Wikipedia talk:Skill badges

Initial proposal

I support a proposal to give editors awards similar to the way high-quality articles are given Featured Article and Good Article status. Besides rewarding editors for their contributions, it also helps newcomers seek senior Wikipedians for help. However, there should be specific qualification criteria for the award and it should be retractable. In addition, the award should be a social construct and should not give the recipent any advantage on Wikipedia. We could have multiple levels (up to three) of awards, but must be careful to prevent a hierchary from emerging - therefore, we must keep the award system simple. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your concerns. As I propose it, the badges will be retractable, and skill badges won't be a requirement for or provide an official advantage in anything. There will be specific requirements, and there will probably be no more than four levels in each badge. (I'm not sure whether I agree to limiting it to three levels; I guess we shall see when we start drafting the requirements in detail.) Neon Merlin 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since this proposal is completely useless for building a high quality encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One has to note that to build a high quality encyclopedia, one has to build a community. And community is always a matter of spirit and symbols rather than hard facts. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(above discussion moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Neon Merlin 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I believe its time to stop patting ourselves and others in the back for good work and its time to start generating ideas on how to improve the quality of articles. Too much effort and time is spent on areas which are not focused on building an encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But I hear some different things, see e.g. here. Quality contributors don't stay if the community is not high-quality. Personally, three quarters of my Wikipedia time and three quarters of my nerves are dedicated to writing articles, but if I don't get at least some encouragement, it can quickly become demotivating. Like Napoleon said about the Legion of Honor, "yes these are toys, but these toys are used to lead men." or something in that tune.

Also, just to be clear, the previous reply of mine is in no way an endorsement of the proposal, just a side remark. The present proposition might not be the best thing to achieve such an objective, I just don't know that, but it has the benefit of trying to. And it's just a proposal anyway.

As for the proposal itself, I'll think hard about it. :) Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These badges will promote Wikipedia as a place of "service learning." Eventually, they will be given consideration on resumés, scholarship applications, etc., because unlike barnstars, they have relevance in what narrow-minded people call the "real world." This, in turn, will provide incentives for more people to begin contributing, which in turn will generate more and better content. Neon Merlin 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be so overly optimistic, but these, much like service awards proposed some time ago (WP:SERVICE), can give one a measure of how experienced the editor you're facing is. I'm not much fun of a lot of these badges though... And quite a few of them are covered by barnstars already...-- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are covered by barnstars, a barnstar doesn't indicate a specific level of skill, only that the starholder's work happened to sufficiently impress a fellow user who's sufficiently generous with barnstars. (Have you ever tried to apply to the community at large for a barnstar?) But if you could be more specific about which badges you'd like to change or scrap, and why, you're welcome to do that below without having to vote against the whole proposal. Neon Merlin 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(below discussion moved from Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals by Neon Merlin 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)) Oppose Unfortunately they sound too similar to barnstars to me. Maybe if you could explain the difference I might change my mind. --Will Mak 050389 15:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious difference seems to be that these would be granted by a community consensus rather than as a personal award; and that they could also be removed by consensus. Quite honestly, I don't know whether this particular proposal is necessarily the best approach; but it might be worthwhile to have a general discussion about whether we would want to have a more formal, community-based, system of awards/rankings/whatnot than barnstars currently provide. Kirill Lokshin 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a good way of adding more detail to WP:SERVICE (also still being proposed), but I don't think we need a separate category of awards like this. --Will Mak 050389 15:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(end of discussion moved from Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals by Neon Merlin 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

But the current scheme of service awards isn't a good idea, IMO, because they imply that a specific edit count milestone is, itself, an achievement. These badges, on the other hand, focus on specific skills that might be demonstrated by someone with 10 edits or someone with 100,000 edits. Now what I might support is giving awards once an editor reaches a certain milestone number of total badge levels. Neon Merlin 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the track ... encyclopedia people

Another project that will take time off trying to write good articles in WP. There is absolutely no need for wikipedian categorization nor is there a necessity to know that him is better than him. There are actually plenty of things to do than to add more cruft to the personal pages and to create more process toward editing. Lincher 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be addressing any of the potential benefits that I listed in the lead section. Neon Merlin 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincher there are many good editors who may be future adminn, that this badge would help them. --Zonerocks 05:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for badgeship?

The great thing about Barnstars (though many still hate them) is that they have no requirements for conferring them upon someone, and hence they have no value. Because they have no value, they have no procedures, and people won't exercise in futile edit wars over them. It's a good idea, but Barnstars already have the "make them feel appreciated" thing down, and formally ranking editors by 1337 sKiLlZ will only create more problems. Fagstein 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of skill badges is not to make them feel appreciated, but to:

Give editors credit for the skills they demonstrate, so that people will join Wikipedia in order to enhance their resumés, etc., with badges. This will increase the total rate of article creation/improvement. It will also tend to give us better input because, for instance, a student or out-of-work photographer, hoping to boost their resume with a Photography skill badge, will be likely to take better pictures than the amateurs who (I'm guessing) currently take most of our photos.
Show users who has what skills, and make it easier to find the right editors to approach for assistance.

Nonetheless, skill badges can be effective at making people feel appreciated in a way that barnstars cannot, because (a) they are from the community at large, rather than just one person; and (b) they can reach those diligent, but less-noticed, editors who don't naturally receive barnstars (like myself). The fact that barnstars, as you say, "have no value" severely limits their use as both positive reinforcement and as resumé credentials, and therefore as motivational tools. I suspect that there's, at best, a poor correlation (r < 0.5) between the number of barnstars a user has and the total value of their to-date or future contributions; with skill badges, I would expect a much stronger correlation (r > 0.8). Neon Merlin 01:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're making some serious assumptions here.

Employers aren't going to care what the anonymous Wikipedia community thinks of people's l33t skillz.
We already have complicated polling procedures for adminship requests, article deletion, approval of policies. Imagine having to run polls on whether User X is good at math.
I see no evidence that expert badges will increase the total rate of article creation and improvement. In fact, I would guess that it would decrease this rate, as people who would normally be editing articles would now be involved in flame wars over whether User X deserves Level 3 certification in basket-weaving or why User A gave User B a promotion but not User C.
The Wikipedia community does not have the necessary skills to judge users' level of competence at the tip of a hat. A lot of work would be required, which would waste a lot of time that could be used much more productively elsewhere. It's just too much of a logistical nightmare. Fagstein 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of those concerns will be addressed by having sufficiently specific requirements for each badge level. Such specificity would:

make the badgeworthiness of an editor more a matter of fact than opinion, thus deterring flamewars.
tell employers exactly what a badge meant an editor knew, and therefore what it was worth. Unlike a barnstar, the value of a badge would be the same regardless of who granted it.
make it easier for potential voters to decide whether an editor qualified for a badge or not, and make that decision uncontroversial most of the time, meaning that voting could happen much faster. I would expect most polls to last no more than a week for first-level badges, and maybe three or four weeks for top-level badges. We wouldn't need an editcount analysis or a detailed questionnaire for the nominee, just links to three or four pages to exemplify the skill being accredited. (Note, however, that I would expect many first-level badges to be granted unilaterally by those with high-level badges.)

As for how it would accelerate article creation/improvement: These badges would provide motivation, in terms of both simple positive reinforcement and resumé enhancement, for both existing and new editors to keep working and building their skills. AFAIK, the most common motivation for adult volunteer work is experiential education, and an accreditation system enhances our perceived value as a place of service learning. The Wikimedia Foundation's official social agenda is "Adult, Continuing Education," and this is one way to produce more valuable adult continuing education. Neon Merlin 19:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how can it be "more a matter of fact than opinion" if it's decided with a vote? Just how are we supposed to objectively determine an editor's skills and knowledge in a certain area? Things like this (with social value but little tangible value) are what causes the largest flame wars among editors, and I still don't see how this will be avoided if we're ranking some editors above others and pretending like it's objective. Fagstein 07:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote is just a matter of having people verify the factual accuracy of the statement, "User A has met the requirements for Badge X." If there is an accuracy dispute, then some discussion is needed. And we're not attempting directly to objectively determine an editor's skill, but instead determine whether certain edits (those being presented as evidence of the skill) would have required the editor to understand certain concepts and techniques (which together make up the skill).

For instance, if you know how to correct for dark and washed out photos, colour cast, noise, slight blur, and how to appropriately crop a photo, then you know the basics of photo editing. (More complicated tasks, such as removing objects and backgrounds from a photo, can be made parts of higher-level badges in that subject.) All you have to do is determine whether the editor in consideration has done each of those things properly with a list of specific photos.

Also, the badge system would not produce a long-term ranking of users, since one could train for the next badge level, complete the requirements, nominate oneself for it and get it, all in the space of one or two weeks (longer for the top-level badges). Neon Merlin 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. The idea is quite tempting indeed, but because Wikipedia is anonymous, it would be impossible to implement. And like someone already said, the logistical issues would be tremendous. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, maybe the process will be too slow at first, maybe the badges won't be resumé-worthy at first, and maybe there will be problems with fraud and abuse for the first few months. However, once the system has been operating for a while, anti-fraud measures will be put in place, ways will be found to make things move faster without introducing significant error, and the badges will begin to build a reputation with colleges, universities and employers.

The great thing about wiki is that it doesn't have to be perfect from the start, because it's relatively easy to improve whatever's not working satisfactorily. We can always scrap the system if, given time, it turns out not to be viable (which doesn't appear to be the case); even then, the effort won't be wasted, because whatever lessons we learn will help Wikiversity with its long-term goal of creating a degree-granting system. Fagstein is clearly exaggerating the potential negatives, and ignoring this project's potential to do good.

If you're still not satisfied that it's worth the effort, why don't we start with a pilot project, granting badges in only two or three skills? That will mean investing less effort in drafting the badge requirements and designing the badge graphics. It will also initially mean fewer nominations and votes to oversee. In the unlikely event that Fagstein is right about the badges leading to flamewars, there should be fewer of those than if we cover the full range of editing skills. All I'm saying is give skill badges a chance. Neon Merlin 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or have a l33t friend with higher sk1LlZ promote you. Fagstein 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone suspected that Editor A had a badge they hadn't properly earned, and that badge had been granted unilaterally by Editor B, then they'd probably ask B for evidence that A met the requirements. If B couldn't provide satisfactory evidence, A's badge would be revoked or deleved, and if this happened repeatedly, so would B's. Neon Merlin 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(decreasing indent) What could be nice would be badges based on real disciplines - if you write X Fa's about geography - you get a geography badge. Or something like that. Since FAC's and FA election is already an existing process that does not require any additionnal logistics, that might be OK. And FA standards are established and high as well.

~~And it is tougher to get than a barnstar.~~ -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you determine who "wrote" the FA? Kinda goes against what Wikipedia is all about. Fagstein 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not sleep enough yesterday. Forget it... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fagstein, he just means "made a major contribution to." Neon Merlin 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, that sounds like a reasonable plan, but it has two issues: First, contributing to several featured articles in geography doesn't necessarily indicate a complete knowledge of the basics of geography. One might be nearly an expert in some geography topics, and nearly clueless in others. Second, one can demonstrate extensive knowledge of a subject without being a major contributor to an FA. One can make minor contributions to high-profile articles or major contributions to lesser-known articles. (I do a bit of both.) Neon Merlin 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that real experts can often have only a small number of edits, while some highly motivated people with no higher education write good or even featured articles. Wikipedia is somewhat different from the real world. Should we make it closer? I think so. But, well, something in the idea of service badges makes me feel uncomfortable. Hello ~~kitty~~ editcountitty and so-calling-themselves "featured users". No, I think bureaucracy isn't good, and barnstars are enough.

Badge eligibility will have nothing to do with edit count (beyond, maybe, 10 or 20), and edit count will not be usable to justify voting for or against the granting of a badge. To receive a badge, one will have to have shown specific skills in one's edits. There will be a specific set of requirements for each badge, and edit count will not be among them. In fact, skill badges will tend to decrease editcountitis by providing an (eventually) more accurate, less manipulable, alternate method of quickly comparing users in terms of experience.

And how many people use their real names, are experts, but can't prove their skills outside Wikipedia? CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an example of a user with expert-level (or nearly expert-level) skills that I can't prove outside Wikipedia. That's because the skills are with HTML and CSS, and I can't prove them outside a wiki because I don't have any content for a personal website and am not ready to get a job (at least until next summer). Neon Merlin 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interesting, but a wiki is a place with limited use of HTML and CSS.

Limited HTML, yes, but almost complete CSS (and possibly truly complete CSS in future versions of MediaWiki). For instance, I would say one of my best pieces of CSS work was making images overlap at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Adding Numbers to Ribbons. Neon Merlin 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But let's get to the heart of the matter. Do we need to compare users, in the first place?

Yes, because if all editors are equal, no editors are distinct, and therefore no editors are distinguished, in which case (even with the possibility of adminship) there's not much for any Wikipedian to aspire to. And if they also won't get any accredited skills or references to put on their resumés, there's not much motivation to continue volunteering. Neon Merlin 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the world. Someone must be getting motivation somewhere. Fagstein 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because we do compare and rank editors, using rudimentary systems of edit counts and barnstars. Neon Merlin 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we compare and rank editors??? It's extremely improbable, since I know a lot of excellent contributors, who lack numerous barnstars, sometimes don't display their editcounter, and sometimes even lack common good attitude. Remember, the most "cool" users are trustees, stewards, bureaucrats and admins. And since taking the admin duties many people become less and less writers. Edit counts can promote housekeeping, bernstars promote in-wikipedia socialization - actual writers don't get a lot of either. Remember, Wikipedia is an equality-based community, and most of the times people are compared solely by their words in the specific situation, not by their past. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if it's not broken, why are we fixing it? Fagstein 06:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editcountitis is already considered a bad thing, and someone showing it off in the open is likely to lose reputation.

That's an argument against the current system of service awards, and possibly against edit count userboxes, but not against skill badges which, as I say, have nothing to do with edit count. In fact, displaying skill badges could show a user's commitment to overcoming the inherent flaws of edit counts as an experience metric. Neon Merlin 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badges... Well, a nice thing, but I'm concerned with procedural issues most of all. Someone can always state himself if he's an expert in some field. It's hard to determine it outside. Well, let's just test it. For instance, I've got not many edits, and would fit as a test subject; could you try to take an overall look at my contribs (better start from first 500) and just suggest what badge(s) I could be considered eligible for? CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a bit sketchy until the requirements are drawn up, and I'm not in a position to say what constitutes expertise in many of these areas (which is why I don't want to be the only one drafting the requirements), but I'll get back to you in the morning with my list. Neon Merlin 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your work on templates, you could probably receive a first-level badge in HTML/CSS. Looking at some of your earliest and latest edits in the main namespace, you could probably also receive a second- or third-level badge in cleanup. I haven't had time to look over all your contributions, however. You'd probably be in a better position to do that than I would. Neon Merlin 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see it's difficult to determine specific editor's skills externally.

Most badge grants would probably be self-nominated; and peer nominations would be made only by those who had already seen evidence of the skills, e.g. because they were watching the pages where the contributions were made. I don't expect anyone to go exploring for skills in a fellow editor's contribs, because presumably the person who knows a contribution history best is the one who made it. Neon Merlin 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most of my work in Wikipedia was connected with shipbuilding and weaponry (where I work IRL), then dispute resolution and wikiproject creation; cleanup being probably only tertiary. It's because most significant changes often take much less edits, since they need to be well-thought and made in one piece, and the smaller template corrections or article cleaning can look dominant while taking only a small time.

That's the problem with edit counts, and why we need a better system. Neon Merlin 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly against the system, but it would better be kept simple (certainly without levels, for most part, and as condensed as possible), and, probably, with as small bureaucracy as possible. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about in the pilot project I proposed above, we start out with only basic-level badges for the first while? Neon Merlin 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would seriously consider removing levels overall. The problem with leveled badges is too much MMORPG-like detail and difficulty of judgment. It is easy to determine if one has professional skills in computer maintenance, or weapon construction, or professional writing, or whatever; but very hard to measure one's skills via wiki. Well, maybe not absolutely, and to mark exceptional participations, double badge could be used. That's because of the second problem: many contributors would not like to be represented as having only basic knowledge in a subject which in fact is their job for a decade. So, using a non-leveled badge would be better, and it would greatly reduce any disputes about the level. And, well, I'd suggest to further simplify the system, merging, for instance, all audio skills except vocal into sound engineering. Same with video, images, and some other subjects - don't forget, we aren't playing ADoM or URW, so we should keep all supplementary things simple.

P.S. If you support the idea and would like me to be more specific, I can explicitly state what I seem fitting, or just edit the page and simplify the details. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some more specifics please. Also, I do not agree with removing levels altogether. Here's why: As I said above, if you know how to correct for dark and washed out photos, colour cast, noise, slight blur, and how to appropriately crop a photo, then you know the basics of photo editing. However, there are also plenty more advanced photo editing tasks, such as increasing resolution, fixing red eye, recolouring objects, removing objects or the background, correcting uneven lighting, etc. A professional would need to be skilled at some of the more advanced jobs, but someone who knew only the basic tasks could still help in many workplace situations, could still make valuable improvements to photos on Wikipedia and Commons, and should still, IMO, get a badge. Neon Merlin 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but how you can tell that a person who only does basic photo editing, does also have only basic skills? Most photos don't require anything beyond basic correction. The same goes to web design: only a small fraction of tools is allowed for use on Wikipedia. And, basically, same goes to most of the tasks. I know many people don't care, but many others would not like a badge stating they have basic skills, when they have professional. Let's avoid RPG elements; they are too tempting to implement, but too dangerous, because can substitute ends for the means. Well, maybe two levels would be appropriate, with the first being common (without notices of skill level), and second honorary, when very advanced skills are shown and used regularly. It's not easy to assess presence of skills, and even harder to measure levels without using tests - which we clearly shouldn't even think about.

Also, let's decide - are we speaking of in-wiki or real-world skills? I triet to reform it at User:CP\M/Sandbox, but seems like some of the skills are still completely useless outside specifically Wikipedia. --CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about wiki skills, but most of these transferable to the non-wiki workplace. The only skills I can think of that would not transfer well are Counter-vandalism, Multimedia research and the Text formatting/presentation group.

Also, I don't agree with some of your badge changes because:

One may be very skilled at sound cleanup or synthesis, and not even have a microphone. Similarly, one may be very skilled at editing photos and had little experience actually taking photos. (I consider myself to fall into both categories to an extent.)
Templates are definitely an area of skill distinct from the others, and they can get very complex (e.g. with parser functions).
Leadership is what we call the organization of people. Similarly, videography is video recording.
Multimedia research is definitely a skill in which one can have a very advanced level. It's not easy finding free-use images for Wikipedia on the web.

However, I would be happy to:

Support the renaming of Expansion into Writing and Prose editing into Copyediting.
Merge Tables into Copyediting (at the general level) and HTML/CSS (at the exceptional level).
Merge Sound synthesis into the exceptional level of Audio cleanup (but we should then rename it Audio editing).
Use your two-level system to start with, but call the levels "general" and "exceptional." (I may, however, propose additional levels later.)

Do you agree to this counter-proposal? Neon Merlin 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No

This is not a good idea. It is just WP:SERVICE in a different form. I oppose any implementation of a policy such as this that divides wikipedians. pschemp | talk 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:SERVICE. No matter what we do, Wikipedians are always going to be — as they have long been — sorted by experience. Skill badges are the fairest, most precise way to do that. Would you rather people keep using edit or barnstar counts? Neon Merlin 07:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This plays to ego, divides the community, and reduces quality/complexity in editors to numbers. I don't think it can do anything good for us, and that it would do much harm. --Improv 04:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have to reduce these things to something that's easily handled on resumés and by users searching through categories. Some people just want to become distinguished one way or another, and it frustrates them if they can't tell how distinguished they are. If this proposal fails, Improv, remember this: The next time you're looking for a job, employers won't be able to easily quantify or evaluate your volunteer experience, so it probably won't count for as much as it otherwise would. In marginal cases, that could mean that the job goes to someone else. Neon Merlin 07:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that any employer, except some dotcom offering a home job over Internet, wouldn't even bother to look at these awards. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the purpose of getting involved is not to push one's resumé. Putting an emphasison that would give people entirely the wrong idea, almost as if we should expect badges in real life for being sociable, throwing great parties, being a good cook, etc. Anyone wearing badges for such things around would swiftly make apparent the silliness of the idea. Not everything in life should be about your resumé, and stuff like this hurts community. --Improv 20:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but people still display certificates on their walls for completing cooking courses, even if they aren't professional cooks, and may still put them on their resumés. A skill badge can be thought of as a course certificate (see purpose 6 in the lead section), with the differences being that in true wiki spirit, (a) the course awards full experiential credit, and (b) the final performance tasks are marked by more than one person. Neon Merlin 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people can't tell how distinguished they are, having anonymous people vote about your skills on Wikipedia isn't going to change that. If anything, they'll probably make it worse.

In what way? Neon Merlin 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because by assigning value to these badges you're inviting people to start fighting over them. People here are offended by their articles being deleted. Imagine how they'll feel once they get rejected for a skill badge. Fagstein 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not assigning any particular value to these badges. The value, if any, will be set by the people that grant it: the employers who see them on resumés, the committees that see them on scholarship applications, the Wikipedians who use them as RFA criteria (which they're welcome not to do if they don't want to). Their only 'official' value is as (a) positive feedback when granted, (b) constructive criticism when not granted, and (c) a tool to help Wikipedians determine whom to approach for help. I don't really see how any of these things would tend to encourage fighting. And if someone can't handle being rejected for a skill badge, how will they manage in the non-wiki world when they get passed over for promotions, turned down for dates, etc.? Neon Merlin 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars have the advantage of being personal, and because there's no rules about giving them out, there's no bureaucracy about it and nobody's going to vote against awarding you one. Fagstein 06:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But barnstars can't be used to measure value as a Wikipedian. I have no barnstars; does this mean my contributions to date have been unimportant or undistinguished, or that I haven't shown any particular skill? No; it just means my more meaningful contributions have yet to be noticed; or if they have been noticed, it's by someone who isn't very generous with barnstars. I'm content not having any barnstars, but I would like some form of acknowledgement, and skill badges would mean as much or more to me than barnstars. Arguing that skill badges will interfere with encyclopedia construction is like arguing that academic grades interfere with learning; the effects of grades might not be purely positive, but the prospect of straight As still gives students something measurable to strive toward. Neon Merlin 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skills aren't the only measure of value to the project. I realize you would like acknowledgement, but this is not the way to do it. Having people argue over your skills may seem attractive to you, but it would be downright depressing to most of the people it would apply to. Wikipedia is not a school. You do not graduate from it, and you do not have any l337 goals to strive for. It's a volunteer wiki. You give what you can. Fagstein 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, having one's skills affirmed by consensus without dispute is far better than having them argued over. And in most cases, that's probably what will happen, because clear requirements will leave little room for controversy. But having them argued over means that at least a dissenting minority is willing to acknowledge them, rather than everyone (or almost everyone) ignoring or denying them. And yes, as Wikipedians we do have a goal to strive for: to contribute as much as possible to Wikipedia within our lifetimes, and thus to make the most important (and, thus, most skillful) contributions possible within the available time. Neon Merlin 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster that I am not a wikipedian! --CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you not be a Wikipedian, with your 1800 edits, your custom-formatted user page, and your regular posts to discussions such as this one? Neon Merlin 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just that goal isn't exactly just to contribute as much as possible to Wikipedia :-). Different people have different goals, actually. I, for instance, aim to keep Wikipedia a good source of in-depth information, most importantly free of significant bias, both systemic and local, in all aspects. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how to make this work without introducing a vast apparatus to admininster it and I am not seeing the big benefits of it. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "vast apparatus" at all; it will be many times less vast than that used for WP:RFA, just because (a) fewer votes are needed, (b) clearly defined requirements will reduce the amount of controversy, making consensus easier to establish, and (c) each user can make a voting decision more easily. Neon Merlin 05:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA is a vast apparatus, because we need RFA. We don't need skill badges. Fagstein 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the apparatus will be many times less vast; I agree that we don't want the awarding of skill badges to take too much effort, just to make sure that its motivational benefits outweigh the effort it consumes — just as we make sure RFA's benefits (both motivational and in terms of getting more admin work done) outweigh the effort it takes, compared to what would happen if only Wikimedia staff had admin privileges. But it's hard to argue about what we need and what we simply desire, given that Wikipedia doesn't truly need to exist at all. Neon Merlin 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this won't work

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured users pschemp | talk 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how well I can comment on a proposal if the proposal itself is no longer available; however, please see my comments above. Neon Merlin 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the time passed and lack of strong support, it's clear that it will never fly. It can be kept as a small volunteer initiative to acknowledge people who have shown remarkable skills, not more. That's why I from the very beginning suggested to simplify it and leave only high level. Anyway it's up to you, just a suggestion. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 07:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]