User:Ocaasi/TWAspam

To do

Right now

What can be worked on right now. Feel free to add to this list.

• Read the draft and suggest or make changes
• Ask questions about the purpose and planning of the project
• Find coders: anyone familiar with PHP, javascript, AJAX, Flash, or HTML5, game development, user interface design, or web applications
• Review the levels: level 'scripts' are linked at each level (still being written). Make or suggest changes to dialogue and game interactions
• Network with other editors involved in help, new editor orientation, user interface design, and outreach

Done (or almost done)!

Nice work! If you'd rather not be mentioned, send me an email

• Draft of project from Ocaasi
• Feedback from Dcoetzee, Sonia, Ironholds, GreenPine (Pine), WereSpielchequers, Moonriddengirl, and Chzz
• Script from Ocaasi
• Images from Steven Zhang
• Avatars from Sonia
• Script copyedit from GreenPine
• Level 1 code review

Future

• Build the necessary site/code platform
• Write levels (10-12)
• Mock-up levels (1-12)
• Build levels
• Test levels
• Get feedback from Village Pump, Outreach, and WMF
• Present version alpha/beta of the game

Good idea

Great idea on the game. You may want to take a look a http://www.zooniverse.org/ which does a great job at turning repetative tasks into fun tutorials and game-like productive activities. I think if we pushed Wikipedia to the same level, it is something that could be very real and entertaining. Is there possibility of integrating parts of particular backlogs like Category:Orphaned articles into it. Also, for the typo fixing, could we have a bot offering possible typo fix options to the reader automatically on real pages? The bot could search for common problems and print a report every thirty minutes or so of typos in pages.

I am sorry , but I don't have time to help with development of this, I have too many Wikipedia related commitments right now, Sadads (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadads, that's a great idea but a different one. Zooinverse crowd-sources tasks whereas this idea is to gameify new editor tutorials and help documentation. Still, I like it, but it presents a whole host of other questions related to accounts and expertise and trust. I'm okay saving those questions for a little later myself, but it's definitely an interesting notion. Ocaasi ^c 16:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

From User talk:Chzz

Absolutely; like game tutorial levels? Where they flash a box and say "put a house here", etc? Sure - definitely. Games do it superbly well, so why can't we?

Snipped from IRC chat;

Session Start: Fri May 05 [15:45] <Chzz_> re. what we spoke of, some hours back - about video / "game tutorial"

[15:48] <Chzz_> my vision of it would be a side-box on the Wikipedia screen, which had dialogue as actions were taken, plus it'd magically highlight/circle/point to stuff,

[15:48] <Chzz_> and it'd stop you doing anything BUT what it was telling you to do

[15:48] <Chzz_> "Now, type in <ref> Something </ref>"

[15:49] <Chzz_> and ok, it wouldn't care what the 'something' was, but it'd insist on the "<ref> and </ref>" before moving on,

[15:49] <Chzz_> ...and if they were incorrect e.g. missing the "/" then it'd highlight that and ask 'em to fix it

[15:49] <Chzz_> I know, this is somewhat complicated code. But, I think it's worthy, too.

[16:06] <Chzz_> side-box, big friendly lettering, "We make a word appear in bold by putting three apostroples around it, like '''this'''

[16:06] <Chzz_> ... try that now, in the edit window."

[16:33] <Chzz> user types ''sausage'''

[16:35] <Chzz> and it highlights ''sausage''' and maybe circles it, and says "Oops! you need to put three apostrophes on each side of the word (or words) - like this: '''This is an example'''

[16:35] <Chzz> and maybe if they fuck it up one more time, it just does it for 'em

[16:35] <Chzz> lots of "Great! Well done!"

[16:35] <Chzz> "Now, let's add a picture!"

[16:36] <Chzz> just... no fucking paperclip though.

Yes, no paperclip! And no animated Jimbo head. Glad this idea has been kicking around... It makes a ton of sense and since it doesn't involve actually changing the mediawiki interface should not face so many hurdles. I'm asking around to get input on the coding side. So far there's a mini-consensus that Flash would be best (my original idea was actually using a modified MW interface with the real vector skin. But maybe it's better to just use interactive Screenshots from Vector). Anyway, feedback and project motivating and directing would be great. This seems like a good idea, worth trying to put together. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 05:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

From User talk:Sonia

Interesting idea, and watchlisted. I've evaluated safety tutorial sections for online games, where the emphasis is on the tutorial being part of the game, and carrying in-game rewards. While that's a rather different situation to what's proposed, it's also worth keeping in mind for two reasons. First, what you're doing is exactly the right approach - if a plausible game can be made, then it's perfect for keeping new editors' attention. Second, it's always necessary to offer at least some sort of in-game rewards (barnstars or mini-barnstars are fine) for completing (or "winning at") the game.

I've asked User:Worm That Turned to comment, as he has some very useful background in all of this. First, he runs a quite in depth course for people wanting "to know everything they need to know to be a good editor", and secondly, he does some web development type things as a day job. So he might be the ideal person to help :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I recently put together a syllabus for new editors and was thinking of which editor had that extensive course I'd seen before. Now I know! Want to add yourself to the participants list? Ocaasi ^c 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in to this discussion: I like the idea of a tutorial that is more interactive and engaging than "here are the links to the help sections." More broadly, to get some ideas about how to motivate newcomers to stay active in the community, see the sections in the Wikipedians article about the Pareto effect, and motive. GreenPine (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to my comment: could Wikipedia:Tutorial and Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual be used as a basis for a more interactive and engaging tutorial, and combined with the ideas from the Wikipedians article? GreenPine (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

*ahem*. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I come back to what appears to be a fantastic initiative. All the editors currently on the list of invited/in look to be excellent at what they do, and will be of immense use.

• GreenPine, hi! It'd be great to have relatively new users like you taking part so us old hands don't get too wrapped up in what we see as important, which may not be what is needed. I might get Ophelia.summers (talk · contribs), who's also very new, to see what she thinks.
• Bob, as far as I know the TCG was designed for established users? It doesn't seem to be intended as a teaching tool, at least to my eye.
• All in all, very excited-- not sure how much help I'll be on the technical side, unless screencasting is involved, but I'll think on a possible interface for it. Probably should be similar to that of WP proper. (Incidentally, a while ago I was intending to make a series of screencasts with an animated character walking through policies and basic editing; this looks to be a more coordinated and interactive approach, which is great!) What is possibly important is that modules are easily modified, seeing as this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; things will need to be changed around.
• As a helper/editor I can probably do more given that most of my WP work is outreach anyway. Other editors who may be interested are Sadads, Chzz, and Moonriddengirl (in her new role as liaison). Foundation feedback would be great.
• I think the first step from here would be working on a "road map" for what the program should achieve, and basic structure. What is most important, and in what order? Could maybe work on one over etherpad or google docs (...or here.) What do you think?

On another completely unrelated note, I'm currently doing research for a mini-research paper for a contemporary language class, on Wikipedia jargon, its characteristics and any problems this may cause for newbies. Any comments, ideas or examples anyone can think of, please do email me! sonia♫ 01:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we take this discussion to the Village Pump? Sonia, you could copy this whole conversation to there. GreenPine (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Should we take this discussion to what appears to be the main project page User:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game, and post a link at the Village Pump? GreenPine (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I knew you'd have some good thoughts. Etherpad makes a lot of sense. I'll link one at the top. And I'll notify those editors you mentioned. It's going to take some good coders, since nice writing only goes so far in computer world. Do you think I should move the document into mainspace? Ocaasi ^c 02:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How many examples of Wikipedia linguistic challenges for newcomers would you like? ;) I'd start with the acronyms. Also you could consider the special challenges for people who have difficulty with English on en.wikipedia, and the difficulties for people who have low to average levels of internet literacy. GreenPine (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw the link in the header GreenPine, I sketched out some ideas here. Feel free to add/edit that page or leave comments on talk. Village Pump is a good idea; I was thinking about getting a draft in place first. Let me know what you think. Ocaasi ^c 05:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're correct, Sonia-- the TCG is geared toward people who have come to know and appreciate the Wikipedia lifestyle. The idea of a game to teach people to edit sounds like an innovative one, though it seems rather abstract. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

TCG is definitely neat, and as an occasional Magic player, quite interesting to me. The Wikipedia Game would be concretely based on the actual MW interface and Vector skin and use help documentation as the basis for creating a mission-based narrative about learning the site and improving a hypothetical article. I started drafting some 'levels' here: User:Ocaasi/The Wikipedia Game/Level master. Take a look and see what you think. Ocaasi ^c 21:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Lovely idea

Some silly options for people who /want/ them might be appropriate. Also - you might get some support from the fellow in San Diego who runs the wikigame website (currently dedicated simply to letting people complete to connect articles by a link-chain). It is extremely popular with reader who don't really know how to contribute. – SJ + 22:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What silly options did you have in mind? I contacted the coder of wiki-maze, a similar but even more cleanly designed site and haven't heard back yet. I'll keep you posted. Ocaasi ^c 13:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Linked to discussion in archive

Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Guides/Archive_1#IRC_chat_with_Chzz - Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 01:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

See:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/charts/2011-03/Editors-New-Absolute-Log.png The number of new editors per month with 10 or more edits is stable.

http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/charts/2011-03/Editors-Active-Absolute-Log.png The number of active editors with 5 or more edits per month is stable.

What do these graphs say about who Wikipedia should target with this game?

If the number of new editors per month with 10 or more edits is stable, and the number of active editors with 5 or more edits per month is stable, that implies that as many editors are leaving as are being replaced. So retention is an issue. But both graphs show a slight decline, which suggests an even stronger issue with retention. Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 02:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Retention is an issue that this game probably cannot solve directly. Maybe advanced modules could introduce editors to new and compelling tasks, but that is frankly further down the road, even with a successful first implementation. The easy way to mitigate loss of editors is to add more to the front end and give them tools to be successful and happy editors. In my view, that's the right target for the game's first run. Note, not everyone thinks loss of editors is a problem. Growth of new articles is slowing as well (many topics are already covered), new articles are from marginal topics and marginal geographic areas (not in importance, just in size). Expanding article coverage involves making Wikipedia more friendly for new users both through good help tools and also improving the interface and outreach. The game covers the first and possibly the third issue, if it becomes popular. By example, Wikipedia's a pipe. We're leaking at the end. I recommend we increase flow at the beginning so when we leak, it's less of a problem. Editor loss is partly a natural evolution. Editors not starting to edit cause it's hard and confusing is not. Ocaasi ^c 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. But do you agree that the target audience for this game would be new users that we are trying both to educate and to retain, and that we should target the game's "achievements" accordingly? Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 02:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's funny to me to think about editor retention for editors who haven't made a single edit yet, but yes, this game should absolutely put new players on a trajectory to have long and successful careers. If it can inform them, 'prime' them, give them some tools for avoiding common break points--how the f' do i ask for help in this place?, that jerky editor pissed me off, i'm leaving, what the heck do you mean by references and citations anyway, etc...--I don't see how it won't lead to an improvement on the retention side. But frankly editor retention after the 6 month to one year period is an entirely different issue. If people leave after 6 years of service, that may just be life moving on. And if people are finding the environment hostile and unfriendly, that's a major issue that needs a different treatment. But if we can't bring students, teachers, retirees, and dilettantes of the world because the interface is a bear and no one can figure out how to get started or have the confidence to make contributions once they do, that's a little tragic. The game should be something people want to play, which teaches them skills that would let them be successful here. That's most all I know about editor retention anyway. Ocaasi ^c 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up for those comments. :) Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 06:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Name game

I think calling this thing "The Wikipedia Game" is a bad idea. It gives off the wrong 'vibe'. It'll make people think of the negative connotations of WP:MMORPG.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of fun but, Wikipedia shouldn't be treated like a game.

Sorry, I don't (currently) have a better suggestion, but I do think the name should be considered before going much further. Trouble is, of course, almost anything you think of has already been used before - e.g. 'tutorial', 'training', 'teaching'/'school', 'mentor', 'guide', and so on.  Chzz  ►  21:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're the third person out of less than 15 I've talked to mention that. So it's definitely a consideration. I think we have options. Although, first, game is not a bad word. Games are fun. Research shows games are educational. Games are goal-oriented, structured, rule-based, cooperative environments. (See the note in the lead about the connotation as Wikipedia as an MMORPG). I think the sensitivity about this issue is unfortunate. Wikipedia is a massive multiplayer online roleyplaying project, and the roles people play are encyclopedia writers, editors, community facilitators, etc. The only real aspect of MMORPG which is unsavory in this context is the quest for power. That, definitely is not what this game is geared towards; instead it's about the quest for information, competence, and confidence. But 'game' makes people think of triviality and lust for victory, neither of which is intended or involved here. Though Wikipedia is a game in that it's a voluntary, and generally fun cooperative experience, it is incredibly serious about its goals, and those goals involve information and organization not control and domination. As you know very well. So what are the options:

Ideally, we describe the computer program as what it is: a browser-based, platform independent interactive learning experience to guide new editors through common situations and scenarios, in an educational, creative, and entertaining mission-based format. That's how I think of it. It's also a fun learning-teaching game in my mind, but maybe game is on the bad words list in this case. Here is a hypothetical title.

Be Bold! The Wikipedia Learning Experience: A free, creative, interactive, online guide to help new editors gain comfort and confidence with an awesome online, collaborative encyclopedia-making project.

It's a mouthful but somewhere in there is what it is. Thanks for bringing this up Chzz. I don't like mincing words or worrying about connotations, but if this is going to be a hurdle, better to figure out the options up front. Maybe The Wikipedia Game will end up being palatable once there's a mock-up. But if the aversion prevents the development from going forward, then it's obviously worth sorting now. Thoughts? Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, if game is a bad word, there are other switches, too such as changing mission and level to module, scenario, lesson, topic, or encounter. I don't know if the prior are problematic too, but they're easy to reconfigure in theory. Ocaasi ^c 22:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Chzz and will watch developments hoping for some resolution. Perhaps my reaction is unwarranted, and I don't have a good suggestion, but I would prefer something indicating a journey (The Wikipedia Track, The Wikipedia Quest). The pages can be fun and game-like, but using that term (even in a description) is dubious because editing should not be anything like a game (enjoyable yes, playing no). Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be nitpicky, the 'game' piece is the learning not the editing. But I get the point and titles don't have the luxury of being nitpicky. I'm thinking of moving this page to avoid further issues. If I moved it to The Wikipedia Quest, hypothetically, should it be in mainspace? Ocaasi ^c 00:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends how bold you feel!? Mainspace—no (it's not an article). Do you mean Wikipedia: space? If so, my feeling is that optimism is required, so yes. I would ask for opinions at WP:VPR before doing the move (i.e. what do people think about having a work-in-development in WP space, and what about the name). Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a rename is needed, although that can also be done at any time and we shouldn't equivocate too much over it. Just move the page whenever you think of something better. Dcoetzee 23:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, at some point, pending discussion. Ocaasi ^c 00:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is, and isn't, important. It isn't, 'coz, it's just a name. But it is 'coz, people will get the wrong idea. Many a project has failed because of a poor name.

In addition, whilst I sympathize with Ocaasi saying "game" is OK, and just misinterpreted...well, yes, but that doesn't matter. It will be misinterpreted. Whether it should be, doesn't help.

In added addition, you're targetting the wrong group by putting in that way - ie, it'd appeal to 'computer gamers'. Geeks. Whatever you want to call us. Frankly, we have quite enough of those. Training along these lines should target old ladies, Sri Lankan barbers, and people who hate the interweb; not geeks.  Chzz  ►  04:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So we could name it "Dear, the prince died all hIS family has died you are next heir. we hAve $419 billion dollars for you please respond so we can wire the money to you, verily Barrister Omar Al-Kodar". That might rope in the non-geeks. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename!

Okay, two's a coincidence but six is a problem. Let's throw out name ideas. Here's my best shot at it.

• Be Bold!: A Wikipedia learning adventure for new editors
  • Be Bold!: Wikipedia's interactive learning experience

• The Wikipedia Adventure!: A learning guide for new editors

• The Wikipedia Journey!: An interactive tutorial for new editors

• Wikipedia Quest!: A teaching game for new editors

• First Steps: The foundation that lets you build Wikipedia

• Nuts and bolts: Showing you the inner workings of Wikipedia

• Flying Start: An interactive tutorial for new editors

Please add yours to the list. Ocaasi ^c 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia Quest. It's short, reminiscent of an untrained new hero embarking on a quest, and wikipediaquest.org is available. Dcoetzee 00:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: "Wikipedia Quest" is punchy, and I like it the best of the above options, but it sounds like a game for kids. Can anyone think of a way to tweak it to appeal to all ages? Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Added a handful more. I'd try and avoid words like quests and adventure, because there's clearly an issue over the MMORPG elements of Wikipedia (not ones I see, but it's clearly there). Worm^TT · (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think having Be Bold! as the main title, with quest/adventure in the sub-title might be a good compromise. I like the terms 'nuts and bolts' and 'flying start' and 'first steps'. Also 'foundation that lets you build' and 'showing you the inner workings' are quite nice. Ocaasi ^c 09:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my thinking was to appeal to people who weren't me ;) I'd happily go for an adventure or a quest, but I don't think that I'm the demographic that we should be targetting with this. The ones I suggested were more likely to attract newer editors from other demographics. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

How about calling it simply the "Wikipedia Starter Tutorial" or "Starter Tutorial." Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 21:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's much more sensible. It shouldn't need a subtitle to explain itself; something clear like "Wikipedia Walkthrough" will suffice. — Pretzels ^Hii! 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Support per IRC conversation: "The Wikipedia Journey: A fun, interactive tutorial for new editors" Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 05:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The moniker matrix

A

• Be Bold!
• EDIT!
• Imagine!
• Imagine a World!
• Sum of All Knowledge!
• First Steps!
• Nuts and Bolts!

B

• learning
• dynamic
• interactive
• teaching

C

• guide
• game
• tutorial
• adventure
• quest
• journey
• foundation
• tutorial
• experience

D

• new editors
• editors of all ages

E

• building Wikipedia
• showing the inner workings

Outreach

There seems to be a lot of overlap between this idea, and Outreach:Account Creation Improvement Project.  Chzz  ►  08:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. At some point, it might be appropriate to suggest a trial to get data about how the game affects edit counts and editor longevity. It could also be offered on some of the new page and welcome options. I've let Sage know about the project. He's more on the public policy and campus outreach side, but he might have some good ideas about people to get feedback from. Chzz, how do you imagine these two projects interfacing, both in the development stage and once a game is made? Ocaasi ^c 13:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've really no idea, but it's a good trick if you can do it. Even within WMF, there's the PP thing, but also Wikipedia:Wikiguide. And outside WMF, there's plenty of people with ideas for improving/coordinating training and assistance for new users. Perhaps the recent appointment of Mdennis (WMF) (talk · contribs) as Community Liaison might help. But trying to organize Wikipedians is like trying to herd cats. In thick fog.  Chzz  ►  17:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Pledge of Moral Support

Hi Ocassi et al. For all the assistance and support you have provided me with WP:STiki -- I am certainly willing to consult where I can on this project. I'll watchlist and throw in my $0.02 wherever/whenever possible. However, from a technical perspective, this is not my area of expertise. I am much stronger with scientific programming than user-interfaces and interactive work. Like several individuals above, I also would support an alternative name for this concept. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have it! Ocaasi ^c 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Two areas you might be able to help with: 1) Do you have any insight into how you would code it (what specs, what language, how long it would take?) Right now the feedback I'm getting is that browser-based is best and therefore javascript/AJAX or flash would be the likely candidates. But I am not a coder. Also, if you know any coders who work in web development or open source who would be interested in either consulting or working on a project, of course that would be a great help. 2) Have you learned anything about the Wikipedia community or process that would be insightful for starting up such a project? Interfacing with the foundation, 'advertising' software, etc. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My first thought of a "language" was Flash. It isn't coded in the traditional sense, but is usually built with drag-and-drop type tools. See [1], and there may also be freeware alternatives. I have no personal experience with Flash, but I am aware of several non-technical users who have built Flash apps -- suggesting it isn't all that difficult.

In terms of the community/process, I feel that STiki's revert edit summaries mentioning the tool was the best advertisement possible. If your tool does end up permitting "live" actions, I would highly suggest a similar approach. Academic/conferences venues like Wikimania/Wikisym are a good way to get attention for tools -- but such travel may not be feasible for an independent developer. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lose the things the editor can't control and the more game like actions.

Editors can't control whether they receive a welcome or get into an edit conflict, they can be pointed to the category of dead end articles and shown how to create links and remove templates (removing maintenance templates should definitely be part of what we guide people towards).

Encouraging editors to post on Jimbo's page or seek help from an admin makes this a tad formulaic and risks people doing those things to level up. I'm happy if someone correctly references 10 articles to practice their newly learned skill of citing reliable sources. Not so keen on them posting on AN/I in order to get to level X.

I'd also suggest you allow for more diversity by saying complete x of the following rather than all of the following and have steps that follow each other, so adding alt text to an image is step 1, finding an image on commons and adding it to an article without iamges is step 2, uploading an image to commons and adding it to an article step 3. ϢereSpielChequers 11:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read further I'm less comfortable with the detail. I think there is a great potential for a series of online tutorials that show how you do various editing tasks and when you've passed the tutorial on say de-orphaning get you practising on live examples. But I'm not sure that is the intent here. ϢereSpielChequers 11:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to say this, but this can fun. It has to be useful, but if we don't make it something people will use, it may well end up like the piles of help documentation and other tutorials that no one reads or uses.

That said, I'm well aware of the choice to make this more game-spirited than tutorial-style. There's a spectrum, three actually:

• tutorial (0)<------------>(10) game;
• simple (0)<------------>(10) diverse/complex
• sober (0)<------------>(10) fun

If I had to rate the current script/draft I'd give it a 4/3/6 respectively. It's only game-like in spirit, the actual skills and progression are very much tutorial like and the game only 'opens up' slightly in the last 3-4 of 12 tentative levels. What you're describing, closer to a 2/7/1 on those spectrums, has a definite purpose and value, but it can't be the same thing as the former setup and only one can get made first. I don't just desire to lure people with cuteness, just like I'm sure you think having more assertive and diverse skill-training is the path to adoption. I think both can work, though they're different. The current script has momentum for me while writing, but it's not settled yet. And I'm most emphatic that, wherever it falls, the product be clean, useful, and engaging.

My hope, actually, is that the tutorial-game/game-tutorial will be built on a robust enough platform (PHP/Javascript) that it can be modified for more sober and direct advanced modules and conventional practice. For me, right now, a charming but seriously educational journey has a certain zing that the alternative does not. Without being silly, such a game could be widely adopted, though perhaps among a slightly different set of users than you are imagining. I would like the tutorial-game to have enough gravitas that professors and coders would find it useful as well but having light-heartedness that a high school student or a grandmother would like it. It's not supposed to be trivial or gratuitous. That's all in the game writing, however, and a separate issue from the program crafting as you are brining up. I'm very much interested in modeling both of those approach WSC, I just don't know how to do them at the same time. This might require more significant user input, as the script I've written was done both recently and less out in the open. I'd like to continue working on it and then pare it back if that's the way we go, or consider a different model. Please share your thoughts. Ocaasi ^c 12:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that choices add complexity. But I think they can be a worthwhile investment, not everyone learns every aspect of Wiki or in the same sequence. I know quite a bit about deletion and categorisation, still exploring the world of tables and need training wheels whenever I play template design. If you are putting all the stuff I was concerned about, such as messaging Jimbo and appealing for admin help into an off wiki system so that won't affect stuff on wiki then most of my objections fall. In real life I'm something of a game player, and I know that the mindset I fall into when doing Sudoku is the same as when categorising articles and various other gnomish pursuits. So I'm not opposed to gamelike training features, but I'm keen that the training equips people for the things that we want them to do... ϢereSpielChequers 13:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Editors have to learn core things when they come here: anyone can edit a wiki; it's an environment you can't control but can still succeed in; people are here to help you and work towards common goals; neutrality; sources; references; communication; getting help. If editors learned nothing else, they would be on the right trajectory still, as the rest can be added on later. Those are my focus for this game. They are not exclusive of what you suggest are important, except insofar as the tutorial-game will be limited in scope and length in its first manifestation. I conceptualize that this first-run mock-up will be geared towards true beginners, who are in no position yet to 'do what we want them to do' in the way you suggest it; we can't make them able task-masters yet, they don't know where the edit tab is. Please do me a favor, and go to User:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game#Advanced_skills_and_tasks and add anything you can think of to that list--those are the tasks that would be built, in my mind, in stage two, six-twelve months out when the platform is already established. What you're envisioning is more of a training environment than an engaging way to welcome, acclimatize, and prepare true novices. Last, and less conceptually, choices add significant complexity to the coding, so we should keep that in mind. Witty dialogue is cheap design-wise. A true open system is more involved (though worthwhile). Ocaasi ^c 13:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Next stage of design: mockups

I think it would be very useful for people here with a modicum of Photoshop skills to create mock ups of what the game might look up, by modifying Wikipedia screenshots. This would give us the next thing to discuss in the design and add visual appeal to the proposal for recruiting talent. Dcoetzee 00:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Great step! I have a verbal commitment from someone who said they would do a mock-up of the first level in Flash, but they wanted someone else to handle the graphics/photoshop stuff. I'm thinking of asking at the Graphics Lab for some help, but I'm not sure exactly what we're looking for. Ocaasi ^c 04:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Decided to mess around with paint.NET today; here's a quick sketch illustrating my scarcity of drawing skills :P

Of course, something that doesn't look like that would be better :) sonia♫ 05:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Love it. Great start. Of course, in my head it was a male geek between 25 and Jimbo, but I like your thinking. For the mock-up I lined up (not a hard commitment), the coder requested actual photoshop images/files to use. So we need the basic interface and all elements from the first level. In addition to not being a coder, I'm not a photoshopper, so I appeal to anyone out there who can take on this piece. I won't beg, but I will offer pictures of baked goods as compensation. Ocaasi ^c 06:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I did mockups in both genders, but made it a female for two reasons; one was approachability and one was that we do need to retain a greater proportion of female editors. I could properly develop a few vector images of said girl if she's an adequate character, and that should make it easy for someone else to overlay pictures with screenshots and text. Would that be all right? sonia♫ 07:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have several thoughts about using a female, but also about exclusively using any single gender or ethnicity for that matter. What I'm about to say is highly problematic circular thinking, but part of the problem of games is getting people to play them, and the disproportionate number of already interested male editors may be less comfortable with a female narrator/guide (or not, maybe they'll be intrigued). Ideally we would have a randomized selection of guides, each with a brief premade biography--some of all genders and colors to fill out the spectrum of humans and desired editors. But for this mock-up any will do and a female is a great choice for several well-explored reasons. So, I definitely think she's adequate, and to be very blunt, as a quirky, friendly looking, and attractive young, white female, will not turn off most editors anyway. I hate to be crude about this, but since pragmatic issues of adoption are going to come up, I would rather throw these concerns out there right away. In general, we want an guide who is approachable and relatable--above all someone people will trust and want to emulate and learn from. After all, this guide may be a user's first impression of Wikipedia and the guide will be their role model and teacher. With all of that said, I say go for it, but also perhaps wait a day for others to comment. Again, a final version would hopefully have a rotating set of characters, but that is something to concern ourselves with down the road. Thanks for being creative and getting something 'on paper'. Ocaasi ^c 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

More thoughts: An easy fix for these kinds of 'identity' issues is using a known figure, a Wikipedia celebrity. In the current draft I have actually named the guide (just in one place, so an easy fix), and he asks to be called 'Jim' for short. So that's a hint. We could also have another named Sue. The third option is to use a non-gendered, non-ethnic, non human, such as a figure with the Wikipedia globe for a head. And call it Wiki, or Globy, or Cyc, or something. Okay, all for now. Ocaasi ^c 07:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Mm. That's a valid concern, yes. But for the mockup one character will suffice I think-- we can discuss development of a set later :) I'm not fond of a non-personified avatar though, as I think that becomes a bit less approachable and a bit weird. GreenPine and Derrick and I were talking on IRC about naming the fine-tuned version of the drafted character "Sophie"; GreenPine thought it was fitting for an encyclopedia as it's Latin for "wisdom". I quite like the name myself- only issue I saw was the existence of User:Sophie, but Derrick and I agreed that wasn't too big an issue. Of course we may be getting ahead of ourselves here :) sonia♫ 08:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with a choice of characters. Maybe we don't even need to have a name. But if one is to be named and it's female, I like the name Sophie for a guide to an encyclopedia. It's also a nice homage to the book Sophie's World. I support a having a human character because we want people to feel that Wikipedia is approachable, but a choice of human characters would be OK. Perhaps all female characters could call themselves Sophie and we could have a name with similar meaning for male characters such as Bertram. Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 08:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, actually giving users the choice of character may be the most stereotype reinforcing of all, but that is way academic, and user-choice is generally a great thing. I very much like Sophie, it's soft and sweet and smart. Not to draw any broader inferences. Yes, also I thought of Sophie's World (and Sophie's Choice but let's stay positive). A human character does seem the best way to go. Also, damn you GreenPine! Bright famous raven made me spit out my granola. Ocaasi ^c 08:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC) p.s. what irc channel is all this awesome happening in?

FWIW, I dislike the idea of any 'avatar', I think text-boxes without a character are fine, and I think this is a distraction from the actual hard part - writing quality training guides. But I can see I'm in the minority, so I'll keep (relatively) quiet.  Chzz  ►  11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a worthy enough point to be normal sized... There's some momentum here in the more gamey, character-driven direction, but that's partly just to get a mock-up going. I'm not wedded to a graphic narrator, and it is another less 'serious' component of the recent discussions, but we should consider whether it has real value. I believe consensus is that presenting learning with social scenarios is very effective for at least some students (traditionally, women and children). Most hardened techies have an aversion to these gimmicks, but we should consider whether an appropriately sized avatar would be what helps some to get engaged. It would have to be unobtrusive enough not to turn off others. I don't want to split every issue down the middle--maybe some will just be taken and ran with in one clear direction, but it's well early enough to sort them out with no sense of pre-commitment. Ocaasi ^c 12:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi: What about "Bright famous raven" was so funny? Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sonia, could you try a slightly less caricature/cartoon-ish mock-up and maybe make the avatar in her 25-35 range? Also about 30-50% smaller, since the real focus is the instructive text the interface. I think part of the dissonance here is the avatar's age, style, and size. If we use one, maybe a more conventional look would be less concerning to those who think the game angle is overemphasized. If you can, great. If not, we need to get graphics folk to do the whole interface, so it can wait for that, too. Ocaasi ^c 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the "human" guide, too, and I think that's a fine looking avatar, User:Sonia. "Scarcity of drawing skills", my foot. :D Ocaasi, I have trouble reading age into that avatar, but I could buy her as mid-20s. I do see concerns about the more/less animated angle; you talk about the option of customizing by using male or female avatars; what about customizing by turning the avatar overlay on or off? (That said, I would have no idea how to do that. :D) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What about using an animal for the guide, such as a raven or an owl named Sophie? Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 21:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Animals make friendly guides, too. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, should we break the character and name discussion into a separate section from the mockup discussion? Pine _(GreenPine) ^t 21:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We ruled our the raven, but an owl is looking decent. Consensus seems to be that the final version should provide a choice of guide, with a cast of characters, some human and some bird ;p I'd like to add a robot and a puzzle piece to the mix. Fun! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Aaand here are a couple of quick (vectorized) sketches: a much older sophie, a non-white character, and a very cutesy owl (sitting on a W per GreenPine's suggestion on IRC).

Feedback appreciated so I know what to develop and how :) sonia♫ 09:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I love the owl, non gender specific, non race specific, cute, symbolic of wisdom - seems perfect to me. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, and much easier to draw variations on :P sonia♫ 10:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The owl is cute. I like the owl. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice again! I have to say I like the owl on the W. Maybe a little less W and a little more grey on the owl. I love that card action on Sophie. And I like the bob haircut, very up-and-coming-professional chic. I'm not crazy about black pigtails, don't know why, makes the face a little dark. Maybe she'd need blue eyes! Okay, this is getting weird. Well done, can't wait to see the whole cast. (our African with a flowing red robe? And our Indian in a dazzling Sari? And our Antarctican with a giant Parka?... which actually does raise the question of whether the different ethnicities of avatar would be wearing different outfits, or all just t-shirts). Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the owl :). Another option could be Puzzly. --Yair rand (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Between a rock and a hard place

Some frank concerns about the "realism";

"Uses the actual Vector interface" but "Environment should not be game-able or defaceable" - this seems contradictory.

If the users can edit articles during this 'game', then they can vandalise them. The only way to eliminate that is, by presenting an entirely mocked-up interface which does not actually edit the wiki.

"Allow free-text editing in limited fields but run a badwords regex filter over it to prompt a warning note" is simply impossible. If it were possible to filter out 'bad edits' technologically, we'd already do it on the live enwiki - it's not.

People will screw around with this, in every way you can imagine, and a lot more besides. They'll try to "cheat" to get the awards, they'll try to disrupt the system itself, they'll set up a sock to teach themself or set up a 'good hand/bad hand' to screw with us. That's just reality on Wikipedia.

It is impossible to let users edit live enwiki pages without them being subject to the normal rules & regulations; other users can, and will, revert/warn and so on (rightly and wrongly).

It has to be (realistic AND defacable/open to warnings, etc) OR (mocked up, 'safe' but unrealistic).

Any messages to them from 'fake editors' (on their talks) will create confusion with other users.  Chzz  ►  13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I began conceiving ways to have cake and eat:

• Limited links. The initial levels would have only 1-2 links functioning at a time. All others would be blocked.
• Shallow links. Links that do work would dead-end after 1 page, creating a cul-de-sac for players
• Reg-ex/bad words filter. Any contributions which trigger it would be met with an automatic undo and a polite warning like, "On Wikipedia the whole world is reading, including strangers, children, and grandmothers. Please use language that shows off the project in a great light". We do run a reg-ex filter, or at least Lupin's tool does and so does Huggle, and CBNG and STiki both have straight linguistic measures. They might not catch everything, but they would be a 'realistic' deterrent, and if a few slip through that's okay. It's just a game, I just didn't want people to be taking screenshots of all the ways the mucked it up and be immediately tempted to vandalize it. Ok if they are--they do on Wikipedia, too, but it has to have some feedback mechanism to discourage getting accustomed to that behavior. Otherwise the game would teach what they'd have to then un-learn on-WP.

Ideally the system will be 'based on the real interface' (actually running it underneath), but highly limited in terms of what windows actually open and what you're allowed to chuck out of them. If that's a degree of 'un-realism' than i'm comfortable calling it a mock-up. It just has to look real, more than it has to be real. That latter realism is really only a positive coincidence of having the platform be built on robust and expandable code. It might not be feasible though at this stage, and the early mock-up ideas are actually leaning towards image-only replication and Flash coding rather than PHP/Java. Those tensions are more about timeline than conception. So I think it's not an issue either because we thread the needle perfectly or because we'll just err on the side of realistic-looking safety. That's my thought at this point, anyway. Ocaasi ^c 13:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for this. It's totally awesome! Second, to weigh in on the question at hand, I think it's totally fine if the tutorial has people doing at least some real edits to real articles. I mean, we let people do that without any help or guidance at all, and they mostly do fine. If we are hand-holding people through the process, I think they'll do even better. Of course, I can imagine that for initial steps, we'll want them to be editing their own user page or some scratch pages that are specifically designed for this. But it would be nice if they can, as soon as possible, get to editing something real.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that setting up some sandbox-esque areas specifically for The Wikipedia Adventure would be best and it would be able to lead the users through the early stages of editing. Then, once they get into the more advanced stuff, have them edit real articles. The issues I see is figuring out how to program the interface to allow the user to edit random articles and have the interface still work. Because we can't have each user doing the same thing to an article, even if we're having them make an edit and then undoing it, that would be a little disruptive in mainspace.

Secondly, would it be possible to have a little note attached to their edit summaries while editing in mainspace (or editing in general while utilizing the interface) that notes that the user is running said interface, so our other users will give them a bit more leeway for their edits, since they'll know that the user is running the tutorial? Silverseren^C 08:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me expand on what i'm saying in that, you might want to have very late game tutorial stuff actually happen somewhere on the Wiki and not have everything in a separate area. Just because, it would be nice to also allow the tutorial to guide the users a little bit when making their first real edit, or to be able to consult it for help. Silverseren^C 08:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How to initiate The Wikipedia Adventure

The Wikipedia Adventure shouldn't be mandatory, that would repel lots of potentially good newcomers. How about making a page for newcomers to talk about The Wikipedia Adventure and say how to start it. After, put a BIG message on MediaWiki:Welcomecreation about The adventure. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this hasn't been abandoned. :/ It doesn't seem to be progressing at this point and is still listed at "stage 2" of the timeline, when stage 3 was meant to start on 1 August. Ocaasi, who launched it and seems to have been the main impetus, has not edited since 2 August. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi was the main driving force behind it, who kept in contact with all of the other people that did the various parts. I'm actually kinda worried about him. Silverseren^C 02:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I was quite distracted, and a bit stuck not being able to find a coder/developer who could make the game. The news that Dcoetzee is taking it on is awesome and has reinvigorated my interest and hopes for the project. Silver seren, thanks for your concern. I'm ok :) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Reigniting this project

Hi all, I'm taking two courses related to educational technology this semester and plan to use The Wikipedia Adventure as a course project for both. As an experienced software developer I plan to start work on some prototypes that people can begin to try out, so I can gather feedback on what is effective, what's confusing, etc. and experiment with different implementation technologies. In other words, this project is no longer dead! More details to come. Dcoetzee 02:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That is great to hear, but I wonder how much of the project as drafted will need to be changed because of the upcoming implementation of the visual editor. Should we wait until the visual editor is finalized? Pine^talk 07:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm last time I checked the Visual Editor had quite a bit of work to do before rolling out, so best to just get started. Also, if the implementation is based on the Mediawiki platform, updating it for the release of the visual editor would be relatively straightforward. Dcoetzee 06:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

First, Dcoetzee---AMAZING. Thank you.

About the visual editor, I agree that the game may have to be updated slightly. I do think the majority of the script could be easily brought into line. The bigger issue is building a platform that has some flexibility in the foundation. In other words, however you coders would do it Dcoetzee, to make it so that text, images, and even the underlying mediawiki platform could be easily switched in and out over time. I have no idea if that complicates the issue greatly. That said, it may be a year before the visual editor fully rolls out, or possibly even longer. And the visual editor just adds the option to use WYSIWYG; the markup page will still be present and there will be users who want to learn how to use it. So a worst case scenario is that the game is 'split' with a WYSIWYG version and a markup version, which users could choose between. Besides, the deeper issues the game is trying to communicate has little to do with code and much more to do with policy and community. At the least, I think a working prototype/demo of the game could attract the necessary foundation or other developer support to finish in whatever direction we decide to go. Again, I can't express how excited I am about these new developments. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Some design questions to consider

I'd like to hear people's input on a couple of broad design questions. One of them relates to structure of the lessons/levels, and another to implementation strategies.

Since we can't actually compel anyone to use the tutorial, except perhaps as part of a class using Wikipedia, we have to somehow keep the experience engaging and relevant for users. Making a game engaging is a familiar challenge that there is a long list of game mechanics for, but relevance is another issue. Currently the design proscribes a linear lesson strategy in which users learn a bit at a time, building on previous lessons. Another strategy, which could be used either instead or as a supplement, is to have a "pool" of lessons that are each relevant to particular problems a user might experience. For example, a user who forgets to sign their posts might be given a link to a lesson on talk page mechanics. This would also be a way real wiki experience could be tied to the game. Are there other strategies for making the game relevant?

The most pressing technical question is still the most appropriate platform for implementing the project. There are clear benefits to leveraging Mediawiki and building other stuff on top of that, perhaps using Javascript, but there may be unforeseen challenges to doing it this way. Another way would be to have a Flash app that embeds a simulation of the Wikipedia pages they're being asked to use - which would allow a lot of control and responsiveness, but risk having to invest a lot of effort in rebuilding relevant portions of Mediawiki, especially when new features like the visual editor roll around. Some have suggested running it on top of the real site but I'm really wary of this approach. It is cool that they would feel like they have real impact, but it would make it much more difficult to create repeatable lessons, and more importantly, some players would be discouraged because they no longer have a "safe" environment to try things in.

I was also thinking about the "negative feedback" issue, like virtually blocking users. I'm trying to identify precisely why people find it upsetting. Clearly when people die in games they don't find it very disconcerting, so I can't imagine an in-game block would actually upset the player. Perhaps the fear is that we don't want to "train" users to do bad edits, but I imagine a scenario more like this: the user is asked to make several edits, and in each case selects from several possible options. Included among the options is a vandalism choice. If they choose it, they get a talk page warning. If they continue to choose it, they get virtually blocked and have to restart that part of the lesson. An alternative which might be acceptable is to have the user see it happen to someone else: they notice vandalism, revert it, and then go to the user's talk page to discover the user has been blocked, with an explanation of what that means. Dcoetzee 06:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Allowing users to skip to a particular lesson seems OK. That would be a blend of both types.

I don't know much about Mediawiki, but I think that Flash may be on its way out so I suggest using something that is likely to still be widely used in ten years.

I think that if you're going to have negative feedback for bad editing, you should account for more than simple vandalism. You could include edit warring, canvassing, 3RR, citing unreliable sources, starting articles about non-notable subjects, failing to cite a source in BLP articles, violations of NPOV, COI, overlinking, spamming, G11s, and other common problems that don't always automatically result in blocks for the first offense but are nonetheless bad editing. Pine^talk 07:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to keep at least the 'potential' for game players to experience a coherent narrative. I have no qualms, however, with letting users choose the level they want to play at any time (with a useful summary of the skills each lesson provides). I think that kind of flexibility is a great asset and would make it even more useful to a wider range of users at different levels of experience. I would hate for players to feel 'locked-in' to a 12 level process; but I'd love to keep that process intact for those who desire it.

Dcoetzee, I'm not sure how feasible or scalable it is to have the game shift course depending on user's decisions. While it would individualize the experience, that means a much great difficulty of coding, and a much higher complexity level for future changes down the road. One middle-ground is to have certain 'forks in the road' inside a level depending on a choice, but I think that the fork should reunite afterwards to maintain continuity. There's also a general concern I have about presenting a core of information to all game players. I want everyone to know to sign their talk page (although, if someone does it in the game, presumably they already know how). When I designed the levels I was working in a very linear frame-of-mind, so this idea is intriguing. Still, my hunch is that the added complexity won't be worth the benefit, and it'd be better to provide that flexibility by offering level-choice as a feature rather than varying paths within the levels. There is an easy opportunity to vary the kinds of responses users get depending on the actions they take, without offering completely or partially divergent paths.

As I mentioned before, I think the idea of a "pool" of lessons is a great idea, but I'd still like to provide a core narrative that can be played. I think balkanizing the game into too many units risks losing its potential to catch on with a wide swath of new users. This issue partly depends on how much of a 'game' this game is intended to be. A classic game has a narrative that you experience. I'm not sure if the 'game' appeal can be maintained if it's just separate levels. That said, the idea of having 'advanced' lessons which are part of a pool, built on top of a core narrative is an excellent idea. It nicely mimics the real-life wikipedia experience in which everyone learns the basics, and then goes off in their own direction.

As for platform, I'll leave that up to you Dcoetzee, but I think using mediawiki and javascript is my preference.

As for negative feedback, I think there's a fine line between offering players negative options and letting them role-play negative behaviors. The former seems like a useful learning tool. The latter makes me feel like were conditioning users to the behavior. Design-wise, it's also difficult to keep a linear format with negative feedback unless every user is forced to get a warning. I think a simpler and perhaps more diplomatic solution is to write into the narrative an experience where another, editor (a virtual editor) does something wrong, and the game player visits their page and sees what the consequence was. This way we don't put the player in the shoes of the vandal but we still show them there are community responses and consequences. I have to check the script, as I might have done this already.

Dcoetzee, have you read the script? How much of your planning is based off of it? At the moment it's forefront in my mind, and I think it'd be easier to chart our course once we decide if the script is going to be used as is, used with modification, repurposed, or scrapped. Dcoetzee! Amazing! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I agree that a core narrative followed by a pool of lessons is a great way to proceed, and that individual levels should be largely linear to simplify things, especially at first. But there is a lot of room for dynamic adaptation to users at a later time, like we discussed possibly a separate narrative specifically for COI editors, or maybe the sample content in the game could be selected to be in the area of interest of the contributor. I agree that conditioning users to negative behavior is bad, but I don't think we should be afraid to explore multiple options for demonstrating the consequences of negative behavior, and see how it turns out. I've looked over the script and I think a lot of it will be broadly useful, but I'd like to make some modifications - for example I think some features like the watchlist/contributions should be introduced a bit later in context rather than immediately after registering an account. Dcoetzee 02:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Detailed proposal

Hi all. Last week I submitted a more detailed proposal for the project, shown at: User:Dcoetzee/The Wikipedia Adventure/proposal. Being an education class they asked me to review and cite some relevant education literature. I came up with some new ideas that I think could be really helpful, such as the following:

• Giving credit in the game (in the form of points, unlocking levels, or awards) for completing certain tasks on-wiki.
• A score system where different responses give different numbers of points, and players can review their performance after a lesson to identify areas for improvement and retake the lesson.
• Lesson builder: a toolkit to make it easy for ordinary users to produce new lessons and share them with others. A rating/popularity system could be used to identify the best ones.

This week I'm working on the storyboard and will definitely use the scripts/mockups as a starting point. Any feedback is welcome. Dcoetzee 03:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. If I'm accepted into the ambassador program in some form, would you like me to help with integrating TWA with Ambassador training and training for students? Pine^talk 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course! It'll be a while before I'm ready but I'll let you know. :-) Dcoetzee 04:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Comments would be welcome on this discussion of possible changes to Wikipedia service awards. Wikipedia talk:Service awards#Levels suggestion. Pine^talk 04:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? How did I manage to miss this?

I remember talking about it munfs an' munfs ago! An' more munfs, too!

I'm probably not much use, but I am interested :D If you can think of a way I can be useful (Real Life Issues permitting), let me know! Adding: I can be quite nifty with Photoshop. Pesky (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pesky. Thanks for volunteering. I'm sure that Dcoetzee will appreciate it. Pine^(talk) 07:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary prototype of first lesson up

I've got a first lesson going here:

http://wikipediaadventure.moonflare.com

(Warning, I just added this subdomain, may take a few hours to propagate.) This is still very preliminary and many aspects are not finalized, but I thought some people here would be reassured to see progress on implementation! I'm of course open to suggestions for improvement. Because my first lesson is very different from Ocassi's original conception I didn't borrow from his script, but I'm sure it will come in useful later. Dcoetzee 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So far so good. I might tweak the guidance to be a little more friendly and encouraging. My other suggestion is that the Real Wikipedia Bonus Task be more specific. I recommend a similar typo-search. Try searching for "concieved" (which should be spelled "conceived") or "embarasment" and you'll find tens of articles that have the error. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that as more users use the tutorial, the pool of specific typos would rapidly dry up - especially if coincidentally someone decided to semiautomatically fix them all. An alternative is to have the tutorial search Wikipedia for a specific error to have them fix. However I think having them locate the error also gives them more of a sense of accomplishment and agency, provided they're ready to do it at that point, which they should be. I am concerned though without validation they may be inclined to just skip the exercise. Will have to think more about it. Re: more friendly and encouraging, the text is pretty much just placeholder now and I'm going to make it easily editable, but I think encouragement in the absence of accomplishment dilutes real rewards. Dcoetzee 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In

• User:Ocaasi
• User:Dcoetzee
• User:Demiurge1000
• User:Pine
• User:Guerillero
• User:Ironholds
• User:Rcsprinter123
• User:Sonia
• User:Worm That Turned
• User:Ebe123

Asked

• User:UncleDouggie
• User:Kingpin13
• User:Crispy1989
• User:Cobi
• User:Andrew G. West
• User:Sadads
• Chzz