On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:25 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought if we had a "primary" badge or KPI system it was the content > focussed ones and especially those related to Featured articles. +1 Though as discussed, almost anything automated can be 'gamed' (in the negative sense), and anything that requires human-discretion can too (either by someone placing an unwarranted award, or by someone placing an award that others might vociferously disagree with, e.g a diplomacy barnstar). Enwiki's existing profusion of barnstars and other award types are most easily found via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Barnstar_pages Editcountitis is seen by many as a bit of a joke. But there many others > including articles created and length of service. I'd love to have the output from various of the offwiki tools, available as a "module/template" that I could optionally embed in my userpage at any wiki. E.g. the lists and barcharts, from places like: http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/ http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/ and numerical counts of (non-automatic) patrols and reviews that we've contributed, and other tweaked items from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_toolbox > I do like the idea of celebrating our most thanked editors but I don't > think the necessary information is currently public. > The "Thank" itself is publicly logged, just not which edit it was sent for. Fae collects monthly top 10 "Thankers" and "Thanked" on various projects, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/thanks IIRC, projects must opt-in, and individuals can opt-out. (discussed in the thread starting here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076731.html ) On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk > pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a > "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment > analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a > conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool. > Obligatory mention of Flow ;-) All sorts of things should be possible with a structured system like this. For example the number of topics that an editor "Marks as resolved" (and isn't subsequently reverted). Perhaps/especially on specific pages such as helpdesks. E.g. Frwiki has been experimenting with a mixture of their old template system (in the "Summary" area) and Flow's "Resolved" status, at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Forum_des_nouveaux/Flow - open the ToC to see the resolved topics in a lighter text color, and skim down the page looking at the blue/red templates (which denote: questions that need more information from the original poster, and questions that aren't appropriate for that page). There was also an editfilter tracking the usage of the WikiLove extension, but it appears that was disabled in February 2015 due to performance issues with too many concurrent editfilters (IIUC). old results: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=423 However, there is still a database table tracking these Wikilove actions, just without an onwiki UI, so those details could perhaps be utilized, too. -- Nick / Quiddity
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
