Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions/How can we give credit for good contributions?

From Strategic Planning
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  1. See also: Theory Design Lab/Karma theory --Fasten 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I worry that this has the potential to turn into a barrier to entry... it's difficult for a first time editor to instinctively "get" the concept. -- Philippe 20:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a barrier to entry because it has no important use, it's just a means to quickly evaluate who you are talking to without having to review somebody's contributions or number of edits. For the casual editor that could be helpful because login names alone mean very little and not all user pages are sufficiently informative. --Fasten 09:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I worry this might turn Wikipedia into a battleground. The temptation is to rate the people you agree with, and build up a coalition that legitimizes one another. Already barnstars are being awarded down partisan lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.156.65 (talkcontribs) --Fasten 13:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Small coalitions could be revealed by software: If a group of authors primarily supported each other the software could assign a different color to their whuffie. --Fasten 13:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • One could also add work-whuffie for quality articles. Negative whuffie on the other hand would be anti-social and could easily be evaded with a new account. --Fasten 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make good articles and featured articles the gold standard. These are awarded by consensus, not by individuals, and represent a huge achievement for Wikipedia. A lot of the other interpersonal awards get too subjective, and sometimes are awarded just to make a point in some dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.156.65 (talkcontribs) --Fasten 13:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely against the idea of good articles and featured articles being the gold standard. That another cleaving debate among editors: What is the most important few GA & FA or a lot of B class articles ? Many editors chose the latter pushing stub-start articles to B even if there is rarely someone to give them credits of their works in contrary of GA & FA. --KrebMarkt 08:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]