Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2015/5

Extraordinary accumulation of points.

I'm just looking at the table that updated 15 or so minutes ago, and I'm staggered by Cwmhiraeth's submissions and total. How is it even possible to garner this many points this early on in the round? One DYK nom of mine I nominated on 9 August was reviewed on 16 August, moved to prep on September 6, and appeared on the main page just today. The process took over a month. How can someone submit 31 DYK's and they all have been reviewed, prepped, appeared and claimed? I know it was mentioned by Rationalobserver a few weeks ago, but how can someone also pushed through four FACs in the time span of one round, which is 6 weeks? My FAC was open 6 weeks, had 5 supports and 2 opposes, and was archived. You're not allowed to be the sole nominator of an FAC for more than one at a time, but Cwmhiraeth nominated two within three days of each other as the sole nominator, prior to his first gaining any support. I'm in awe as much as I'm confused. Every year, well every round to be honest, it's the same names that crop up in the top two or three scorers, making it literally impossible for the rest of us regular editors and contributors to even make a stab at getting anywhere. I've never made it to round four before, and I already know that I will finish in one of the last positions, I have no chance of getting those kind of points, because none of my stuff gets reviewed that quick (I could say something related to this, but I won't...).

I fought tooth and nail to make it into this round, knowing full well that I will not make it into the upper half of scorers. I had an FAC open, multiple GANs, some DYKs, an FL, and helped reduce the GAN backlog, and still only made just over 400 points, the lowest of all who were advanced to this round. 400 as the minimum. There's a rule saying that editors who abuse the GAR/PR scoring will be looked on harshly, but I think this should also apply to only choosing articles which will qualify for massive bonus points as a safety net. A lot of what I've said also applies to some other editors competing. I'm absolutely not trying to be rude, uncivil, assume bad faith or anything like that, but I've thought these things and felt like this for a long time, clearly so does Rationalobserver, and I wouldn't mind betting that multiple others have done or do think some or all of the things I have raised but are probably too lacking in confidence to say anything in fear or what might be verbally thrown back at them.

I am going to propose something which will probably be controversial, but I don't think that editors who have consistently made the final, year in year out, and round in round out for top scorers for that matter, or won it should be allowed to participate in the cup next year, because it's not giving the rest of us who work just as hard (and for a lot of editors, probably harder to try and catch up or keep up) to even have a glimmer to getting to round 3, or round 4, or even having a stab at winning. I actually questioned myself for signing up this year, as I knew that I stood no chance in winning, and I'm really shocked that I even managed to make round four, which I'm really happy about, but I know it won't go much further with me this round. It's impossible, not with these kind of scores being accrued. I don't expect any snarky comments about how my time would be better placed reviewing or nominating trying to get some points instead of spending 30 minutes writing this, either, please, just constructive discussion.  — Calvin999 21:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I do share your frustration on some of these issues. When it comes to not getting reviews, I had a couple of GANs that I waited a whole round for a review and since none were forthcoming I asked a couple of participants to review it in exchange for me doing QPQ for them. But I got shot down quickly by a former judge who urged the other person not to do it despite the fact it would have been mutually beneficial to collaborate as we'd have both got through if both our sets had been reviewed in time. There is an issue when regulars in one area get quicker review than those who aren't.

The notion that the finalists not be allowed to participate in next years in my view is a dead end as I doubt there would be consensus for it. However if you tweak the notion to say they can participate in parallel (ie. still progress if they have enough points but not to take another's place) so they can get involved in the competition but be ineligible to win it would still give people something to aim at and the incentive of competition. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We're going to open the points/scoring discussions in a couple of weeks time, so best holding off a full discussion on this until then. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Calvin: I've a few responses (some of which I'll omit for brevity's sake), but part of the issue here (with regards to review speed, etc.) comes down to the quality of the articles being nominated. I'll take Cas's articles as an example, as you mentioned him specifically. Casliber is able to get a lot of articles through FAC quickly because his articles are very close to ready when he nominates them (that's certainly the case with his biology articles, which I read, and given that his astronomy articles have always had a look through from a professional astronomer, I would suspect something similar is true there). (To be completely frank, and because you asked: your article, as you said, languished and then failed. This might be an indication of the difference in preparedness between your nomination and Cas's various nominations. You say that "none of [your] stuff gets reviewed that quick"- if you want to talk about review speeds and/or are looking for advice on reviews, contact me on my talk page. I'm happy to chat, and may [though may not] be able to offer some advice on getting reviews.) In addition, Cas is able to have multiple nominations open at the same time when he co-noms, as he does with some of his mycology nominations. Further, as the processes inevitably rely on the good will of reviewers, this is self-perpetuating: Cas has a good relationship with reviewers due to his prompt responses and due to the high quality of the articles he nominates (that's certainly the reason I'm always happy to review his articles when they are in an area of interest to me, but why I might be less interested to review the articles of others, even if they're on topics I care about). There's also a degree of luck- do your interests match the interests of the people who are reviewing at FAC? If yes, you'll get reviews quicker. That's inevitable, and even exists in real-world publishing.

On a more general note, I think you are looking at this the wrong way. You say that "it's the same names that crop up in the top two or three scorers"- I agree, and these are Wikipedians for whom I have a very large amount of respect. Casliber produces a high volume of very high quality articles. Godot has completely changed the game over at FPC, producing images of the like we'd never seen previously, and again in high numbers. Cwmhiraeth has taken on some of the most important articles on the encyclopedia. To boot, all three of these people, in my experience, are great to work with. But, rather than receiving recognition, they are often looked upon with suspicion or targeted by people who are not impressed with what they do for some reason. I was beaten by them, and I don't feel an ounce of spite- of course they beat me, and they deserved it.

As for your proposal: I disagree. As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), your objection to the fact that some people score very highly is that there are others who can't keep up with them. I hate to be blunt, but... Well, yes. That will happen in competitions. Is that a bad thing about competitions? Certainly not. One of the great things about the WikiCup is precisely that you can compete at multiple levels; some people fight to get through the first few rounds, others fight to win. Like you, I didn't expect to win, but, personally, I was quite happy with where I got to in the competition. If nothing else, it gives me a clear target for next year! And now that I have been eliminated, I can and do continue to watch, but now solely as a spectator. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you said, Josh, but even if everything you said is true it still doesn't mean the bonus point system is improving this competition, or that it's working for everyone. That's why gaming has no meaning here, because the only way to win is to game the bonus points as much as possible. And as you pointed out, these particular editors don't need any help with getting things through the system, so why do they need triple points for what they do? I mean no disrespect to their work, and I don't think Calvin does either. The best thing we could do for next year is to eliminate bonus points, or at least pro-rate them. Another interesting option would be to strip bonus points from previous winners, so they can only ever win one Wikicup with bonus points. Miyagawa, is there any particular reason why we can't discuss this now, when people are invested in the topic? RO^(talk) 23:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think removing bonus points is something potentially worth talking about, but that doesn't seem to have been the point of Calvin's post. (I'm pretty strongly opposed to all this "previous winners can't do xyz" stuff, though- I think that's a non-starter.) I reject your "gaming" talk- the word has certain negative connotations which I don't think you mean to imply, here, so I think it's a bad word to use. People are using the bonus point system, yes, but are they gaming it? I am not seeing any evidence of that. (And, FWIW, Godot won without any reliance on bonus points at all last year, and that was when there were more bonus points on offer, so I certainly don't buy your "people can only win with bonus points" stuff.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point about Godot, but I hadn't noticed anyone mention him specifically in these threads. He did win last year, with 181 featured pictures in the last round – an amazing accomplishment for sure, and I doubt anyone has a problem with that. My point about bonus points is that two or three people have gotten 90% or more of them, so the winner this year will either be Godot, or who ever gets the most bonus points. RO^(talk) 23:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but this time last year (while the competition was still going on) several people had issues with how I was doing. Perhaps I'm not mentioned because the post-cup scoring revisions assured there would not be a repeat. I have no expectation (or hope) of winning, I'm just trying to have fun, and broaden the exposure to numismatics. I'm sure a lot of people want to have a discussion about the scoring and bonus points, but it really would be nice to wait until the final round is over. --Godot13 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I second what Godot's saying- people were very annoyed that he was winning on the basis of featured pictures, which led to some of the nastiest disputes the WikiCup has seen. Call my cynical, but it seems that people find something to be upset about no matter who is winning and how. That said, and with the caveat that I never objected to Godot's lead and felt he fully deserved to win, I'm not really sure how Calvin wants people to be able to win if producing a number of extremely high quality FAs on important subjects isn't good enough. That strikes me as a paradigmatic example of the person who should be winning the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said Josh. I'm just saying I don't see how it's fair or possible to be constantly claiming for FAs all the time, and also be cherry picking articles which can net them more in bonus points than standard points. I think it was Casliber who got four FA's passed in one round last round. How? Because he's given a pass card to sole nominate as many as he likes, despite the rest of us not being allowed, because he "replies quickly". It's not fair that the same person wins every year. If it was me, I would categorically not enter the cup next year, and I doubt I would have this year, either. A) Because it's not giving others a chance B) Because it creating situations such as this, which is not only felt by me, so it's clearly a problem. I haven't got a problem with him or the others, I don't believe that I have ever even conversed with him.  — Calvin999 09:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

An argument that quality of articles is what gets reviews faster is mute for some areas. I've expanded somewhere around 100 wrestling articles in some shape or form. Among them I've gotten 20 Featured and 40 to GA, along with 30 DYKs. I've pretty much got down the format for these articles, yet I still wait on GA roughly a month or two in the sports section to get one GA review. I had to nominate a list 3 different times in order for it to get passed FL. It was List of TNA King of the Mountain Champions and it didn't fail the first two because of quality but because of lack of reviews. It is somewhere around the 20th list I've nominated as well. There is a giant issue with nominations. Some people are more known than others so they get reviews faster because it is known their articles will be easy to get through. Then there are areas in which no one really nominates articles so they get signaled out quicker. The Sports and Recreation section of GA is always backlogged.--WillC 23:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Certain areas of GAN are perennially backed up and Sports is one of them. More people want to nominate there than want to review. And it's hard for a random editor to review a sports article, or at least it is in my experience. All I can tell you to do is to review a lot yourself and then you might get some reviews in return. I don't want to get into it deeply right now, but bonus points are the best approximation we've been able to come up with for "importance" so we want editors to bring them up to speed. Veterans of the Cup are improving bonus-worthy articles, it might be a strategy worth following.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that some areas are harder to get reviews in than others- sport is likely a good example. I certainly do not hold that what I said about quality of nominations is the only factor. I think there are probably a multitude of factors which feed into review speed, of which quality is one, luck is another, topic is another (and this in turn depends on reviewer interest, topic obscurity, topic difficulty and so on...), reputation of the nominator is another (such as a reputation for writing high-quality articles, prompt and appreciative responses to reviews, engagement with reviews themselves...) and probably more. This is not a problem which is unique to the WikiCup. There have been ongoing discussions about this at PR and FAC for some time (interestingly, and perhaps due in part to the WikiCup, the issue isn't as bad at PR as it once was), nor is it a problem unique to Wikipedia. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This problem may not be unique to the cup but it is a problem nonetheless. We should not use the mentality that oh well it is a problem here, there, and at grandma's house, what can we do? Well instead of noticing the problem exists everywhere, address the issue. I've participated in the cup several times. I never made it far and this year I didn't even compete in the cup despite being signed up (too busy with school to try) but even if I had it would have been pointless. The subject matter which I expand, though may not be popular is still my choice and thus I should not be at a disadvantage going into the cup because I'm not expanding the easy or popular articles. The current high score is 1780. I've been on Wikipedia since 2008. I've expanded on and off since then. Like I shown above, I've expanded alot of articles. Without the knowledge of whether I'd receive bonus points and how much, I would only amass 1800 points from everything I've expanded. A total of 7 years worth of articles expanded and I would only be leading by 20 points. That is a huge issue when the majority of those articles took months to get reviewed? Even with bonus points the levels are not equal. The competition is not fair to all. I'm not whining, but I do believe there is an injustice and the system is flawed. When I did compete in the past I focused on GA reviews and DYKs because that is the only way that people that do sports or backlogged subjects that are hard to get reviews can gather points. Even then several articles that I submitted for points were turned down because I happened to have done some sort of progress on them the previous year (which makes no sense I was singled out despite some editors dropping 20 articles on day one out of nowhere and still receiving points though it was obvious they had also worked on the articles the previous year). Maybe there needs to be a system where certain editors are elected to specifically review submissions done by Cup contributors. That would allow everyone to get reviews regardless of subject, ability, popularity, etc. Look the Olympics, the competitions are not left up to fan vote, they have experts involved to decide the outcome. Why are we allowing first come, first serve, or moreso a popularity contest decide who advances and who doesn't?--WillC 11:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The above comment really hits the nail on the head: there's not a very level playing field for this competition when some manage to get their nominations reviewed quickly, while others have to wait months! In my opinion:

1. this competition needs a mechanism to get nominations reviewed. Of course, we don't have control over the DYK or featured content procedures, but there could still be something to incentivize reviews. Perhaps bonus points for reviewing content of participants or, as mentioned above, a system of reviewers to review nominated content, but in the latter case, that should only be done if the end of a round is near and a nomination hasn't been reviewed.
2. the bonus points for being on X number of Wikipedia projects is not very fair. The problem is that a lot of articles exist in 50+ languages, but aren't necessarily more significant than topics which are in 20-some languages. This includes topics in subjects like geography and science. I think in many cases, such articles were added to new Wikipedia projects by bots, so their existence on multiple projects is not a real indicator of significance. If there is any insistence on bonus points for the significance of a topic, it should be for the improvement of Wikipedia:Vital articles.

That said, I don't think using the rules to your advantage is necessarily abuse. I myself tried to improve articles that would receive bonus points and I think most people would realize this advantage in the competition. I just think that it is not a fair competition when the timely review of nominations is left to chance, with some people routinely receiving quick reviews, while some wait for months (the following round or even later!) to get their nominations reviews. And GARs/PRs take a lot of time for very little points. AHeneen (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Replies from Calvin999

Didn't expect this much response so soon, and instead of reply to all the bullet points above, I'll do it here to keep it more accessible.  — Calvin999 08:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The C of E: I think the same. I had a few that waited not far short of three months that I nominated during round three and were reviewed during this round, number five.  — Calvin999

J Milburn: It was actually Cwmhiraeth I highlighted, not Casliber. I have a few questions regarding some of your comments. I don't have a music expert to look over my nominations, so is fair that a professional astronomer who not only has knowledge on the subject but access to all different kinds of works looks over Casliber's articles prior to nomination, and does then get involved in the FAC, too? With regard to "Man Down", it's not as if I didn't prepare. I worked on it for 3 months and put it through a GOCE review; it still gained 5 supports, but the 2 opposes hindered the nomination. The FA rules states that you are only allowed one sole nomination, and one co-nomination, open at the same time. How is it fair that Casliber is allowed to have multiple open whenever just because he replies quickly? I too reply quickly, I'm on Wikipedia pretty much all day (I'm always at a computer), but I'm not allowed to do that. My original comment actually said that he opened two sole nominations within 3 days of each other in August, neither of which had any support yet. I have another article primed for nominating, but I can't do anything with it until a decision is made on "Man Down", which could take weeks and go beyond the last day of the cup. Again, how is that fair? With regard to luck, I agree, but he certainly seems to have a lot of it a lot of the time. I'm not saying that Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, Godot don't produce high quality work, I'm just saying let others have a chance. The three of them finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd last year, Cwmhiraeth won in 2013, and 2012. They all rank amongst the highest in every round every year. I'm just saying that next, the 2016 cup, that they should not be allowed to participate, or as The C of E put it, participate but not take others places, for the sake of variety. It's getting boring now. I'm not for removing the bonus point system, I think it's a good idea, but I'm against the abuse of it by only improving certain articles which will bag people more bonus points than I for instance garner with 0 bonus points at all. Thanks for asking about help with attracting views, I'd like that.  — Calvin999

Wrestlinglover: I agree. The Music section gets very backlogged, and a lot of them are very high quality written by experienced editors.  — Calvin999

Sturmvogel 66: "Veterans of the Cup are improving bonus-worthy articles, it might be a strategy worth following." I think you missed "only" out here. Editors should be trying to improve all articles both old and new, not just old because they know it will advance them.  — Calvin999

Miyagawa, Sturmvogel 66 and Godot13: I think now is the perfect time to get the ball rolling. The Cup system needs reforming, and it could take a long time to implement and work out solutions. 200 points for a FA is too much for a start. I scored 407 in round four, from 5 GAs, 1 FL, 3 DYKs and 48 reviews (very, very time consuming). All Casliber needed to do was claim for two of his four FAs in round four, and do two GA/PR reviews, and he would have scored 408 and beaten me anyway.  — Calvin999

Some quick replies: "how can someone also pushed through four FACs in the time span of one round, which is 6 weeks" That was about Cas, wasn't it? If so, let's drop the "not Casliber" stuff. ... "I don't have a music expert to look over my nominations, so is fair that a professional astronomer who not only has knowledge on the subject but access to all different kinds of works looks over Casliber's articles prior to nomination, and does then get involved in the FAC, too?" Wikipedia is a collaborative project. The WikiCup should be encouraging collaboration, not casting aspersions on collaborative activity. If you want someone to look over your articles before you nominate, find someone. If you want to collaborate with someone so that you can have multiple FAC nominations at once, find someone. It might not be easy, but no one said it would be. (And, for what it's worth, do not expect the FAC community to look kindly on multiple nominations of ill-prepared FACs. I'm not saying that your nominations would be ill-prepared, just trying to offer fair warning.) ... "he opened two sole nominations within 3 days of each other in August, neither of which had any support yet" Are you talking about Cas (a he) or Cwmhiraeth (a she), here? In either case, I have no memory of this happening, but (s)he may have had special dispensation from the FAC delegates for some reason. If (s)he did not, this does sound like something that should have been brought up at the time. ... "I'm not for removing the bonus point system, I think it's a good idea, but I'm against the abuse of it by only improving certain articles which will bag people more bonus points than I for instance garner with 0 bonus points at all." On what grounds do you believe these people are "abusing" the bonus point system? That's a serious accusation, which seems unfounded. And are you really suggesting that people should be forced to work on less important topics so that not all of their articles are awarded bonus points? That's ridiculous, and would be ridiculous even if it was the case that these people were not already doing that. As I said above, Godot won last year with next to no bonus points. Casliber has GAs and GACs this round which have been/will be awarded no bonus points. Last round, Cwm claimed for https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/Submissions/Cwmhiraeth&oldid=678442559#DYK:_5_or_10_points dozens] of DYKs which were not eligible for bonus points. I'm really not clear on what your objection is, here. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, I'm merely highlighting a fact. One or two editors have only been editing articles which are returning huge bonus points. All of Cwmhiraeth's, and I mean all, submissions are all bonus point nominations. All 31 DYK's have incurred bonus points.  — Calvin999 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Cwmhiraeth is choosing which articles to improve based on bonus points — so what?! You're perfectly capable of doing exactly the same thing! It's not like you've been assigned all the lower point articles. You do understand the reasoning behind the bonus points, right? Those articles which are more likely to be translated into many other Wikipedias (given that there are already matching articles started in those encyclopedias) are given more weight than those which are less likely. Most bang for the buck, and all that. So yes, articles about dragonflies or damselflies are going to carry more weight than an article about a US-based pro wrestler, because they're applicable to the whole world. Seems perfectly fair to me! And for the DYK points, expanding a stub article that's been a stub for more than 5 years sounds like a great way to earn bonus points (there are literally tens of thousands to chose from, so again, it's not like you're being frozen out of doing exactly the same thing). And yes, it should earn more points than just creating another new stub does! MeegsC (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999: Lemme tell ya a little story: I just got crushed in this year's WP:Stub Contest by a guy who jumped out to a big lead using bonus points, but I figured that I could counter those by sheer numbers and it sorta worked. I found enough articles that had some bonus points and expanded enough others that I had the lead for a while with 600-odd expansions. Until he found a whole category of fungi that he could expand easily and dropped 1500 additional expansions that I couldn't counter. Thine Antique Pen out-strategized me by turning my own strategy against me and plain outworked me. When I congratulated him, he said that he'd nearly given up until he found all those fungi that he could expand at the last minute. I'm not upset at losing; he deserved to win as he optimized his strategy better than I optimized my own. I have some sympathies for everyone who works in areas that don't see a lot of bonus points as there aren't very many in my own fields of ships and aviation. MilHist does, however, have a fair amount of reviewers so articles don't generally linger more than a month before being reviewed so that partially offsets the lack of bonus points. Indeed, I won the Cup in '10, through a flurry of GANs, coupled with a smattering of FAs and DYKs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

So what I'm trying to say is that if you really want to win the Cup, you need to strategize. You need to identify your own strengths and weaknesses and play to the former. Can you write well enough to get FACs passed fairly quickly? Are you prolific/have enough time to counter bonuses with numbers? Can you develop a system/style of writing things quickly enough to be prolific? Are you willing/interested enough to learn enough to improve articles that have bonuses? Have you identified what subjects get reviewed relatively quickly? Have you reviewed enough to generate goodwill that might get reviews of your own? What kind of behavior do you exhibit when your work is reviewed? Do you take having mistakes being pointed out badly? Have you identified lots of articles with bonuses for you to work on? Do you want to prep articles off-Wiki before moving them to mainspace? These are all things that you need to evaluate. I have no patience for anyone who says that X amount of work deserves Y amount of points. The work invested to do X varies by person, possibly by an order of magnitude or more, and what might be a whole lot of work to someone might be fairly trivial to somebody else. So play to your own strengths, optimize your approach to the Cup and get stuck in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, people are missing my point. I'm not making a statement saying I want to win this year, I'm saying that the way reviews are being conducted and the way in which bonus scoring is being worked out is enabling certain editors to constantly rank as the top scorers in every round of every year. It's not about me winning, it's about everyone who is a regular, hard working editor who also has a real life with things to do (such as work a 9-5) the chance of being able to progress through the rounds and have a more equal playing field. Thus, I think that about four editors should either declare themselves out of the 2016, not be allowed to participate, or participate but not take up others places as The C of E proposed, just to give some of us others a chance at being able to progress without the pressure of trying to score thousands of points every round, literally. For everyone except like Cwmhiraeth and Casliber, it's impossible otherwise. Out of courtesy and respect for others, and for the sake of variety, those editors should take a break from the cup. This is the first time I've made it through to round 4, and this is my fourth cup. I scraped through to this round (through sheer hard work) and progressed with the lowest total out of the round 5 participants. Last year, I withdraw in round one. In 2013, I made it to round three, but again, I was the lowest total to get through. In 2012, I also just about made it to round 3. I've never coasted through off of the back of relying on (or choosing) articles which will return me big bonus points, and give me a bonus point tally which is double to triple my basic scores. Please don't ask me to get stuck in. I think I've already shown my commitment by reviewing 48 GAR/PR nominations in the last round. The second highest ever, apparently.  — Calvin999 14:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Coasted through? Seriously?! Because the FAs / GAs they chose have bonus points? I think you need to step away from this discussion now; you're perilously close to becoming offensive. Casliber is a doctor, for god's sake; I think he probably works longer hours than many of the other editors here! To those who were bounced out in earlier rounds (like I was) I'm afraid this sounds very like somebody throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't win. MeegsC (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You're obviously an acquaintance, so you're going to defend. I've never even spoken to you before, so don't use that tone with me, which is offensive. You're clearly not following the threads or care what several editors feel. If you don't like, then don't comment or get involved.  — Calvin999 14:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, you hold on a minute, hoss, an acquaintance? Of who, me? MeegsC? We've never interacted before that I can recall. So now you're dismissing his words entirely because of your _assumptions_ about some sort of bias that you _think_ that he has, rather than evaluating them on their own merit. We can neither control, nor desire to do so, how editors get their reviews; nor can we determine what editors choose to improve. All we can do is try to ensure that the reviews are not just perfunctory. Nothing is stopping any editor from editing anything he or she wants to improve, so your complaint about "enabling certain editors to constantly rank as the top scorers" is baseless. Nor can we control how much time editors investing in improving articles for the Cup. Some people have a lot of spare time, others are working full time and going to school, so have less time available; that just life. You could have chosen to work on those exact same articles at any point. I, for one, greatly appreciate anyone who does a lot of GAN and PR reviewing, but I think that you need to re-evaluate how you're choosing what you're improving if you want to be competitive as it's not maximizing your points for the time that you're putting in. Matthew 7:4 also seems appropriate for your situation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you, Sturmvogel 66. I don't know what "hoss" means, but it doesn't sound very friendly.  — Calvin999 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never won the wikicup, nor finished second. My opinion aligns with Sturmvogel's really. Any algorithm about what scores what is only a gross generalisation and approximation. There are always going to be easy and hard ways to amass points. Articles in many languages are often hard. The constellation and star articles I find require alot more work than biology articles. Articles on Australian plants are invariably in alot fewer languages than european mushrooms, for obvious reasons. I dunno, I write what I am interested in at the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem with bonus points is that it awards some editors with more points for equal or lesser work than others, and I don't see any articles as being somehow more important than others. If I could make one change I'd drop them altogether and award equal points for equal work; i.e., all FAs are worth 200, not some 200 and others 600. We should be rewarded for participating, not for using the bonus points to our advantage. I write what I am interested in at the time. But have you improved any articles to FA that didn't get double or triple points? RO^(talk) 16:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Two in the last round alone- frigatebird and Imperator torosus. Even if not, so what? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's true. I stand corrected, but Casliber got more bonus points in the last round than I've gotten in total points all year, and that's why I think bonus points are getting abused. Casliber has mastered the art of getting maximum points for minimum work., but why value on FA more than another? Anyway, the judges asked us to stop this discussion (or at least they asked me and Calvin to stop), so it's not nice to keep fanning the flames of discontent after we've agreed to stop. Our opinions are valid, and we already know your stance, or at least it's not difficult to predict your reaction to any hypothetical criticism of the current system. If the rules never need tweaking then why did several people boycott this year's cup over the most recent changes? RO^(talk) 19:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to stop commenting then asked me a question- I'm getting mixed messages, here :) There are always people unhappy with the current WikiCup rules, and I certainly don't blindly support every rule there is myself, if that's what you're meaning to suggest. The rules definitely need tweaking, and I was the one who oversaw most changes in the last four years! I'm not happy with the current system in some ways- for example, I'd prefer to go back to last year's bonus point system. I think it's interesting to note that there was a lot of upset at the start of this year (I don't know if anyone is "boycotting" over this- I honestly didn't pay much attention to that...) about the fact that the judges cut back on the number of bonus points available. Now you want to cut back further- my point is that the upset at the start of the year (in part) was caused because people had completely the opposite view to you. This is not to say that you're wrong, just that you may not want to align yourself too closely to "boycotters" you mentioned. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Bonus points and the heart of Calvin's complaint

In a nutshell, I think the issue here has to do with the fact that it's just 10 days into the final round and two editors already have more bonus points than most of us could attain in total points. So it's disheartening to work this hard to make the final round only to basically be out of the running in the first week. Yes. This is a competition, but in his college days, when Wilt Chamberlain used to dunk his free throws, the NCAA changed the rules because it was basically unfair and damaging to the spirit of the game. Same with Lew Alcindor in college, when the NCAA banned dunking because he was too unstoppable in the paint. It hurts the Wikicup when only three or four people have a realistic chance of winning. RO^(talk) 16:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in a nutshell. FA's should not be worth 200. Bonus points can make it more interesting though, (I would keep the 5 or 10 base points for DYK, but not bonus points) but not with how it is being distributed at the moment. Some submission incur multiple bonuses.  — Calvin999 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure 200 is too many points for an FA, though. I worked on Chetro Ketl for five months to get it to that level (8,500 words and zero bonus points)! My main issue is that articles with fewer than 3,000 words are getting 600 points. Norma (constellation) has 1,800 words, and Caliber has gotten 690 points for the GA and FAs. RO^(talk) 16:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If FA's stay at 200, I think GA's should be worth more than 30. The gap is too wide in comparison to what it used to be.  — Calvin999 16:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But GAs are much easier to get passed. I'd say FAs are maybe 10 times more work in some cases, but they only get 7 times as many points. I'd put GAs at 25 points and FAs at 250, but drop all bonus points, so that each GA and FA are awarded equally. RO^(talk) 16:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

These are good points for discussion, but can we defer them until the Cup is over, for when we have our general discussion about rebalancing the points?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why this needs to wait, and it reminds me of parents or teachers saying, "this is not the time to discuss this", but I'll defer to you, Sturmvogel. RO^(talk) 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd just prefer to keep everything organized in one place. But if you want to repeat yourselves between now and then, feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What's DYK?

What's DYK? Can anyone join this contest? Jointed.owl (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK is short for "Did you know ...", a Wikipedia feature that appears on the left hand side of the Main page below "From today's featured article". You can find out more about DYK if you click on the link "Nominate an article" on the Main Page. As for this contest, anyone can join but has to sign up during January or early February. The 2015 contest has now reached its final round, but you are welcome to compete in 2016? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

DYKs

This is what I mean, Josh Milburn. My latest DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Mammillaria spinosissima) is nearly two weeks old, and it includes a featured picture with it, but it hasn't been scheduled or whatever it needs for me to claim points. Yet somehow our top two scorers have 190 DYK points between them, and the rest of us have zero. Maybe judges should help participants get these through, because it looks like you need a couple of friends and an admin to get these processed. RO^(talk) 19:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And one of mine has been waiting for over a week longer than that. (Template:Did you know nominations/List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton). But who cares? The WikiCup "is to encourage content improvement", and even if that nomination sits there for another three weeks, I have improved content. The WikiCup is just a game designed to motivate people to edit more. If you are entering it to win, then you need to strategise better and form good relationships with key people around the site. Otherwise, just sit back and enjoy the competition for what it is; a bit of fun. Harrias ^talk 07:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't enter to win, but it is frustrating to see that others are exponentially more apt at getting stuff through the processes. I didn't expect this contest to be overly reliant on social networking, but I get your point that these levels of points are not attainable without lots of teamwork and help. I would think a DYK with a accompanying featured picture wouldn't take so long, and as I said below, Cwmhiraeth has gotten 36 DYKs fully processed in the last 18 days. I haven't even gotten one completed in that time. RO^(talk) 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason I have scored quite a few points with DYK early in the final round is that I started to gear up my output of expanded articles in mid-August in anticipation that the nominations would take a few weeks to reach the front page. Yours will get there sometime soon, but you can always get on and nominate a few more articles while you are waiting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay Cwmhiraeth, but it looks to me that you've gotten 36 DYKs through since August 27. That's 2 DYKs per day! How is it that you can get more DYKs through per day than I can per month? RO^(talk) 15:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have been nominating two per day! As to your nomination, because only one in eight promoted articles has an image, nominations with good images may have to wait a bit longer for a picture slot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, you've nominated two per day, but you've got 36 fully processed in 18 days, and the rest of us have no chance in hell to get anywhere near that. You have zero backlog, but my one is stalled at two weeks and counting. I just wish this was more about the quality of work than the number of people who help. I guess I don't have many friends around here, and that's probably my fault for not being a better networker. Still, I hadn't realized until now how reliant on social networking this contest is, and I find it discouraging and disappointing. RO^(talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely refute that. You have a single hook nominated at DYK on 2 September, but there are currently 76 approved articles nominated before that date that are awaiting promotion. I do not believe the results of the competition have anything to do with social networking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll second what Cwmhiraeth said. It doesn't hurt to have friends or a good reputation when it comes to having your articles reviewed quicker at DYK/GAN/FAC, but your claim that "social networking" has anything to do with the fact that she's written dozens of DYKs compared to your one (which is sitting in a backlog as almost all nominations with pictures do) – it's absolutely bizarre. 97198 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Cup is very much influenced by social networking and who one knows well/frequents with often. I noticed that when I commented on other peoples Peer Reviews, other people in turn commented on mine. If I don't comment on others, no-one comments on mine.  — Calvin999 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to get insulting with language like "absolutely bizarre", and if you refute the fact that social networking plays a role in point scoring, how do you explain that Cas liber has approved 38 DYKs for Cwmhiraeth in the last three weeks? Yes. Cwmhiraeth has written many times more of these than I have, so it's no surprise that they have many more, but when you nom two per day and have zero backlog that means your DYKs are getting priority over everybody else's. For example, is there anyone else here that gets two approved per day for weeks on end? Maybe, but I doubt it. I didn't know that including a high-quality image would delay the process, as I assumed these are harder to find so get scheduled quickly. I guess I might be wrong to complain about it, since I am trying to have high-quality images with mine, and maybe that's why it takes one month per DYK for me, and 12 hours per DYK for Cwmhiraeth. RO^(talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You really should check the facts properly and not make these wild inaccurate statements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I might have this wrong, and if I do I apologize, but a text search of your talk page ([1]) shows 39 notices for scheduled DYKs on behalf of Cas liber. Doesn't this mean that Cas liber has processed 39 DYKs for you in since August 27? RO^(talk) 15:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it just means that Casliber was the admin who approved and promoted the whole queue. There are very few who do it, and it is far from a surprise to see one admin do it so regularly. It does not relate specifically to Cwmhiraeth at all. Harrias ^talk 15:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but can you explain how Cwmhiraeth can write two DYKs per day and have zero backlog, when the rest of us wait several weeks or longer for one or two DYKs? This isn't a criticism of Cwmhiraeth, BTW, but I'm trying to learn how some can attain such large amounts of points so quickly. RO^(talk) 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, but you can satisfy your curiosity by looking at each of her reviews and see who the reviewer was and point the finger at them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

RO ... you might want to actually look at the noms to see what happened. As an example Template:Did you know nominations/Red-banded fruiteater. Created 25 August. Reviewed 7 September. Moved to a prep queue 11 Sept. Per the article talk page, it ran on the main page 14 September. DYKs with pictures wait a lot longer, that's a fact. But it appears that the DYK nom you mentioned first was actually approved quickly - within four days. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You also keep saying that I have "zero backlog", and that is also incorrect. As far as I can see I have 14 not-yet-approved nominations, the oldest of which is August 18th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on one of Cwmhiraeth's DYK noms that I recently reviewed, I know that the articles will tend to be of a good standard to start with, and so if I see Cwmhiraeth's name (among others) I am more likely to review the article, as it is likely to be stress-free. This was what I meant about forming good relationships: it isn't particularly about social networking, as I have no real interaction with Cwmhiraeth, but I know the name and I know the quality of work will be good. Harrias ^talk 17:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So, I can only get one DYK per month because the quality of my articles is suspect? Sorry I asked about this. I won't bother you guys anymore. RO^(talk) 18:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just false logic. Me saying that Cwmhiraeth is known to produce good quality articles does not at all imply that you do not produce quality articles. Harrias ^talk 19:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

But if I did produce good quality articles I would get more DYKs through per month? Like I said, just forget it. It doesn't matter. RO^(talk) 19:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no limit on the number of DYKs you can nominate - the only limit is you must do a review of another DYK nom for each DYK nom you have. If you want a picture with your DYK nom, you'll probably have to wait a while longer for any DYK nom to get scheduled and run on the main page. Ideally, if you want to rack up DYK points for the Wikicup, you nominate a LOT of articles. The only place where you are limited for WikiCup points is FAC - where you have a limit on the number of noms you can have. All other point earning processes for Wikicup are without limits - you can nominate as many as you want (with the proviso that at DYK you have to review another DYK nom for each DYK nom you self-nominate). I'm not sure where you get the idea that you can only have one DYK nom a month... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant that mine are getting scheduled at the rate of about one per month, not that I was limited to one per month by the rules. I'm sorry I even asked about this. I don't want to annoy anyone. Thanks for listening. RO^(talk) 20:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)