Forum:OSWF and The Wikian
Since both of these exist simultaniously now, should edits made for OSWF be taken into consideration when deciding if someone has made a significiant enough contribution for Wikian, or should OSWF edits be disregarded when considering a Wikian nomination (only consider edits made on their own accord)? This has come up recently in RuneScape:The Wikian/Hotpot where some have suggested that because OSWF edits are already rewarded with a bond, these edits should not be taken into consideration for a Wikian nomination. This may also harken back to Forum:Abuse of the Wikian title somewhat where some people may simply be coming to edit the wiki in order to get a reward for it. This isn't an issue for OSWF, as it is the main goal - to entice new editors and reward them - but for Wikian it could be an issue; the editors who contribute exclusively for OSWF tend to edit simply for the reward and then leave without returning to continue editing on their own accord which isn't a good look for the title.
- A - Disregard all OSWF edits entirely when considering Wikian nominations.
- B - Allow all OSWF edits to count for Wikian.
- C - Case-by-case basis, some OSWF edits can count, others can't.
Support A - OSWF is already rewarded with a bond; the title should be entirely separate. It should only be awarded for edits done on their own accord, in good faith, without the expectation of being rewarded for the edits. I can see C also, but only for larger projects or much more difficult tasks, though it would be very rare. Californ1a (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There are generally some large tasks that get spawned from doing OSWF that some users may take up during that time. This is why I feel C is fine as well for very particular cases, which should be discussed if they are included during Wikian nominations. Changing my view after reading comments below. Per Wikian discussion instead of a rule. - Jakesterwars (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose any rules - Title nominations are already a consensus-based process. If you feel OSWF edits shouldn't count towards getting the title, reflect that in your vote. If you (like me) feel that it's fine to include them because it's not hurting anyone to give out the title a bit more, ditto. If you think some substantive edits should count but others shouldn't...make that decision, on your own, during the individual nominations. Either way, we shouldn't seek to add restrictions on how people are allowed to vote. See Forum:Minimum edit count guideline for The Wikian for a very similar thread that got voted down for this reason. ʞooɔ 06:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose All - The point of Wikian and OSWF is to promote editing from new people. If the edits are good edits and contribute positively to the Wiki why does intent matter? If you dont think that a particular person deserves the title for just working on OSWF projects, reflect that in your voting as per Cook.06:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Addition of Rules - While the promotion of new editors is fine, additions to the rules would change that. As MicheII and Cook said, OSWF is a fine starting point to jump off with editing and rather it should be just seen as any other edit. Hell, Could even see them a bit higher as they are tedium stuff primarily.06:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
C depending on the OSWF tasks and quality of said tasks. there is a major difference between uploading some pictures for a bond, and going above and beyond to help further than the bond requires. I feel that edits above what is required for a bond should be considered. Rhysy4056 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose new rules - Per Cook and INOO8, there have been multiple threads about adding or changing rules for wikian and this feels like a repeat of threads trying to change the wikian to be for those who regularly edit the wiki over longer periods of time, which has been met with a lot of opposition in the past.15:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - The Wikian nominations are already decided by consensus, people can just look at the persons contributions and if dislike them they can just oppose the nomination. From my perspective OSWF task are perfectly reasonable edits to count towards the title. Srylius (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Regardless of consensus here, I don't see how it's feasible to understand which edits were made as part of OSWF and which weren't. It's an unreasonable burden to put on each person participating in the nomination to go through the OSWF archives and match potentially hundreds of edits and uploads to a given OSWF task.
With regards to the underlying point of this discussion, personally I don't think that OSWF edits are in the spirit of the title. Unfortunately, we've had a few holders of the title abuse it and I'm hesitant to promote a purely reward focused mindset among title holders without understanding the implications of doing so. To be on the safe side, I'd rather see how they interact with people when they don't have a reward on the line, irrespective of there being quicker ways to earn a bond in-game than editing on the wiki. cqm talk 21:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose addition of rules - per others, and myself on Hotpot's nomination. Having a rule that's like "all content edits 'count' toward the wikian title EXCEPT these edits that we've explicitly told you to do, they don't count" is a little backwards in my view. 22:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose addition of rules - per others, and to quote myself from Hotpot's nomination:
|“||One of the criteria is literally being involved in projects, OSWF is in essence a project which also has a reward. But this doesn't mean that because you got a reward for OSWF that it should exclude those edits for the title. The title consists of all the [content] work you've done on the wiki including OSWF.||”|
23:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment - my stance on this nomination came from wanting to make most use of the 2 editing incentives that we have. It feels like a waste for both of these to be awarded at the same time - we then get no benefit from the additional incentive in terms of encouraging people to edit more. The practice of not nominating people who are making OSWF contributions until they have made more edits than other nominees editing more generally is something I've been doing for awhile. During that time no one has really questioned it or made any nomination for editors I've been passing over. I guess it's not really possible to measure whether it encourages the editors to keep contributing for longer but I've been hoping it has been helpful.
Therefore I dislike that someone should receive the title where they are in a position where other editors have not received the title, just because they have self-nominated and are aggressively promoting their "eligibility" for the title. Above all I want this process to be fair, and for people to be receiving the title for a consistent quality/quantity of editing. I do not think it is possible to have a blanket requirement for OSWF contributions to be discounted/counted towards the title; and as others have pointed out each nomination is a discussion where consensus is to be reached and this can be brought up. That said it would be helpful to know what the general opinion is (at the moment it seems like most people want OSWF edits to be treated the same as other kinds of edit) and I will account for that when nominating people.
I do think it's a shame that this will likely result in people gaining both bonds and the title at the same time, fairly early on when working on OSWF, but perhaps there's nothing that can realistically be done about that. We set the requirements for the title to be an entry level incentive without knowing that we would later also have the chance to run OSWF and now they both seem to be aimed at rewarding around the same level of editing. Maybe we will have chance to add a more difficult to obtain reward in the future to encourage long-term editing and that would be a solution- but I can see why people do not want to complicate what we have currently by trying to stretch it to try and get a few more edits out of newcomers.10:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Per others, Wikian should be case by case.16:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
B - I'm not sure what the point of oppose addition of new rules is, since I feel like the point of this discussion should be to set out some guidelines so that we are not having mini-versions of this exact debate 100 times on individual nominations. I'm in favor of an edit is an edit is an edit, and just saying upfront that they are all counted equally. --LiquidTalk 15:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
B, but this doesn't need to be an explicit rule - What is an actual scenario where OSWF edits shouldn't count for the title nomination? People keep saying it's a case-by-case situation but where would OSWF edits count for someone but not for someone else? Please just make this easy for everyone and acknowledge that people do edits for rewards only sometimes, and any edit has merit. Haidro 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed - There will be no special rule added about OSWF regarding applications for the Wikian title.13:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)