Wikipedia talk:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive8

Too much red tape for my taste. Award the medal for edits, not to an editor, but then place it on a user (talk) page? You've lost me. Elect a panel of judges? People (or edits) are nominated? Discussion would involve the whole community? That has bears the danger of resulting in a not-so-pleasant publicity contest and lots of controversy in close cases. No thanks. I'm not here to win awards, but to help write an encyclopedia. Why not just award someone you think is doing a good job a barnstar? Or mention it at Wikipedia:Great editing in progress? Lupo 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

What does this proposal add that Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia doesn't do already? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have clarified some, though not all, of these issues on the project page. - Jakew 19:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reservations

I support the concept of rewarding Wikipedians for good work. I agree that we don't do enough of that. I think that WikiMedals are a fine concept, as long as they are understood to be the work of one group of interested editors.

However, making these awards "official" is IMO not a good idea, because:

• it might create a climate of competitiveness and backbiting, neither of which are helpful to the project.
• as an open community, we must keep officialdom to a minimom. We already have official ways of recognizing good editing work (WP:FAC) and good personal conduct (WP:RfA).

If we want to start a WikiMedals project, then all right, let's make it happen. No need for the community as a whole to become involved, even if that was a possibility.

For this reason I don't think the straw poll is necessary, although I respect the desire to gauge community sentiment -- WP:NOT a democracy and this:NOT a policy proposal. We might better gauge community support by starting a signup list. Who is willing to commit their time to this idea?-- Visviva 03:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that competitiveness is a bad thing for the project. I would think that the opposite is true: provided that cooperation is not undermined, competition to perform better edits can only help the project.

I share some of your concern about backbiting, but I think that this can be managed and problems resolved easily. I don't think it is a major concern.

As for officialdom, I don't think there's reason to be concerned. In no way can this proposal stop anyone from doing anything. It just serves as an open positive feedback mechanism created (or not) by community consensus. I see WP:FAC as recognition of articles, rather than individual edits, so I think that it is complementary. WP:RfA does not exist to assess good conduct, only bad.

As for signup, good idea. Be bold: add it, but please do so in addition to the existing vote. Need to state what people are signing up for. - Jakew 12:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree that there should be more recognition for good work, but I'd worry about a discussion involving the entire community. It just seems like a discussion would involve a certain amount of criticism of individual editors which we have enough of I think. A more formal definition of a smaller group of Barnstars that can be awarded by individual editors would be a more positive experience for the community as a whole. I think all we need is a renewed effort to award Barnstars. But I'm not gonna vote against it because we absolutely do need more positive reinforcement. My 2 cents worth. Rx StrangeLove 00:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a proposition myself, a modification of this medal stuff. Let say, a controversial subject, there are a lot of debates in the talk pages to finally have a neutral article..., if a controversial article get neutral and factual after intense discussions between the two sides, those that were able to present their arguments in a civil Wiki way, and obtain a consensus. those get a group award. It could be voted by the community. In controversial subjects, people will be ready to compromise, to as a group get a distinction to work in the community. It could be called something like the WikiCup, and could be given to the same group for the same article more than once. It will encourage people to work in group and compromise and be civil with each others. Fadix 19:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Like it. Since you see it being granted by a group, perhaps "WikiMedal for Collaborative Editing" is a good name. Or perhaps not. ;-) - Jakew 19:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedal for collaborative editing?

Granted to a group or from a group? Deryck C. 06:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Both would be my preference. - Jakew 10:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

"We, the people editing American Idol constellation of articles have noticed the wonderful work of those involved with Dynasties in Chinese history and would like to commend you for it"? It'd be cool, I grant you, but I don't see it happening unless one of the groups is specifically created for handing out praise. --fvw* 11:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Jake... wow... to a group... what a good proposal... even better if it's a barnstar XD Deryck C. 15:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't take the credit. It's Fadix's idea. But glad you like it. - Jakew 17:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Generally I don't like awards, I find it against the Wiki spirit, but awarding to a group of people for their collective work, will force members in a controversial subjects to make compromise and discuss rather than fighting. Fadix 16:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

What about calling it the Wikipedias Arafat-Rabin award? :b - Fadix (sig added by Jakew)

LOL. Personally I like it. But possibly a little provocative... - Jakew 17:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar for collaborative editing should be a better name. Deryck C. 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

About concensus

I think the proposal is not clear. User:Nickptar, my proposal was not clarified to be posted as a proposition, it was recopied and I understand it isen't clear. The way it is written, some could interpret it, that those that get a concesus will get the award, while what I meant was that, even with different positions, people could agree, make concessions and work on an article. The concensus was more of an example... the proposal posted was an example I gave, in a situation that a group of people could be awarded for their work, and the positive result of this work. Fadix 00:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that I agree with - any group who does good substantial work (like amicably hammering out a difficult consensus) should get a medal. ~~ N (t/c) 00:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to take liberties. I felt it was a good idea and worth seeing whether there is support, rather than being buried in the backwaters of a discussion page that not everybody will read. - Jakew 11:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Current proposing system

Why can't we collaborate on ONE idea so that there can be concensus instead of a MUST vote? Currently the multi-proposal system seems disgusting, I think, because 2/3 of finished materials will not go into effect. Deryck C. 13:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. - Jakew 14:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that everybody discuss and collaborate ONE proposal that directly goes into effect, skipping voting, instead of letting 3 proposals fly around? Deryck C. 03:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)