User talk:Sharkface217/Award Center/Archives/2008/April

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Questioning the idea

I wonder if this is a good idea. Barnstars, in my opinion, should be awarded to those who "do the extra mile." According to WP:BARNSTARS, barnstars are to be given "to reward Wikipedia contributors for hard work and due diligence." I think this makes racking up barnstars like a game. It's like the military saying "in order to win the medal of bravery, you must save 5 people from death." Please comment. Gutworth 02:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about MMORPG addiction today. I think harnassing this psychological phenomenon could be quite productive. It might not be The Right Thing, but it'd certainly help clear out a whole buncha backlogs. Nifboy 04:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and it's all in fun, not serious like military medals. Besides, racking up barnstars is already like a game, that is, fun, which is exactly what the barnstar program was intended to be (fun). Who doesn't enjoy displaying their barnstars on their user page? And as long as the benchmarks are sufficiently difficult, it won't water down Wikipedia's awards, which are almost entirely subjective anyways; rather, it might actually raise the bar for acquiring barnstars. But one positive thing it does provide is a place to gather concerning their attainment - so people don't wander around lost wondering what to do concerning them. This page helps them hook up. Also, this page might help balance out the awarding of barnstars, so that more wikipedians get recognition for a job well done. Thank you for the feedback - it has helped to explore the philosophy around the concept. The Transhumanist    16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

enjoy the page while you can...

It's gonna get MfD'd eventually. I'm not saying that 'cause I want it to be deleted. I'm saying that 'cause a pack of "editors" exists who contribute nothing to Wikipedia, and do nothing but find things to XfD (and seem to derive tremendous pleasure from arguing over controversial XfDs). Cheers Ling.Nut 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If it gets used and proves effective, there's no reason to expect it to get deleted. More so if people are deriving benefit from the page: so far, we've got one Wikipedian who has taken on the goal of creating 4 featured articles from here! And another who has posted his need for help on the incredibly useful WikEd program. So the page is already taking shape into something useful and beneficial. And since this page will likely be as or more useful than Wikipedia:Reward board and Wikipedia:Bounty board, it'll probably be allowed to stick around. Just thought I'd test out the concept - if it works, good, if not, then oh well, I'll try something else (which I'll certainly do anyways!) The Transhumanist    16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your implication that finding things to propose for Xfd, and contributing to Xfd discussions, is not "contributing to Wikipedia". If no-one enforced our deletion policies, Wikipedia would become a cesspit. However... how about an award for "saving 50 articles from deletion"? i.e. take 50 articles that do not assert notability (in the case of people/groups/companies/etc.), are spammy, or are delete-able for some other reason, and improve them by adding references to reliable sources and bringing them up to basic standards. I like the sound of that! (One could use an "under construction" or similar template to prevent them being speedily deleted while being worked on.) —greenrd 17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with Ling Nut's pessimistic attitude and disheartening approach here, and agree with Greenrd's assessment of XfD. We need the deletion departments, and they may malfunction from time to time, but for the most part, they do a good job. Things that are deleted that shouldn't have been generally pop up later in a similar or even a different form, so in the long run, deletion does no harm. Wikipedia continues to grow at an astounding rate. I'm impressed by this and the quality level that is being maintained (due in part to the deletion departments), and that's why I've stuck around for the past year and a half. I love it here, and feel I'm contributing to the common welfare. Jimbo never promised there wouldn't be bumps along the way! The Transhumanist    18:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

When it's ready...

If this picks up momentum, I think it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. If it doesn't grow to more than a trickle, I'll keep it as a user subpage, as it lists all the people I've awarded barnstars to. Feel free to add to this page! The Transhumanist    01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

On retrospect, it's probably better as a hosted page. The Transhumanist    00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Overlap

I feel that it's a bit overlapping with Wikipedia:Reward board except this page is only for barnstars. OhanaUnited 09:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's enhanced.  :) The Transhumanist 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My view on the barnstars

I said this to the barnstar's main page. And they didn't notice. So, with all due regards, respect and appology (if needed) I am addresing you, mostly because I don't know whom to addres about this issue and partly I saw you on this Award Center. I think that one of the tings about Wikipedia is that it should be a collaborative project. And that means the oppurtinity for people to change the way the Wikipedia runs, so that it is better place. So, I don't know where to address this issue. I think there should be a change in the barnstars and awards thing. There should not be any barnstars and awards. I think that the whole idea of the barnstars is flawed. No disrespect of course for the people who have worked on the articles and earned their barnstar. But that have slightly undermining purposes in respect to the other editors. For exemple, I'd like to present myself. I've been working on Wikipedia for 3 years and I am among the 3000 editors who have the highest number of edits. Of course quantity doesn't mean quality, but I regard myself as a progressive and capable editor. I have made some great contributions. I don't want to brag about it - I consider it one of my greatest personal achievements to be part of this project. However, I am sure that there are people around the world who are contributing as much as I am and are here probably longer than I am. These people don't have a barnstar to flash around. We just do it, because of our love to Wikipedia and the community. I don't want a barnstar. I am perfectly happy the way I am, though sometimes I feel a little bit envious about other people's barnstars. And I feel that jealousy creates friction. It does so, because people shouldn't have a special order for their selfless and voluntary contribution to what is Wikipedia and to what Wikipedia stand for. I don't regard myself as any special than those editors, who have barnstars, and neither are they. These barnstars just undermine most of the oustanding editors, who are contributing to Wikipedia and who are doing their work without any expectation for a reward. It undermines them, showing most of the other editors as a selective clique, who have a barnstar, who deserve a barnstar, who are special. They are not. We all are not. We are part of the same project and none of us are more special than the others. They don't deserve special barnstars. I hope I made myself clear in this issue and my plea will not be disregarded.

Regards and with all due respect: Painbearer 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a slightly opposing view... You say that nobody is special. On the contrary, I believe everybody is special. Barnstars simply accentuate our many interesting differences. Barnstars are art. Art is emotional. Art uplifts! While they are "awards" they are also a little bit more. They're like greeting cards. They're the artwork on Wikipedia's thank you notes. Saying thank you is a good thing. Art makes it even better. Wikipedia's "awards" are just a means of expression. As humans we need that, otherwise we're just robots or worker drones. Just my 2 cents. Let's roooooooock! The Transhumanist 00:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How do they know

How do people know, for example, that I welcome 1000 users? Is there a special place to look for all of the challenges?--RyRy5 talk 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A google search can usually do the trick. The Transhumanist    02:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Though I think 100 (one hundred) users is way more than enough for a barnstar. The Transhumanist    02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image barnstar/award

We need an award for people who do great work to editing image pages. MBisanz talk 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Like these?
The Photographer's Barnstar
message The Transhumanist    03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
message The Transhumanist    03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the award center harmful?

I am concerned that this program is harmful, because it encourages people to get the wrong idea about Wikipedia. People are keeping elaborate score, instead of just doing useful things with a minimum of fuss. Several of the awards downright encourage editcountitis. Is there a way to reduce these harmful effects? Friday (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with receiving some recognition after improving the project as a whole. As for reducing these harmful effects.... I honestly don't know. --SharkfaceT/C 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
What I see being wrong with it is that we've now got a bunch of clueless editors running around, thinking Wikipedia is about racking up points. Yes, you did not singlehandedly create this problem, but you're contributing to it. Friday (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that I fully share User:Friday's concerns. I arrived here by following up some of the 'editors' whose messes and potential messes I've had to clean up on opera and other arts articles. Some of the goals (especially those related to improving articles in a concrete way) have a lot of merit. However, many of these 'challenges' blatantly encourage quantity over quality and 'drive-by' impulsive editing. They actively discourage thoughtful reflection, research, and writing. They attract editors who are here to rack up 'awards' and status (in itself highly dubious) in the quickest, way possible with the least amount of real effort. The most egregious examples:
  1. Make 1000 Edits in the Month of April. Anywhere? Including user pages and user talk pages? (Which incidentally is where a lot of the people attracted to this place seem to concentrate their edits.) Any edit? Again many of these users make pointless edits to jack up their 'score' adding a comma where it's not required, randomly substituting pronouns (often making the meaning of the resulting sentence ambiguous). Writing an encyclopedia is not a speed contest!
  2. AFD Any control on the quality of the contribution? Are their reasons well argued or just "me too"? Are these 'contributors' even familiar with the subject matter or general area of the article on which they are passing judgement? Have they themselves ever made significant contributions to articles in the area? (And by that I don't mean adding random commas.)
  3. The Deletionist challenge. Appalling! There is a lot of nonsense and self promotion on Wikipedia, which needs to be addressed. But this 'challenge' has simply encouraged people to tag for deletion any concept they've never heard of without making the minimal effort to research the topic first.
  4. Create 40 new pages. A real doozy. Two badly written lines on marginal subjects with no proper references. Does that qualify? It seems to. I've seen the ones 'contributed' by those who've signed up. How on earth can anyone seriously think that it's feasible to produce 40 thoughtful, referenced, well-written, properly categorized stubs in a month?
Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars are totally discretionary - anyone can award a barnstar for (almost) anything they see fit. This page respects and reflects that. Someone shouldn't be able to come along and dictate what a person can or cannot award a barnstar for, as long as they aren't awarding problem behaviors (vandalism, etc.). If someone sets the bar too high on their challenges, someone else can acknowledge achievers before they reach the provided target, or post another not-so-tough challenge. This is basically a place for people to hook up and share projects/tasks in a fun way. There's no need to regulate or codify it. Each challenger decides whether a challenge has been satisfactorily fulfilled - if an editor circumvents the intention of the challenge, the challenger can take that into account. With respect to quality of edits vs. editcountitis, etc., some suggestions at the top of the page might help, etc. The Transhumanist    19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect to edits, we already have edit awards, and these can by applied by those who think someone else has posted a ridiculously high edit quota. See Wikipedia:Service awards. The Transhumanist    20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars also aren't the only kinds of awards out there: there are a lot of informal, user-created ones, like the . Some people even consider the Image:WikiThanks.png or to be an award if someone smiles at them or thanks them. Perhaps other visible tokens of acknowledgement/appreciation like these should be incorporated more into the process, saving the barnstars for more challenging/substantive/meaningful work. BrokenSphereMsg me 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: move this page back to user space

This was moved into project space, but I'm not sure I agree. As currently written I think this is more a reflection of one editor's vision than something that would enjoy broad consensus. If it's going to stay in project space, people will probably end up trying to change it. If it's owned by a single editor, he'll have more latitude to make it how he wants. Any thoughts on this? Friday (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about getting the awards project more involved? --BrokenSphereMsg me 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Yes, as a project-space thing, this award center is redundant with that. We certainly don't need both. I suggest this go back into user space. Friday (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - There are advantages to having pages like this hosted in User space (helps keep the peace, etc.). I don't see it as an issue of making it how one person wants it, but more about deferring to a host to make it work and operate smoothly. In project space, there's more potential for conflicts in the management of the page. And just as there are hundreds of user subpages devoted to displaying awards, there's nothing preventing those same users from creating subpages in which they announce what awards they'd be willing to give. It just seems to fit in User space better. I transferred it to Sharkface217 with the understanding that would always have a host, but somebody else came along and unilaterally moved it to project space, which changes the context of the page in this regard. I think it should be moved back to Sharkface217's user space. If he steps down, I'll be happy to host the page again. The Transhumanist    20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done The Transhumanist    21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this out of Wikipedia Project space

Well, I said I was signing off this discussion, but here I am again. ;-) I just wanted to point out that I came to this discussion "lately" simply because what was going on was starting to impact negatively on the rest of Wikipedia. It even reached an editor like me who quietly toils away writing articles about obscure operas. ;-) Thoughtless mass tagging of articles, good edits being reverted, absurd AFD's and speedy deletes which waste everyone's time, and all largely engendered by the ill thought out and poorly monitored contests which seemed to be multiplying almost daily. I thought that those of you who are running or heavily involved in this project ought to be aware of that, and I'm very appreciative that you acted so promptly to address these concerns. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It would still be useful to tighten up the guidelines for the challenges and rework, otherwise the same kinds of challenges will then continue to be offered that seem to be producing the most counterproductive results. BrokenSphereMsg me 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's not only useful, but in my view essential to tighten up both the guidelines and the monitoring. I assumed and hoped that would be the next step after taking this enterprise out of the Project space. Those of you who founded the Award Center and are committed to keeping it might want to consider a guideline that all new challenges have to be proposed and discussed on the talk page first before being added and before people are allowed to sign up for them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that it's now out of Wikipedia Project Space and is back to being a user subpage. In any case, I hope that the blatantly unproductive edits performed in the course of a challenge (of which I myself have inadvertently been guilty of) are noticed by the award-giver, and the award rescinded until these edits can be corrected. Don't get me wrong when I say I'm against the deletion of challenges; it's just that seeing productive along with unproductive challenges being bulk-deleted is more irritating than just seeing a stray couple of unproductive challenges. Luksuh 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kill the References Tagging Challenge

I would much rather give a barnstar for adding 2 useful references to award than for passing through nonsense (+499 other articles) and pushing ctrl+V or ⌘+V. I mean honestly, there's a reason there's not a bot tagging every single unreferenced article, do we really need big scary yellow banners all over the place? Cleanup banners left by passer-bys are not helpful and this kind of challenge is what makes so many people dislike the Award Center, can we discuss closing it?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 09:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's close it up. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If this gets closed, I suggest prorating the awards (using non-barnstars) for people who have started but not reached the 500 mark, with some thresholds. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's up to whoever started the challenge in the first place. :) Malinaccier (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have faith that the offeror will not stiff the participants should it come to a halt.. BrokenSphereMsg me 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Arg, that's me, isn't it? Very well, I'll kill it after I hand out the appropriate barnstars. --SharkfaceT/C 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Adopt 200 Users

I'm removing this section simply because it promotes users to adopt with quantity over quality. Adoption is to be taken very seriously. 200 promotes a run-of-the-mill attitude that should not be used with the adoption process. --SharkfaceT/C 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a ridiculous number. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And it's clearly not feasible. The individual who signed up will be wasting their time on something which will not benefit Wikipedia. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There aren't even 200 people requesting adoption at the moment. Personally, I don't think anyone should have more than 2-3 adoptee's at a time. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My Deletionist challenge

A couple of users mentioned earlier that they view this challenge as potentially counterproductive to Wikipedia. I clearly have stipulated that in order for this challenge to be carried out/met, it has to be done in accordance with CSD criteria thoughtfully and to articles that are deserving. I want to get some feedback from other users about this. A user has already completed it, and after examining their SD tags, they were pretty darn accurate. Another user has notified me on my talk page numerous times, and it appears, that, while they are having a difficult time, they are in fact learning about the process through this challenge. What do you guys think? Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing unusable content isn't maybe as important as some other things, but it's still clear valuable maintenance work. Some people do appear to have some emotional objection to any kind of deletion, but this fringe view is not compatible with building a high-quality encyclopedia, so I think it can safely be ignored. The problem I had with it was purely practical- a non-admin won't be able to see (I think) the now-deleted contributions, so there's no real way to count. Anyway, in my view, anything that requires a count is probably problematic. I'd rather see skillful dealing with 10 new pages than 1000 clicks of a button in some automated tool. It is, of course, difficult to come up with some objective way to determine who's been clueful in doing new pages patrol. Many times, the answer is something other than deletion, even if the content as created is not usable. Friday (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Friday, thanks for the reply. Believe it or not, when I first thought up this task, which was inspired partly by the WP:AFD challenge, I thought twice about the title because I was thinking of that exact minority group of editors that you alluded to. However, I was bold and thought that it wouldn't be a big deal. As far as the practical usefulness. I tend to agree, I think it's a worthy cause, but perhaps difficult to monitor as I am not an admin, and most users participating probably won't be able to view deleted pages. This is why I later appended the sponsorship with a suggestion to use WP:TWINKLE, which does a nice job of alerting the creator. Should I make this a requirement? I honestly do believe there is some value to keeping the challenge, but if an overwhelming majority of users few it is unproductive, I have no qualms about closing it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am of the belief (and hopefully others will agree with me) that many, if not most of the challenges here are not inherently flawed. Rather, it is users going about the challenge in a poor manner that results in negative, possibly harmful results. --SharkfaceT/C 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My views on this are very similar to Friday's with the added 'bonus' of having had had first-hand experience (unfortunately) of the more inexperienced folks here who have taken up this challenge. Some thoughts...
  1. Anything that requires a count is definitely problematic. And frankly, I would expressly forbid the 'competitors' (or whatever they're called) from using WP:TWINKLE. It's too fast and most of them are too inexperienced to use it properly. It would do them all a world of good to actually slow down and do it all by hand. At least it would give them time to reflect on what they are doing and why. In one case, one of the barnstar-seekers (using TWINKLE) tagged Aureliano in Palmira for speedy deletion as a copy-vio, but the alleged source URL cited was a mirror of Wikipedia and said so at the top of the page! I had expanded it from an extremely poor stub to a complete article. The editor caught his error fairly quickly and reverted, but by then he had alerted the creator of the stub (but not me) of the impending deletion. The notice stayed on that editor's page for over an hour. If he had actually read the edit history before tagging, and knew what he was doing, he never would have tagged it in the first place, or at the very least he would have also alerted the editor who wrote virtually the whole article.
  2. These kids (and many of the ones taking up the challenges here are literally kids) do not have the necessary world knowledge, linguistic skills, and attention span to adequately judge an article's potential. As Friday has pointed out, many times the answer is something other than deletion, even if the content as created appears unusable at first sight. But they often lack knowledge of the subject area to see how the article could be salvaged and why. Nor do they have the patience and skill to repair it. So they take the easy way out and either tag it for 'Speedy Delete' or 'PROD'.
  3. Another thing I've found is that they will tag an article for deletion on the grounds of non-notability, nonsense or a hoax simply because they personally haven't heard of the topic or concept. Do they try the four Google searches (News, Web, Scholar and Books) to check? Nope. Takes too long. Too much trouble. They've got to hit their quota of 50 deletion tags and there's no time to waste. Aaaargh!
  4. What's the potential harm to Wikpedia? It is terribly (and potentially permanently) discouraging to brand new editors, whose first efforts may not appear as elegant or as properly formatted as they should. I've seen a couple of cases by an editor here where the article was only on screen for 3 minutes before he slapped on a speedy deletion tag. Did he take the time to explain on the article's talk page what the problem was and suggest some concrete solutions? Did he personally write the new editor and suggest they read the article's talk page? Did he wait 48 hours to see if the new editor, or some other experienced editor might stop by and improve the article? Nope. Takes too long. Too much trouble. They've got to hit their quota of 50 deletion tags and there's no time to waste. Double aaaargh!
  5. I'm pretty sure that the editor Wisdom89 is referring to as having a "difficult time but learning about the process through this challenge" is one of the main ones that I'm referring to in 4. OK, he may be learning something, but at the same time, he has also probably alienated several new editors, and deprived Wikipedia of some potentially useful articles. Needless to say, he's also signed up for (and already completed!) the 50 AFD challenge. I've seen the results of that – he has been doing non-admin closures of AfD discussions after only two days before any relevant Projects could be notified for expert input, and doing "me too" voting on articles in areas where he has no knowledge whatsovever of the subject matter. But he's not the only culprit here by a long shot.
Some of the editors here are doing good, useful work, ridding Wikpedia of dreadful dross, and doing it sensibly. But that's not enough. If these 50 AFD and 50 Deletionist challenges are kept, I would suggest the following...
  1. Editors have to do the tagging and notifying by hand and notify all editors who have contributed substantially to the article.
  2. They must wait at least 24 (and preferably 48) hours before tagging an article with speedy delete, unless it is a blatant copy-vio, and even then, they should be encouraged edit and reduce the article to a stub to remove the copy-vio if at all possible – Heck, you can even offer them an extra barnstar if they do that.;-) In the meantime, they can tag it for notability, no refs, autobiography, advertising, etc. as appropriate.
  3. No article may be tagged for speedy delete, PROD, or nominated for AfD without posting a discussion about the problems on its talk page first.
  4. Votes in AfD discussions will not count unless the editor has provided proper arguments for their position, and shown they have done some background research to establish for themselves that the subject is non-notable.
If you add those conditions, the young barnstar-seekers here will truly learn something valuable about how Wikipedia works and about how to be a thoughtful editor. You will also minimize the risk of driving away potentially valuable new editors. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Voceditenore, the very detailed and thoughtful response you gave is very much appreciated. I feel that, given the current circumstances surrounding the constant misuse of CSD (with even experienced users), this challenge will invariably result in inadvertent biting and an overall detriment to the goal of Wikipedia due to suppression of knowledge. Not that I'm cynical about the participants, it's just that the points you've raised are a real concern. Far too often are potentially informative, quality articles lost to overly-zealous deletion tagging. I am hence forth closing the challenge to any new participants. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"New User Challenge"

I agree with the removal of the "New User Challenge". There is no way that Wikipedia benefits from lots of people trying to find usernames that haven't already been reported by others and add them to WP:UAA. It might as well be called the "Bite New Users Challenge".

There are a relatively small number of names that actually need to be blocked, and basically all of them are already reported by people, so the New User Challenge just encourages abusing the process. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping Proposal

I'll probably get flak for this, but I suggest that all but the following sections are cut.

  • Transhumanist's Wishlist - Has yielded many positive results and major expansions to portals and pages.
  • Article Development - Has yielded very good results. I'll admit to a slight conflict of interest here, as I have sponsored many of these challenges, but generally speaking the edits by those who have taken up these challenges have resulted in major article expansions and improvements.
  • Welcoming 1000 Users - A generally harmless section. Welcoming is vital to introducing new members who wish to contribute but are unfamiliar with the highly complicated bureaucracy that Wikipedia now has.
  • Script Related - Nobody has taken on these challenges yet, probably because of their difficulty. However, this section should not be scrapped because of that, as the creation of a "Wikipedia-integrated JavaScript-based text editor [to make] wikEd work in IE7 and Opera 9" would really be worthy of a barnstar.
  • WikiProject Environment Challenge - A tagging challenge for WikiProject Environment, generally not contentious and appears to be beneficial.
  • WikiProject Biography Challenge - While the original challenge has expired, I have put a note of clarification under the original challenge and propose we keep the section, as WP:BIO holds semi-regular assessment drives.
  • Edit Summary/Edit Count - The three challenges currently under this section are generally successful. While it is true that they stress quantity over quality (which is never really a good thing), these challenges have turned out to be relatively successful due to (in my opinion) the low quantity required so that editors can contribute at a quick pace but without sacrificing quality.
  • Copy Editing Challenge - No problems here.
  • AWC Nominating for Article Improvement - I have changed this challenge to Article Improvement only. I also have notified those who signed up before the change and have granfathered them in for this challenge so that only they may complete this challenge in its original form. Besides that, I believe that this challenge will lead to more article sponsorships for AWC.
  • AWC Completion Challenge - Just a way of saying thanks for those who had dedicated lots of time and effort to taking on challenges posted at the Award Center.
  • Award Center Collaboration of the Fortnight - I see no problems with this section, although I am obviously biased in this opinion.
  • References Adding Challenge - References are always needed.
  • Create 40 New Pages - While I see the possibility of abuse, I think that this challenge is going along swimmingly and should continue.
  • iMatthew's Challenges - All the challenges appear to be decent and have limited avenues for abuse, with possibly the exception of GAN Nomination. I don't know if we want users unfamiliar with GAN to be voting on good article nominations.
  • Portals - No problems here.

Questionable:

  • WikiProject MMO Challenge - While I'm not sure I understand the nature of this challenge, I have sent a message to the sponsor for clarification.
  • Recent Changes Patrol - Mildly contentious and has mixed results. Many junior editors have taken this challenge with sometimes near-disastrous results, while established editors have conducted some of the most extensive and aggressive vandal fighting campaigns ever seen.
  • The Deletionist Challenge - See above discussion.
  • The Inclusionist Challenge - In the same boat as the Deletionist Challenge.

My Reasoning: This has been a long time coming. The Award Center, in my opinion, should cut challenges that have resulted in extensive, mostly accidental misuse. While the challenges themselves aren't inherently flawed, many users, often junior users, have made mistakes in their quest for the prize. The goal of this page is not to reward shoddy work but rather dilligent, intelligent improvements to Wikipedia. Lousy edits in mass quantity detract from the goal of this page: to provide a small prize for people who take on specific tasks and then complete them well.

Input is, of course, always welcome. --SharkfaceT/C 20:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much every challenge you've listed to preserve. I have made the decision (see above discussion) to withdraw/close the deletionist challenge as the risk is far too high. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a note in the GAN reviewing challenge. iMatthew 2008 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that we've come to a conclusion on these two points. --SharkfaceT/C 21:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the Wish List and the Article Development sections should be removed, at the very least. This is because they are both pretty self-serving sections, meaning that people just list things there when they want something of theirs to be done. The others, such as improve X articles to GA status, are not as self-serving because then the person taking the challenge gets to choose what they want to work on. That's the whole point of Wikipedia, isn't it? To get to choose what we want to work on :) Gary King (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
One can choose what challenges they undertake. --SharkfaceT/C 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment (outdenting) The "Wish List" and "Article Development" sections are fine. They demand a sufficient amount of focused effort and real work to deter those editors looking for a painless, quick 'award'. Well, apart one editor here who promptly pasted large amounts of copyright text into the articles he was 'developing' and then promptly claimed his barnstars.;-) However, there are still two others which I really don't think are appropriate:

  1. "AfD" Participating in AfD debates should never be rewarded on the basis of quantity. The outcomes of those debates have real consequences, both for Wikipedia as a whole and for the creators of the articles proposed for deletion. There's already enough lazy, thoughtless voting going on by editors with no background whatsoever in the subject area, without encouraging even more of it. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions now, but I never participate outside my area of expertise, and I never vote 'delete' until I have satisfied myself that sources cannot be found to rescue the article. I also watch the discussion page until the debate closes to see if any new evidence comes to light which might make me change my mind, as do all responsible editors. Participating properly in an AfD, by necessity, takes a good chunk of time. I've checked the edit histories of several people here who've taken up the 'challenge' and found multiple instances of them voting (almost invariably 'delete') in 4 or 5 discussions in as many minutes, never to return. How can they possibly have done the job properly? In the last one I participated in there was a "me too" delete vote from a 13 year-old on the notability of a sociology professor! (He went on to vote 'delete' in 3 more discussions within the next four minutes) He has already 'won' a barnstar for this challenge is now working on his second.
  2. "GAN" Like AfDs, Good Article reviews should never be judged by quantity. I'm concerned that people without any knowledge of the subject area and/or who have never themselves significantly contributed to the writing of a Good Article are passing judgement on the work of others. Again, that process is already erratic and flawed enough as it is [1], without adding to it. A possible solution is to make having contributed significantly to an article which has been promoted to GA a prerequiste for signing up for the GAN challenge.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So for the GAN challenge, should I change/adjust the challenge or close it? iMatthew 2008 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That's ultimately your call. --SharkfaceT/C 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep the challenge posted and leave a large eye out for any problems this might cause. iMatthew 2008 01:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)