiProjects would probably be the best way to go. But I don't think that there will be any sort of formal or even informal nomination process. I hope that answers your question. If it doesn't, please feel free to contact me directly. Badbilltucker 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yepp, you answered it. Thanks. --Xxplosive 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Advancement Day(s)

Here's a new idea I just dreamed up today: How about we take out a day or more for everyone in the Wikipedia to concentrate on assessing the unassessed articles? Check out Category:Unassessed-Class articles to see the list of lists of the unassessed. If we want to achieve the "encyclopedia on a CD", this push would move us quite a bit closer to that goal. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The village pump or community portal might be the best place to propose that idea right now, as comparatively few projects have responded to date. However, I am trying to write an article for the Signpost about this idea, and I will include it there. Badbilltucker 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another suggestion

A simple way to put this into action is if everyone who thinks this is a good idea identify one other Wikipedian who (a) you believe has been doing good work & (b) you have not had significant previous interaction with, & send them a note of appreciation. Either on their Talk page or in email. It would not only build some positive feelings here, but also prevent some important contributors from slipping into burn-out. -- llywrch 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikproject Architecture

I'd like to comment on the proposals here. Myself and two others probably do most of the day to day admin on the wikiproject and portal. However, by far the best contributors to quality architecture articles aren't even members of the project, User:Ghirlandajo, User:Wetman and User:Giano to name but 3. Other that I'm aware of are chipping away at some mind blowing tasks like categorising all the buildings on wikipedia by year of construction. I can't speak for others but it seems unseemly to me to have members of the project recognised, but significant contributors in the field omitted, everyone plays their parts and I'm not sure I like the beauty pageantry.

No one necessarily disagrees with you, unnamed one. There are certain awards, like the Wikipedia:Service awards, which can be given out to all editors. Actually, personally, I would even encourage projects to ensure that all their members at least be aware of such awards, probably by giving them out and letting them know that they are free to remove them at their own discretion. Again, if you read the most recent revision of the opening comments, the primary purpose of this proposal is to ensure that our volunteer editors receive some sort of recognition or award from their peers, to encourage them to remain editors. However such could be accomplished is basically at the discretion of the individual projects, however. Some may choose to give higher honors to certain editors, on the hope that they remain active at something near their current level. Others may choose to act differently. That is, of course, entirely their own decision. Badbilltucker 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid for mature editors like those I mention above - gong's are unlikely to make a great deal of difference - shit storms like this are the problem. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Week

The best current proposal I can think of would be as follows.

(1) Leaders of the various interested projects (however they are determined; if you responded to this page and there are no formally recognized leaders of your project, you may count yourself one; I dunno) might give out some recognition to the various members of their projects. These might include the Wikipedia:Service awards, with maybe a bit more individualized comment with the awards, and, maybe, some other barnstars or other awards for specific members or others who have contributed greatly to that project's articles. Even the newest projects could distribute the Service awards, as those awards are given for contributions to wikipedia, not necessarily the projects themselves.
(2) The various interested projects might also spend the week in some sort of unified activity which would hopefully involve all the project's members in some way. This may be such a thing as a project collaboration on one or more chosen articles (depending on the size and scope of the project or subproject), or perhaps in some as yet unfinished directly-project related activity (finding and adding banners to articles which haven't yet received them, for example). Again, exactly what would be done would be at the discretion of the various projects. Certainly, if the service awards are distributed early during the week, the members could also be advised of the project's self-designated task for the week as well.
(3) Given the alliteration, existence of the new radio show, and anticipated time of activity, I would think "Wikipedia Week" might be the best name.
Any responses would be more than welcome. Badbilltucker 14:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Although I think this also might be a good week to revive near-inactive WikiProjects. An example is Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations, a Project in which not much discussion/collaboration has taken place.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 15:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Any person could join any nearly inactive project (if they aren't already members) and distribute the service awards to the former members on the basis of their membership. The one caveat I would add is that it is possible that some nearly inactive projects may not have been such a wonderful idea in the first place (although not the one you mentioned above) and might function better as work groups/task forces of a larger project. Badbilltucker 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I also had another idea regarding recognizing former members. Lots of Wikipedians have gone in the past, so I suggest that all users go through all of their talk page archives and contact every user that made contact with them. That way, inactive users will know that we still remember them no matter what. =) --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea. It might be a good idea to try to get the Signpost involved if you can. That will definitely get the word out to more people. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am a member of 7 WikiProjects, so it's hard to deal with that many members. The WikiProjects that I'm involved in are limited topics that don't work well with collaborations. Nearly all articles are too small in scope to be possible featured article material (except for some of the NASCAR articles). I've created my own personal award that I will give out to the contributors that stand out as having best furthered the cause from my point of view. They are the biggest and/or best contributors over the past year in those areas, and they deserve a pat on the back for it. Royalbroil T : C 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This plan seems pretty good to me too. The one issue that I fear might be an issue of contention is, what if some people start arguing about the leadership over a project? I'm not speaking about my own situation; WikiProject Paintball has an undisputed leadership of lead coordinator and assistant coordinator, so it's pretty obvious.
For illustration, imagine a project that's been completely inactive for a while and suddenly gets a bunch of members, several of whom maintaining the opinion that they should be the 'leader'. I dunno, maybe this isn't such a big issue as I thought at first, but I'm just trying to help. :) Maximilli, 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Level idea

Just looking at the Wikipedia:Service awards it occurred to me that perhaps the best way to go about this is to create project related awards what aren't centralized and can be given out my the projects them self .These would cover thinks like

  • Banner 3rd class for finding and adding WP:GAA banner to 10 or more articles
  • Banner 2nd class for finding and adding WP:GAA banner to 100 or more articles
  • Banner 1st for finding and adding WP:GAA banner to 1000 or more articles
  • Template 3rd class for creating a template used by 10 WP:GAA articles
  • Template 2rd class for creating a template used by 100 WP:GAA articles
  • Template 1st class for creating a template used by 1000 WP:GAA articles

This is only a basic idea i'd suggest each project would be able to define how many articles each award need going by is scope and that this award would mainly cover the repetitive stuff as above (Gnevin 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

What i like best about this is that it allows each project to work at its own level ,WP:GAA has at most 8 active members so an idea that is feasible for WP:Comics such as clear the to do list in all honesty is not going to work for us (Gnevin 15:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
No real objections here, other than it might take a while for Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals to go through and approve all the awards in the short time available, even if they were all created today. Given the timeframe we're talking about, that might be more feasible next year. And, any project could focus their attention however they wanted. Maybe just trying to create and bring the Carmogie Association of Ireland article up to B or GA standard for your group might be enough of a focus for a week. Badbilltucker 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Badbilltucker. Representing Korea Wikiproject. I received your message, but I am a little confused about this appreciation week. I've been on Wikipedia only a year now. If you wished for all the wikiprojects to show names of significant contributors, I'll name one, just that I am sure enough of.

This editor is the leader of Korea Wikiproject. Other than him, I am not so sure of the greatest contributors. Thanks Oyo321 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As a member of the project, you or maybe he would be the best ones to decide that issue. Maybe contact me directly if you should have any other questions. :) Badbilltucker 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still on?

It's one week to go, and it looks like the drive to implement this idea has slowed to a snail's pace. There does not (yet) seem to even be clear ideas on:

  • Identification of the project/movement/whatever the thing should be called - there should be banners to use on WikiProject pages (and maybe on the Portals, too).
  • Publicity - What happened to the suggestion of marketing this in the Signpost? It should have been placed there early to attract people and again next week for the announcements.
  • Announcements - Speaking of announcements, how will it be announced? On a talk-page by talk-page basis, with people randomly running around handing out thank yous to people they know, or is there going to be a larger, more publicized presentation or something?
  • Small WikiProjects - I've seen several questions, and have one myself, about WikiProjects where there are only one or two people driving the Project. In WikiProject Cocktails, I am pretty much the only participant openly working on articles under the auspices of the Project. There are some wonderful people who help with watching and cleaning articles, but they choose not to associate with the Project. I'm not sure how they would take to receiving a award from a project they choose not to join (not that it will stop me from giving them one). Maybe it will encourage them to join (hopefully), but it might also upset them. Also, anything I do to promote this could be viewed as me begging to receive an award myself. I'm definitely too modest to do something like that, which also makes me uncomfortable to promote this project. I bet others in similar situations feel the same.

In a nutshell, I think it's the start of a great idea, but I do not think it is ready for show time yet. Take the initiative that you have developed, formally organize as a WikiProject or other appropriate structure, avoid becoming too bureaucratic -- keep it simple and fun -- and develop some clear goals for next year at this time. Build support within Wikipedia. Even better, build inter-Wiki support, and expand this thing to be a Wiki-wide collaboration and promotion. It could bring some good publicity to the Foundation and help raise some money, too. Focus on the suggestions that improve Wikis as a whole. Highlighting a person is fine, but only if the recognition is for the person's improvement of Wikipedia or its sister projects. Avoid giving it to Foundation members, and probably even Trustees (that could be seen by the media as self-serving). Set clear criteria for what makes a good nominee, focusing it on service to the Wikis, and how that benefits the entire humankind collective knowledge. Think of things that will create a stir and a buzz in the mass media so that we can focus positive media attention on the Wikis and their efforts. Bring in collaboration with other projects. If there is a WikiHalo award, maybe they would be interested in presenting that at our event, or we might consider joining them in theirs. Don't reinvent things that are already in place, and don't assume that the ideas presented here are better than ones that other people have. (I'm not saying anyone is currently doing this, but as people organize, they tend to become territorial and reject input from outsiders. Avoid that temptation.)

Wow. That was an awfully big nutshell, wasn't it? :-) --Willscrlt 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is in the Signpost now, actually. It looks the like the proposal for honoring a "Person of the Year" is probably at least off for this year, as there isn't enough lead time to do such a proposal justice. As for organizing it as a WikiProject, I think that might not be the best idea, as it is intended only as an annual event. If there were some appropriate group to add it to, that would be fine. However, there is now a new proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Project Support Services which, if activated, might be able to do some of what you're proposing. Badbilltucker 14:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you post the current proposals on the corresponding user page (User:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week) of this discussion page. Then, direct everyone interested to the page, and continue discussion here.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I also lookes through this weeks Signpost, and there were no links to this page.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That's why you don't set deadlines on wikis. They'll get broken.

I myself am in no hurry with this. As outlined above, lets take our time and make this work. Time constraints don't exist. I suggest that we try and hammer down the props one by one, specifically addressing the wikiproject issues as stated above. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/d/User_talk%7EBadbilltucker_Appreciation_Week_a49f.html"