Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion. |
Old discussion avalible at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings/old
Contents |
[edit] Discussion & Suggestions
- Focus on increasing the number and quality of Wikipedia articles, rather than increasing the number of unneeded bureaucratic elements. -Willmcw 03:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- If you could clearly define what the need is that this ranking will address then perhaps a sensible scheme can result. So far, it has seemed like a ranking in search of a purpose. -Willmcw 04:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- On the article page, it says the old project is dumped and "a new project is to be drafted". I've got to be be frank: it's not the specific drafting of this project that people objected to; it's the whole idea of "ranking" users in a wiki. It seems very elitist, paramilitary and anti-wiki to me. (Sorry to be harsh, but it's the truth.) -- FP 05:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
One last time, since Coolcat does not yet seem to have grasped this very simple and obvious idea:
By attempting to create one, you are wasting your time. Now I am going to stop wasting mine. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good. Allow me to "waiste" my time, I may come up with something productive. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Echo FP. Rankings of *any* kind (even activity) make it about editors, instead of about the content. Rd232 11:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please, Cool Cat just give it up. Nice try, but it failed. Now shake off the sting, walk away, and do something else.
- Most of the previous objections did not concern the particular kind of ranking system you proposed, but about the general idea of a ranking system at all.
- The particular one you're proposing is unneeded, since we already have Wikipedia:Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits. Which is not a very good figure of merit, anyway, but I don't really want to get into that.
- Wikipedians come to know and respect the fellow editors that work on the same articles they work on, and that's more than good enough. Most of the authority anyone have on Wikipedia comes directly from other peoples' familiarity with the work you have done. I mean, suppose I'm having a spirited discussion with someone on a Talk page about whether an inch is exactly the same as 25.4 mm. Which is more likely to convince me: if someone says "I'm a Wikipedia Admiral, how dare you challenge me," or if that person says "it says here that in 1866 the yard was defined to be exactly 3600/3937, but in 1959 this was changed to defining the yard to be exactly 0.9144 meter?" Dpbsmith (talk) 18:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since this is still about 'rankings' all of the votes against this still apply; the opposition was about the concept, not the specific implementation. — Davenbelle 05:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- See: Anti-wiki. — Davenbelle 18:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The only way I would not oppose a project like this would be:
- If it didn't attempt to rank editors
- If it wasn't for the purpose of "[d]etermining the quality of editors."
- If it wasn't for "[h]elping Arbcom members decide by gathering how good/bad a user was." or indeed,
- If it wasn't an organized way of making qualitative determines of merit (using any measure) of editors,
- In other words, if I've been too subtle, there are no circumstances under which I'd support a project like this. Further, I have voted Delete on VFD. Normally, overwhelming rejection would kill a project like this but in this case that doesn't seem to take. Demi T/C 20:19, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
[edit] Alternate Ranking Scheme
This would be a completely quantitative ranking based only on the number of edits. My proposal is given below. --DuKot 02:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I see one problem here... many bulletin boards, forums and message boards use a ranking system such as this. And many of them have the problem that users make frequent frivolous posts merely to increase their ranking. Radiant_* 10:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I envision this as an informal Rank just for bragging rights. I dont see much of a problem in people trying to cheat the system. --DuKot 17:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Any system of rankings based on military titles is inappropriate for an encyclopedia project. If a ranking is to be made, titles taken from academia would be more appropriate. -Willmcw 20:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, judging by the MoS, such a hybrid of US and UK army terminology will just leave both equally dissatisfied. OTOH -- woo, I made half-colonel! Which is actually another problem, since it indicates a bias towards inveterate performers of very minor edits, like spelling, stub-sorting and link-fixing. Which I certainly don't think is frivolous, or even not valuable, but does indicate that the metric is a very crude one. Alai 23:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How about this? There will be a series of ranking schemes. Some based on military (Private, Colonel, General etc), some academic (reader, teacher , scholar etc), some corporate (clerk, supervisor, manager etc). The user can select whichever one he is comfortable with. --DuKot 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I had a simmilar thought, project was vandalised and was defeated in a vote of 3/26/0/1 If I remember right. Quantitive ranking would be fun if people allowed us to discuss it. See the article metnioned on the top of the page. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- (1/32/0/1), actually. Davenbelle 10:02, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Can you explain what you mean by "vandalised"? Are all the people who voted against the project "vandals" now? If that's what you're implying then you need to step off and cool down. -- FP 11:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
| Number of edits | Rank |
|---|---|
| + 200,000 | Field Marshal |
| 100,000 - 200,000 | General |
| 75,000 - 100,000 | Lieutenant General |
| 50,000 - 75,000 | Major General |
| 25,000 - 50,000 | Brigadier General |
| 10,000 - 25,000 | Colonel |
| 5,000 - 10,000 | Lieutenant Colonel |
| 2,500 - 5,000 | Major |
| 1,000 - 2,500 | Captain |
| 500 - 1000 | Lieutenant |
| 250 - 500 | Sergeant |
| 100 - 250 | Corporal |
| 1 - 100 | Private |
| Number of edits | Rank |
|---|---|
| 25,000 - 50,000 | Seraph |
| 10,000 - 25,000 | Cherub |
| 5,000 - 10,000 | Throne |
| 2,500 - 5,000 | Dominion |
| 1,000 - 2,500 | Virtue |
| 500 - 1000 | Power |
| 250 - 500 | Principality |
| 100 - 250 | Archangel |
| 1 - 100 | Angel |
| Number of edits | Rank |
|---|---|
| > 2.3 vigintillion | Rambot |
| 9 billion - 2.3 vigintillion | ¾ Lovely |
| 6 billion - 9 billion | Assistant Vice President of the Vanilla Ice Fan Club (honorary) |
| 400,010 - 6 billion | Closet Guppy Prodder |
| 23,452 - 400,009 | Phlogiston Containment Unit |
| 17,341 - 23,451 | Ballroom Dancing Aficionado |
| 9,877- 17,340 | Elite Hippopotamus Scrutineer |
| 5,520 - 9,876 | Keeper of the Right Leg of Jimbo Wales |
| 2,928 - 5,519 | Nobody Likes You Much |
| 1,025 - 2,927 | Will & Grace Boom Mike Operator |
| 545 - 1024 | Russell Crowe's Elite Force of Friends and Acquaintances |
| 348 - 544 | Guardian of the Presidential Pretzel Cupboard |
| 232 - 347 | Short Bus Supervisor (Saturdays only) |
| 0 - 231 | Meatball Scrutineer, 2nd Class |
*LOL* (while logged in from the library, thus getting some nasty looks :) The above is the funniest idea yet to come out of this misguided project. —Charles P., Elite Hippopotamus Scrutineer 22:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I fear you may be giving me credit—it is credit, right?—that is due mainly to Davenbelle. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- While I like it, it's not mine, it's FPs. — Davenbelle 23:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Oops. I suppose I misread the edit history. Curses to FirstPrinciples then, and mild ones: I didn't get a lecture after all, just a glare. :) Guppy Prodder 23:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- While I like it, it's not mine, it's FPs. — Davenbelle 23:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Historical admonition
The following text is available under the terms of the GFDL from [1]
- Setting up hierarchies is always a temptation, and is why anarchism never works. Wikipedia is a noble attempt at a limited anarchistic society, but there are now people clamoring to destroy it.
...
- They're why Usenet is a big pain in the ass, filled with loud-mouthed pricks without any humility. They're why people join Slashdot, karma whore, and then leave.
[edit] Yargh! Let's just end this
Look, nobody really wants this, it seems to not want to die. It's creating a ton of wikistress for nothing. This is coming from someone who wouldn't mind the idea. Lets just get rid of this forever. Howabout1 00:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] VfD
On April 12, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. FWIW, the result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Rankings for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
I think it is an excellent idea -- in theory. Anything that assists in reputation management is useful in a growing community. I love the idea of an objective metric.
In practice, it is a terrible idea, because it is human nature to overvalue such "scores". Even the name of the proposal is a political third rail -- touch it and you die. The idea of a pecking order from high to low is anathema.
However, if it makes you feel any better, you do not need anybody's permission to generate such scores. Dump the database and root through it. There is plenty of statistical information available for each user, and nobody can stop you from collating it; you can even build a tool that allows visitors to query your metric database. Given the terms of the GFDL, I don't believe you could ever be stopped, not without destroying the project.
If you do decide to do such a thing, I suggest that you generate at least 3 metrics for each user. Name them Red Metric, Blue Metric, and Green Metric. Just to keep things moving, normalize one metric in the range 0-100; another in -1 to +1; and invert the third, so "better" users have lower values for this metric.
I can't promise anything, but if you take these steps, it may help to delay your lynching. — Xiong熊talk* 01:02, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
