Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/Article contest

2009-11-02
In this issue

← Back to Contents

• Congrats Durova. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto: major congrats for you, Durova! bahamut0013^words_deeds 04:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can't even imagine a more deserving winner. Durova, you are the epitomy of what Wikipedians should strive to be as editors. You've got it all and more. My sincere congratulations and hopes that you will one day return as the mighty admin you once were. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Durova. Amazing what you've done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Props to all the participants, especially the other finalists Ottava Rima, Sasata, and Theleftorium. Wikipedia was the real winner. Durova³⁵⁵ 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats, Durova! --I dream of horses (T) @ 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations Durova! To all the others that tried hard and did so much, good work to all of you too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations Durova and 'big ups' to all involved ;) Unomi (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What is "audited content" as used in this article?

I did a search for the phrase in WP space, but there was no easily found definition. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing they mean content that is reviewed by another editor, as in the DYK, GA and FA process. -- Ssilvers (talk)

Thanks. It's too bad we have to guess about what is written here. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rules for next year

Congrats to Durova - an impressive achievement! For next year, I suggest removing DYKs from the contest. Including it encourages people to start articles that are not really needed, instead of working on important stubs and start articles that need improvement. Also, I am not sure how the points work, but I hope that people get a whole lot more points for an FA than for work on pictures, sounds and other items that are not nearly as time-consuming? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Cup should be left on the Cup's talk page. iMatthew ^talk at 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured pictures often take several days of solid work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the DYK comment, I'm not sure what starting "articles that are not really needed" means. Who gets to decide which new articles are "really needed" or not. And expanding stubs (and many start-class articles too) can easily get you DYK credit, so I am not sure why that would be an issue either. Rlendog (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but FAs take weeks and often months. I'd give it 100 points or more. Even a GA should be more points than FP or FS, as getting an article up to GA is a major undertaking. I have nothing against FPs or FSs, I'm just saying that the points ought to reflect better the average (median?) amount of time and effort necessary to achieve each of the scored content. Also, I'm not sure about portals and topics: - aren't these basically copies of articles and other content reorganized for convenient viewing? Should copying articles to portals and topics really be scored? Or am I misunderstanding what is meant by including topics and portals? IMatthew and Juliancolton, I'm copying this to the contest talk page. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of this thread has been moved to Cup talk but it's worth mentioning the incredible output of the finalists: during the final three months Ottava Rima had 7 featured articles and 27 good articles; Sasata contributed 3 featured articles and 12 good articles; and Theleftorium contributed a featured article, a 23 part good topic, 24 good articles. That's just the final round; they each did a lot more to get to that far. Many thanks to the judges for a great idea that inspires this much quality content. Durova³⁵⁵ 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions about changes for the rules for next year should be directed towards Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/2010 scoring. J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Better Advertising?

Just want to comment that I've never heard of this contest before today. First, are there other competitions, and second, is there going to be more effort to make people aware? Out of 70,000 Wikipedians there were 24 contestants? Seems a bit, lopsided, I'd say. Hires an editor (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• There aren't other competitions that I'm aware of. We're trying to get as many people as possible for the next Cup. There was actually 60 editors in it this year, and already 120+ editors signed up for next year. iMatthew ^talk at 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's actually not as easy to "advertise" as you might think. There have been other attempts at competitions (for instance, I believe there is a featured list orientated competition, and a good article reviewing competition) but, so far as I know, the WikiCup has been the most successful "general" competition. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lovely idea

This helped guide a wikipedia editing contest being proposed on the swahili wikipedia; thanks for setting a great example. I agree with the idea of tweaking points to better reflect time involved and impact on readers. It may be worth adding a few others categories as well, including adding new non-featured media to commons that end up being used in at least one article (something that can be scriptably checked, especially with the new usage feature). +sj+ 07:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)