Forum:Achievements extension (trial)

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Achievements extension (trial)
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 August 2010 by Liquidhelium.

As you might have noticed, a [[w:User_blog:Sarah_Manley/Announcing_Achievements_-_Edit_your_way_to_the_top|recent Staff blog]] announced that the [[Help:Achievements|Achievements]] extension is now freely available to any wiki. Because of a recent Shoutbox discussion, I think it'd be a good idea to try the Achievements at the wiki for 2 weeks or so, and see if we like it. Below I'll note some of the pros and cons on achievements. During the discussion I will add to this:

Pros:

  1. Greatly encourages editing, causing the wiki to grow faster, gain a larger audience, get more edits and higher SEO (Example (Around traffic spike achievements were enabled) Example (Achievements were added 16 July, notice increase of edits 15-16 July)).
  2. A fun way to keep track of edits.
  3. Fully customizable; easily change images and names.
  4. Allows category tracks; we can create a badge to stimulate users to edit stubs, reducing them.
  5. More users will add images and categories and make users aware of them: usually only experienced users add them.
  6. Users can disable notifications and the list on their userpage by visiting their preferences.

Cons:

  1. Edits may be lower quality, even though we get more edits.
  2. Users will make useless edits and "boost" for achievements.
  3. May cause hostility.
  4. Inpersonal; gaining badges based on edit-count is a bad idea. (We could use Platinum badges to hand over "personal" badges.
  5. We're a encyclopedia and a community, not a game

So I think a 2 week trial will be a good idea. May we enable this extension permanently I also think we should get clear policies on boosting and it's consequences (blocked users are stripped of their achievements). Please note that badges are not added retroactively, so users with a lot of edits will not gain any badges because of edits they have already made.

Please see [[Help:Achievements]] for further details. Mark (talk) 01:08, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nominator. Mark (talk) 01:10, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There won't be hostility, it's not as if these achievements will be that competitive. These could be very helpful to the wiki, and quite fun as well. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:15, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Extreme oppose Completely against "why" we edit, or should be editing. We should edit to improve the wiki. If your here for any other reason GTFO pl0x. More pointless edits to inflate counts is the last thing we need, It means more cleanup to fix the crap edits that will be made. If you want awards and recognition go join some organization that does that crap.--Degenret01 01:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I see your point, but I doubt a user will come here just for the achievements. That would be boring. The first reason they'd edit is to improve the wiki. Achievements are for encouragement. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I just don't really see a reason for this. I've been on some wikis that use achievements or badges or something, and it just seems useless to me, with no benefits other than inflated edit count. (Okay, so that's not a benefit.) If we're looking for people to be more active and to congratulate them, we have better ways to do that. I believe Chicken and Steler had an idea for Wiki capes or something that was similar to Barnstars on 'pedia. I don't think automatic awards are a good thing. If we could have something where users could give others awards, that would promote activity on the wiki and also raise the sense of community. ʞooɔ 01:43, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the list of pros Mark has made? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:39, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't finished typing. I read it, yes. I think it might be nice to "award" people who do things on the wiki, but this doesn't work for me. ʞooɔ 01:43, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the Marvel Database have something like that? Where you give other users awards in some special page? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:47, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be hard to implement and we wouldn't need any kind of extension. ʞooɔ 01:49, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Here. ʞooɔ 01:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Well, that sort of idea was rejected here once, I think, for some reason. They're hardly used, even on Wikipedia. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 02:14, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
[[Help:Gifts|This]] is more of what I was thinking of. I'd still prefer achievements, though. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 02:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Wait, you can't get that extension anymore. I still fully support achievements. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 02:20, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A trial isn't going to kill us. ajr 02:05, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We need data before we can make a decision. A trial is perfect. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per Degen. Oddly, I saw this forum just moments after I read about the Achievements extension, and was about to go complain in the Shout Box about it. To me, winning awards for editing is not what a wiki is about. I don't feel that editors should be "rewarded" with little symbols saying that they have "### edits" or "### uploads". Editors should feel proud of knowing that they've done good work, and that should be reward enough. This will only cause lower quality edits, and I seriously doubt it will cause a massive spike in traffic. On the other hand, it could certainly increase the speed at which things get done on the wiki, even if they go through low quality iterations at first. I think the biggest issue for me is the Achievements Leaderboard, which is absolutely not the sort of thing I think should be on a wiki: competition over who can get the most edits. If Special:Leaderboard can be disabled entirely, then I might be willing to accept the extension, but if not, then it is certainly not something I want to see on this wiki. To quote my own comment on the aforementioned blog, I don't think users should be compared and ranked based on the number of editing points they've earned. The wiki is not a competition, and a leaderboard would make it one. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:47, August 6, 2010 (UTC) 

Strong oppose - You don't edit for glory, only to better the wiki. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:52, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - [[w:c:Community:User_blog:Sarah_Manley/Spring_2010_Update#Bluesonic43-20100525000231|Hell no.]] It's still [[w:c:Community:User_blog:Sarah_Manley/Announcing_Achievements_-_Edit_your_way_to_the_top#Bluesonic43-20100806044825|bugged]] on the [http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Leaderboard?useskin=chick Chick] and [http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Leaderboard?useskin=wikiaphone Wikiaphone] skins and shouldn't be used. I would rather not see this potential troll-bait extension added, even for a trial. It favors Monaco, this is just like them. I dislike how Wikia supports something that might work properly in other skins (this extension) and not that is purely for a single skin (Specific page CSS [Monobook]) but will for another (MyHome [Monaco]). Secondly, I spy bias in these (e.g. the Creator badge), this will not do. Ryan PM 05:29, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Degen, Cook, Ryan. Wikicapes seem to be a much better idea...HaloTalk 05:39, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We don't need to encourage pointless edits. bad_fetustalk 06:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's just a trial for 2 weeks, we don't need to keep it after that we can just see what it is like and if it works or doesn't here. A trial can't hurt because after 2 weeks it just goes back to what it is like now. Personally i am in favour of it but i think the trial is needed to see if it works well or not. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral + Comment - I personally find it could cause pointless edits and unnecessary competition and aggressiveness. I haven't seen this first hand though, so will not oppose. I like the idea of users feeling a sense of accomplishment and being rewarded for their hard work. Right now, the only way to be rewarded is the user of the month. Some people have made mentions and enquired about Wikicapes. Yes, it's a project I'm working on with the help of other Wikians. Unlike this, Wikicapes are give by other users to users (just like Wikipedia's barnstars). Users may pointlessly "trade" wikicapes, but it isn't going to improve their reputation; quite the opposite, as it will be obvious when they've gamed the system. See here for information and examples. I plan to launch it this week, then if it goes well, request it to go official (pretty much just moving templates to template-space, and info to Project: space). Anyway, I like the idea of these Achievements, but don't think it is best for this particular wiki. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 07:03, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. I like Chicken's WikiCape idea though. 222 talk 08:09, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Keep this crap on Xbox where it's for the fun of it.

Wikicapes or barnstars are a much better idea in my opinion, as they are not automatically given out, they have to be earned. Achievements can be gained with good faith/important edits or bad faith/pointless edits. We should not be rewarding editors for the latter. The difference between wikicapes and badges (from what I know about this new extension) is that wikicapes have to be personally given out by a fellow friendly Wikian, for example, Chicken, whereas, badges are automatically awarded by Wikia's software. Chicken is ready to give out his customized wikicapes to editors he deems deserve them, no? Meanwhile, as User:JimmyBob makes his first edit, a bad-faith edit, he has the potential to claim his first badge. WTF is this? No matter what, we should not be automatically be rewarding and thanking users for what could potentially be bad-faith. Now, if a person were watching JimmyBob's edits the past few days, they could have told him not to make bad-faith edits, and possibly turned him into a good-faith editor. The achievement-giving bot would not have helped JimmyBob, and may have even encouraged JimmyBob to make more bad faith edits, for more achievements. Badges, at least in this current system, will turn some wikians into greedy competitors rather than volunteers for the community. This especially applies to new Wikians who love the idea of achievement systems (Xbox players, for example?) and have no idea we are having such a conversation right now.

My posts are always long and rambling Concerned, but I'll try to wrap it up with this: achievements should always be earned and given to the recipient by a mindful fellow editor rather than edit-counting Wikia software. Wikia software can not assume good faith, nor can it truly deem if a fellow editor is worthy of a badge. Only humans can do such things. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 09:16, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Just as you and others have commmented, the WikiCapes or Barnstars would be far superior to Leaderboards. This is the same reason we have User:Wikia and its' Welcoming function disabled. Automatic is a no go says [[w:c:zim:Bloody Gir|Bloody GIR]]. Ryan PM 09:26, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But only as a trial. Chances are we will want to get rid of this after a two week period, and the wiki can recover for whatever happens within that time. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 09:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Like Ryan and others have said, lets go with the Wikicapes Chicken has made. We can start using them and award them properly, for good contributions, not an edit count. And coming from a person instead of a counter should mean a lot more.--Degenret01 13:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to make clear that this is a 2 week trial. It is not certain edits will become "bad faith" or "low-quality". Most of our current "high-quality" edits are by experienced users, and I'm 100% sure they won't boost their way to the top. For the record, if achievements aren't AEAE, then UotM is certainly not AEAE. I would also like the point out that:

  1. We will be an exception, but we could have users hand out "Platinum" badges (perhaps restrict it to admins, in case of abuse). We can fully customize the images, names and "why earned", and thus we could add the Wikicape images + names to these platinum badges. If we make the Platinum special page admin-only, we can create a "nominate user" page which allows us to give users with specific good-faith high-quality their rewards, so that users who have already contributed to the wiki greatly will be recognized. This way both inexperienced users will feel rewarded, and we can also hand over awards to these who work very hard. Hell, we can even add a platinum badge for "User of the month". ([[w:c:admintest:User:Tedjuh10|Example]])
  2. The achievements extension may be disabled for these 2 weeks for specific users in their Preferences in case they don't like it.
  3. We will gain more edits. All our hardcore editors will remain editing so the wiki will become larger, and new users will also start editing. As they gain badges they will become part of the community and will after a while start editing "for the good of the wiki".
  4. About the mobile skins, Wikia will fix that. I'm not sure if it has been reported, but we can easily report it to Wikia and they'll fix it. So I don't really see that as a problem. RuneScape also sometimes has some bugs, and they don't discard an entire update because of bugs that weren't fixed, did they?
  5. IF, and only IF we all agree, Special:Leaderboard may be disabled in the worst case. This can easily be done by a small JS hack, or perhaps we can request it to be removed (not sure).
  6. How would this support trolls exactly? Anon users won't get badges, and trolls usually dont login. Even if they do, we can have strict rules on achievement boosting. Boost = Block for example. Works out at for example the [[w:c:jamescameronsavatar|Avatar (JC) Wiki]] and the [[w:c:reddead|Red Dead Wiki]].
  7. Edits arent pointless! They will add some useful information. Even though these may be low-quality, they're still there and usually help an article (for example, it will probably stimulate people to update the Exchange pages).

Well, that is that... Hope this convinces :). Mark (talk) 14:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

We read all that. We are opposed primarily because we do not like the idea of rewarding edit counts over quality. And I am changing your sig. Stop using that fancy one if you insist on not having a template. Respect a local wikis policies please. You have been told numerous times.--Degenret01 14:07, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
First, sorry about the sig. I've added a easy {{Signatures/Tedjuh10}} on my sidebar but I tend to forget about using it. I dont insist on using that fancy one. Won't happen again (well, maybe a few times Lol).
Second, that's why we could add actual "high-quality edit" platinum badges. This way "low-quality" edit users will be rewarded for their edits, but they'll also be aware that they might earn "high-quality" badges or something like that. Mark (talk) 14:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I would fully support testing then implementing this. But I can't see Badges/Achievements and Wikicapes working together in harmony. And I'd prefer the latter. Chicken7 >talk 15:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest anything that might make them work in harmony. Mark (talk) 15:27, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing to suggest; it won't work. Not technically, but psychologically I guess. Frown Chicken7 >talk 15:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We are two things: A community and an encyclopedia. Not a game. Achievements are for games. Dave Lopo 15:22, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't really call Achievements a game, rather an encouragement to edit. Mark (talk) 15:27, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it is like a game. Maybe the name is giving the wrong idea? Anyway, Xbox achievements involve hours of effort and commitment (unlike this as some of you say) Lol Chicken7 >talk 15:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Weak support - Why a trial? Well, obviously to test this out... but if the end result is uncertain, then who's to say whether people will even aim for the achievements during the trial? If it's going to be scrapped anyway, why bother? However, if these achievements will stay, then perhaps users will be motivated to edit. The problem is that we don't know if we're going to keep them. This will render users unsure as well. "Should I start editing more? I don't know, because any achievements I earn during the two-week trial might be lost, and this whole thing will just be a waste of time." Maybe they'll just wait until the trial is over to see... and if the majority of people decide to just wait, we aren't going to get an accurate look at how the quality of edits will change.

Of course, we won't know any of this unless we have a trial.  Tien  16:08, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Aha, sometimes I ramble like Diriz does. Lol To clarify, I am in weak support of a trial because I would prefer to simply implement the achievements or not implement them. I would rather not have achievements, but we can't be sure that everyone will treat achievements like a game.  Tien  16:46, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - As far as I understand, current edits don't apply (from what I've seen on other wikis). <-Just for info. Other thing-it would be possible to get these straight up in a few days with AWB (which is pretty easy to get your name on list). Just saying...I don't think it will encourage useful edits. New people will edit for them, making pointless edits. Old people will edit like they used to, and not even care about the achievements. The wiki might get slightly better, but I think wikicapes would be a better idea by far-because it would depend upon the quality rather than the quantity. HaloTalk 16:40, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Wikiaphone issues (Made it clearer) - Do you realize how slow it is nowadays to edit on the iPhone? Speaking of the mobile skins, I have never been able to use the editing function of the Wikiaphone skin since it was released. The current setup changes Wikiaphone to your chosen skin. The editing is terrible because Apple or Wikia has come up with a better scroll option. Until they get that and other issues fixed in the Wikiaphone skin (Special:AllMessages, it'll take awhile to load, seems to think that Wikiaphone is nonexistent), we don't need to add another extension to an already buggy skin. Ryan PM 15:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support Trial - While I understand the concerns of those that oppose I don't think we should just dismiss this without giving it a try. A trial would let us see if it will help or hurt the site without any long-lasting effects if we do end up removing it. insaneular The original Hazelnut spread 17:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

An example of quality over quantity - Look at this edit here [1]. With the badge system it is one edit. Yet it blows away any 20 or even more of mine, and may others also. It would be an injustice to have a system that recognizes 20 whatever edits more than that one. This is why the Wikicapes Chicken is making make so much more sense for us.--Degenret01 00:32, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen. While the majority of the Wiki may not jump to get more edits, some editors still might, and edit count should not reflect how good of an editor someone is. Quality of edits should definitely be considered over quantity. Suppa chuppa Talk 00:44, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support Trial - 360 is here :P Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 00:46, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm - Only if I hear a ding, get the pop-up, and ability to obtain real life achievements. Ryan PM 01:16, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- I was already against the idea of editing for achievements when wikia published this, therefore I'm still against the idea of adding this to the wiki. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 01:08, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Question - With the wiki capes possibly launching within the week, can someone explain how the achievements (even if it is a trial) would be better than the capes? ʞooɔ 01:11, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you the contradiction. Why do we not have User:Wikia performing the auto-welcome for anons and users? Because we wanted to keep it formal. Ryan PM 01:16, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Everyone who is here is a volunteer, and seeks to edit for no purpose other than to increase the quality of the wiki. This achievements extension will incentivize the process, corrupting the wiki. --LiquidTalk 01:28, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic Comment - Is it just me, or all of the dates getting an extra space added with our signatures? Ryan PM 01:30, August 7, 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

I checked out your sig, there's a space inbetween the end of the signature and the noinclude tag. If you remove those, it should work fine. ~MuzTalk 01:52, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose achievements, support WikiCapes - To be honest, I would rather receive an award from a fellow editor than the system. Per most of the other opposes for achievements, and supports for wikicapes. ~MuzTalk 01:52, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support Wikicapes - Does it come with a emote? Wink Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:15, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what ever Ronald McDonald puts in the happy meal, maybe some Cirque Dreams? Ryan PM 03:57, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Notice - If we have this trial, which I don't particularly mind, I will not implement Wikicapes until the trial is over/after 2 weeks. Having both could cause confusion. But then again, maybe having both at once would be good to see which users like, or if they really can work together in harmony? If we don't have the trial, I'll make Wikicapes live (all in official/main spaces) as there seems to be support for that idea. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:39, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

IMO the Wikicapes with Platinum badges would work together quite fine. Mark (talk) 15:38, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
the capes and achievement system can work together, there is nothing wrong with them being together, the wikicapes would be seen as more prestigious because it is not automatically given.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:30, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - My point is that all newer users will start editing. Come on, just look at the first edit of users, it almost always is "low-quality", though after a certain amount of time the edits become "higher-quality". Many just create an account and stop editing, rather than keep editing and getting "high-quality" edits. Using achievements, new users will stay and edit, and will slowly become "better" editors. So I don't really see why we can't have a trial. There are high chances this might end up quite well, and not as everybody here seems to expect it. All hardcore editors will keep editing, and achievements just attracts some new editors, so it won't "corrupt the wiki". This community wouldn't fight about who has most points and achievements... Just check the RC, how many edits are "high-quality"? Yes, almost all of them are active editors and vote in for example this thread. They won't notice much of the achievements and can just disable it for the 2 weeks. It might get new editors to join in, so why not try it? It even makes editing a bit more fun (personally I love getting achievements). Mark (talk) 15:38, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

The newer users will start editing, but not in the way that we want them to. They will aim for edit count rather than edit quality. With an incentive behind making quick and numerous edits, the process of turning low quality edits to high quality edits may never take place, when the editors are so immersed in trying to gain another achievement. --LiquidTalk 18:16, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
See, Mark, personally I'm afraid I'll start editing for these achievements. I don't want to edit for any reason other than that I just WANT to edit. Otherwise, editing has lost it's whole point. It's just like if you give money to a charity or something. Sure you can give 1 million dollars, but if you did it just to look good, it doesn't mean the same as if you gave 100 bucks, but you meant it to do good when you gave it. Motives are everything in my mind, HaloTalk 18:21, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
See below on what I just said. HaloTalk 18:25, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
Liquid, that is true. Though there are ways to change that, we can improve our welcoming system to get users on the right path, and of course it is not fully certain that users "won't edit the way we want them to", which is why we are starting a trial to see if new edits are positive or negatives. Otherwise we wouldn't have the trial of course. Mark (talk) 18:44, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Achievements can be disabled in your preferences (just for you-if you want). I'd roll with that. The leaderboard aspect somewhat scares me. I just don't know if it will be good...but we'll see. HaloTalk 18:25, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the leaderboard might not be a good thing here. Good thing we can disable it. Mark (talk) 18:44, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - People may edit just for the sake of awards and not really entirely helping our wiki. Maybe people will start removing white spaces, add a space, etc to boost up their edit count. I don't think where we need another Cruser234 event where he increased his edit count to have a better chance at RfA. Who knows? Maybe after the people get their awards, they might run for RfA seeing as they have 1k+ edits or so. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 04:49, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see this going well. Like stated by many others, this would lead to people making unnecessary edits to raise their edit count. WikiCapes do sound like a good idea, though. Mining cape.png The Last Pun Talk Aberrant Spectre Champion.png 05:25, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As it has already been said several times, Quality over Quantity. Rewarding people based on editcount would encourage people to edit like this, Edit 1: the -> The Edit 2: The -> Cat Edit 3: The Cat -> The cat, and so on and so forth. The WikiCapes does seem like a good idea, because then we will know wjether or not they deserve the reward, or if they just cheated the system to get one. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 05:38, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But do you realise that all users that make these "high quality edits" will keep on making them? This will rather stimulate new users to make low-quality edits who otherwise wouldn't even edit at all. That's why we're beginning with a trial. Everybody already seems to know how the trial will result and that edits will be low quality and that they will boost... And we can always make an anti-boost policy. Mark (talk) 13:49, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that would be in direct opposition to RS:AGF? HaloTalk 13:51, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
It's fairly easy to detect boosting. I'm sure we can create a policy which doesn't violate AGF. Mark (talk) 17:12, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - People may do "bad quality edits" to get the badges, but there are a lot of new users that edit to make there edit count higher, i can't see much difference between it, they do it to gain more badges/higher editcount. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:30, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support trial - Why not? RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 20:32, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well said. It's just a trial, who knows what might happen :)? Mark (talk) 21:03, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Well, we might have a vast amount of poor-quality edits in the two weeks it's being trialled. Which will be irreversible. 222 talk 08:48, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
It's 2 weeks, bad quality edits don't harm us, there just not that usefull. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:52, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:01, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The Achievements extension will not be implemented. --LiquidTalk 01:04, August 23, 2010 (UTC)