Forum:Two week trial of the Wikia achievements extension

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Two week trial of the Wikia achievements extension
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 April 2011 by Gaz Lloyd.

Hello folks, I haven't made a large bought of drama here in a while, so here I am :D

I would like to propose a two week trial of Wikia's achievements extension. At the end of those two weeks, we will come back to the polls and see whether or not we like it.

Wikia's achievements extension automatically awards "badges" for various things around the wiki. See [[w:c:glee]] for an example of them. There are many users that create an account on Wikia, edit once or twice, but never really get involved. This extension provides a reason for people to get involved, and excels at that function. While it does create incentive-based editing, and some bad edits as a result of it, the net improvement is well worth the cost. This extension has a habit of doubling the number of active users on a wiki, and quite a few users who start editing because of the badges end up continuing to edit because they like it - in my experience, you do get quite a few users who start out editing for the badges, and eventually realize that they like editing for the sake of making the wiki better.

As Spam Me Plox, the activity on this wiki is decreasing, [[Special:WikiStats|in fact it has been for a while now]]. We should do something to get activity back up to its previous levels, and quite frankly, nothing will do it like this does. We can play around with things like Wikicapes that only slightly promote incentive based editing, but honestly, what we need is something big. I strongly doubt that wikicapes will reel in the editors, nor will personalized messages, because what we ultimately need to do is get those new editors involved.

It is possible to modify the badges, and to disable them for yourself if you don't like them.

Now, I know that all of you conservatives out there who are afraid of change will be instinctively opposing this - I ask you, please, give your brains a chance. Read through it, think through it, and then make an informed decision. For crying out loud, I'm proposing a two-week trial, not the end of the wiki. Also, if you have questions ask, don't do a stupid oppose instead that gets people arguing over it.

Thanks for your time, and please discuss. ajr 22:05, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Support two week trial - As nominator. ajr 22:05, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - We might as well try it if we're trying to increase active editors. We can always undo any bad edits. Plus, it's just a trial, if we don't like it then we can get rid of it. ɳex undique 22:09, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - For Christ sake it's a trial, let's at least give it a shot. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:10, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It is just a trial, and we can stop any gaming the system if they're making pointless edits, such as changing spacing and then changing it back. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I must reluctantly admit that something has to be done about our decreasing activity and that this just might do it. Of course, if it doesn't work out, it can always be removed at the end of the trial period. Might as well give it a shot. Suppa chuppa Talk 22:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support trial - I think a two week trial would be good to show what kind of abuse it attracts, and what kind of extra edits it attracts, which we can compare then. this kind of things will happen, and as we are such a big wiki we will attract even more. I'd also like to see the good things it attracts, so I support a trial. Maybe it should be one week because that also shows what good effects it has, but if it's being abused it won't be abused that long. 2 weeks is just fine too. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:47, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - For the same reasons that I mentioned in the last thread(s) about this topic. Achievements are simply some stupid set of brass that incenvitizes editing. We as a wiki are not supposed to be promoting that kind of stuff. True, we need more editors, but in this case the ends do not justify the means. If we attain the end goal of more active editors through the incorrect means of incentives, then we'd be compromising our principles and be worse off than we are now. Therefore, I am and will always staunchly oppose this addition.

As for the two week trial part, I just have to say that it's pointless. Two weeks are not long enough to see if we have any significant progress; these things take time to accomplish. By the time people realize what achievements are and how to get them the two weeks will be up already and we'd be no better off then than we are now with speculation.

If the proposal is to add this and require consensus to remove at the end of two weeks, then I will upgrade this to an extreme oppose. If the proposal is to try this for two weeks and require consensus then to keep it, then I will stay at a strong oppose.

Cheers, --LiquidTalk 22:49, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's quite logical the achievements get removed after the two weeks, and then it's being discussed. Getting consensus takes too long to let it be the other way, and then we'd have it for a lot longer than 2 weeks very soon. Atleast, that's what I assume. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:56, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
I may have to upgrade to an Extreme support. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:21, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Also, if it's the former (require consensus to remove at the end of two weeks) then this is just a very sneaky way of trying to usher in the achievements extension under the false premise of a trial, since requiring consensus to remove in two weeks is no different from officially adding it now, as anyone can start a thread to remove it then or any other time. --LiquidTalk 23:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
I find this quite funny, coming from the person sporting the green name and proudly displaying the admin userbox on their userpage. Not to mention all the times you've talked about how you're a "senior admin" to me, and how high your standards are for adminship, etc. Also, how does this "compromising our principles" any more than UoTM, featured image, featured article, and those wonderful rights which everyone likes to collect? ajr 00:31, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Green name is for consistency, which I've explained quite often to you before. I removed it for a long time right after I was sysopped because I didn't like the look, but in the end decided that it was more beneficial to have it. And I don't have a sysop userbox on my userpage (nor have I had one for a while), and I know that you know that the senior sysop stuff was in jest. UOTM/FIMG/FA aren't "collectible rights"... FIMG and FA make no mention of who took the image or wrote the article. UOTM is not a right (but I don't like its implementation, which is why I've tried to get it changed before and supported its discontinuation.) --LiquidTalk 00:35, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't know the senior sysop stuff was a joke, but thanks for clarifying. Also, it has been established in the past that FIMG and FA have been used in the manner to which I am referring - why else was there a proposal to not allow a user to upload their own image? ajr 00:40, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't really aware of it, probably because their is no laundry list of what users came up with what FIMG's and how many each user had. I believe a fully functional, quite prominent, and heavily featured leaderboard will be part of this achievements package? --LiquidTalk 00:43, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
No, actually - the links to the leaderboard are only on the userpages, and those can be globally removed if you'd prefer to not have them. As I said in the proposal, though, while there is usually an influx of people editing for the badges at the start, that quickly lessens as people find they enjoy just editing. ajr 00:45, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - You are supposed to edit to better the internet and having shiny medals will just will be false status symbols and attract glory-hogs. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:11, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Something which, I assume, we don't already do? ajr 00:02, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - this is just like the featured articles of the Wiki, it encourages people to continue editing. Smithing 23:20, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Despite this extension to be enabled for two weeks, I dislike the notion of a [[w:c:glee:Special:Leaderboard|leaderboard]] on a community project. The extension has benefits of both positive and negative as pointed out by other editors. People might make multiple edits to an article to get a certain badge or categorize to their hearts content, whatever is the case no previous edits will be accounted for and should we use a trial of this extension, all data will be erased upon removal should we wish to use it again. While I don't mind awarding users for valiant efforts on improving the wiki, I do not accept the concept of a ranking among editors for any reason whether it be by [http://wikia.com/gaming edit points] or achievements.

I know I hide the extension only on my userpage by checking "Don't show points, badges and ranking in my profile page" in the Misc tab of preferences, but this does not remove me from the leaderboards should I rank high enough. The only competitive place should be the game itself and not on the wiki. However, I would sway differently were this ScavengerHunt, an extension that is meant to be a game of hide-n-seek on the wiki without rankings for text and/or imagery. I, for one, dislike being put on a list and not allow to omit myself from it should we pass this discussion. Ryan PM 23:33, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

This [[Special:Top/community|leaderboard]] you speak of.... --Aburnett(Talk) 23:54, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Defunct and barely working since Monaco was removed. I had forgotten about that short list, but I didn't care for it at the time when I joined in 2008. Still do not care for it today. Out of sight, out of mind. Ryan PM 00:13, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Changed to Support. However, I still stand by what I previously stated about loathing being on a list I cannot prevent myself from being on. This wiki, this fansite as it were, was not intended to have people competing for a spot on some leaderboard, but rather improving articles for the sake of improving the information. If this extension could do that and potentially encourage account creation and usage of said accounts, then I would gladly accept this extension. Ryan PM 03:07, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - Umm what bad can come from a 2 week trial? Fill me in plawks. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:42, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Changed to Super Extremely Strong Support, and Total Disagree With Everything Every Single Opposer has Said (per C Teng) because no one seems to be able to answer my question. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 02:43, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't see your question. Anyways, this gets people in for the wrong reason. Incentivizing editing is something that must be avoided for any wiki to be successful. Want to know what happens when incentives corrupt people? Things like this. We don't want to be driven by these silly badges like Wikia is driven by profit, now do we? --LiquidTalk 02:46, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
And having a 2 week trial of this to see if what you speculate is actually true will completely murder the wiki? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 02:48, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
It took Wikia four years to get to this point. Two weeks are nothing. --LiquidTalk 03:19, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Then take it away if it's so incredibly horrible after the 2 weeks are up. "Good luck getting editors grown under the achievements system to throw away their badges" - I'm sure they'll understand why we're getting rid of them. If it really bothers them they could always make a userbox. (; If it still bothers them, they're a troll and will soon lose interest. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 03:25, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Liquid, I love how you are still pretending that all people who start editing here do so out of the goodness of their hearts. Even if you did, wake up hunny, this is Earth and not your fantasy world. I'd wager that 90% of all users started regularly editing with the hopes of becoming an admin or UOTM - I know I did. After time, however, we learn that it is just fun to be here, and that changes. ajr 03:50, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Who cares if it's for the wrong reason so long as it works. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:22, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Does adminship force users to strive to do better just to have accomplished something? Of course not. It's these sort of things that can ruin the wiki. --クールネシトーク 00:22, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Ruin the wiki by making it more active, and increasing the quality of the articles because of it... yep, that is definitely ruining the wiki. Also, the people with four, five, six, or even seven attempts at an RfA would tend to disagree with the first part of what you said. ajr 00:31, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Could be fun :) Jack Spiral1 00:34, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support - I hate this idea of badges as much as I do trophies/achievements on the PS3/Xbox 360, as I feel it distracts from the main point, but it seems that we do need the "encouragement". Besides, this is a trial, not a final decision. Mining cape.png The Last Pun Talk Aberrant Spectre Champion.png 00:38, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hell no - Not now, not ever. I'm not interested in seeing this wiki turn into Halopedia with ridiculous little gadgets like achievements. Next comes the blogs, and god knows what else. "You just added a picture! 10 points to Gryffindor!" Pfft. Andrew talk 04:05, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

son im dissapoint
Beyond that, I'm not proposing blogs, I'm not proposing that we turn into a social network, I am proposing a two week trial for this extension. Are you honestly that afraid to see what it's like? ajr 04:08, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
annoying edit conflict is annoying...I know what you're proposing, and I fear that it's only the beginning. I don't even want to see what it's like. I hate everything about these stupid little gadgets. Plus, I fail to see how earning "points" and "badges" is going to encourage people to edit more anyways.... Andrew talk 04:10, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
[[w:c:lego:Special:WikiStats|These]] [[w:c:glee:Special:WikiStats|wikis]] [[w:c:avatar:Special:WikiStats|tend to disagree]]. This extension does wonders with activity. ajr 13:05, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
What part of those links supports your argument. (wszx) 21:32, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I hate everything about automated awards for arbitrary edits everyone makes on a regular basis, if you want to reward users, make wikicapes more known, it appears only a few users who know about the wikicape thread know about awarding wikicapes. 222 talk 06:25, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

How on earth are wikicapes any different than this? The only thing they "are" is less effective than what I'm proposing. ajr 13:05, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
They are not automated and given for reasons better than normal editing. Also, Extreme oppose the points system replacing contribution counts. 222 talk 08:12, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - A 2 week trial can't hurt. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:17, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It's trying to get more edits for the wrong reasons. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 08:47, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

What I am seeing from the supporters mainly is the argument of "Why not?" My answer to that is I don't understand why people are fretting over a decrease in edits. As more edits are made, more information is gathered. As we have more information, there is "less need to edit" because all the information is already here. Think about it, the reason we edit is to add more information to the articles. Sure, adding this will give you some short-run benefit, but I guarantee you this extension is not going to solve the decreasing amount of edits problem in the long-run. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 06:06, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Last year at this time, we had over 600 active users. Now we have over 400. I personally see a drop of 200 as a slight problem. What you are saying doesn't even begin to account for the future. As Cook and myself have pointed out, activity is going down - that will, if not now, eventually affect the quality of the information here. Granted, there might not be a large problem at the moment, but what about, say, in another year? if we follow the current trends, we will be down to 200 active users then, and that my friend is a problem. Not to forget the fact that having more active editors never hurts a wiki, ever. (Unless they are vandals) ajr 13:49, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Except that's because Wikia added Oasis. Since Wikia does not change the skin once a week, we do not have a problem. bad_fetustalk 17:15, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Hmm, i support the idea of the achievements as i think they could really work as incentive to edit the wiki and theres no reason not to at least try it for a couple weeks to see how it goes. But im not too keen on the points system... The achievements compliment good editors on their work but the points pit us against each other to see who's better at editing and wars over importance and the like can break out (pffft, whats RS:SOW?). That and Cook would proably become the Supreme overlord of the wiki... At least until we work out some sort of positive system using the points, is it possible to disable them while still using the achievements or is it a package deal? - [Pharos] 09:45, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per (\'\'\'Oppose\'\'\' - (.*)) (oh and by the way I'm writing this at 1:56 PM so I'm tired so GAZ LEAVE EMILY ALONE) --Cakemix 11:56, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

(.mg a \[\[wikipedia:regex\|regex\]\]) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:16, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Are you kidding me? Really? *EPIC facepalm* >.< Mark (talk) 14:17, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I would have opposed per my comment on the other achievements trial thread, but now there seems to be evidence for increased activity with these things (I was uncertain of this before). Let's just see how this goes. If you see examples of questionable editing, you can always bring them up in a future thread.  Tien  14:30, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - The reasoning contradicts itself. As you said, we do not want editors editing only for badges. On the other hand, the only way for badges to encourage editing, is by making them want to have more badges. Therefore, we do not want it. bad_fetustalk 15:48, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the proposal? Eventually, users realize that they enjoy just editing and forget about the badges. And how can you even say that? How do you know? Has some other trial been done here before, or are you just guessing? And ffs, what is the harm in trying it out? 74.3.128.130 18:03, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
It looks more like you didn't read what I said. I already gave you my reasoning for opposition, read before starting talking nonsense. bad_fetustalk 15:30, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support trial - I don't see what harm a trial can do. However, if during the trial we don't see substantial improvement in activity, or if we see lots of people doing stupid edits for the sake of badges, expect an oppose from me to make them permanent. This will help new editors who already have accounts, but how do we reach people who are unregistered? ʞooɔ 17:41, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Article comments are great for that, but I doubt those would work here. The fact is that there is a large base of users who create accounts but don't edit regularily - let's exploit that. 74.3.128.130 18:03, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Let's stay away from article comments, since they make the pages look like a blog. :P svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:34, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support trial - So we can truly gauge its affect on the community instead of just assuming what will happen. (davelopo) 22:52, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Note to opposers - While it is all fine and dandy that you go around pretending that we don't already try to provide incentives for editing (UoTM, FA, FIMG, Wikicapes), I think that you really need to ask yourselves - which would you prefer, a wiki of 10 active users that are there out of the goodness of their hearts (or so they say), or a comprehensive, up-to-date encyclopedia on RuneScape with 100 active users, some of which are there for the badges. Because at the rate we are going, we will be down to 10 dedicated users in a few months (we are only at about 30 right now, and that number is dropping at a rather frightening rate), whereas this extension has the possibility of raising that. I ask again, what harm is there in trying it, and which would you prefer to have, a good encyclopedia or a bad one? ajr 23:05, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather have a good encyclopedia. But something that tries to snare users and reel them in with "badges" and a false sense of superiority is certainly not a good wiki. --LiquidTalk 23:49, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
How can you know that it isn't good for the wiki. Have you tried it? Has there been some previous trial of this that I don't know about, or are you just guessing that it will be bad? btw i know the answer ajr 23:58, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
I'd most certainly have a good encyclopedia rather than 20 Jeffwangs running around. And once again, you are contradicting yourself. You can not go tell people they can not know how it will result without a trial, and tell people that you "know the answer". However, I disagree with the idea of a need to try something out to see its result in the first place. That basically has no difference from someone suggesting anyone that has been around for 10 days to recieve sysop tools as a trial since it has not been tried out yet. bad_fetustalk 15:30, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Don't panic Couple things I notice about that cool link. While our number of editors with more than 100 edits has dropped, it is still higher than it was in 17 of the 37 months listed. If you look at the last three years you see lots of rise and fall, ebbs and flows. Panicking over these is overreaction. We are not at some all time low abut to die off. Our current numbers show no indication of any problem at all what so ever. If you want to bring in more editors, great. Using scare tactics to make a situation not what it seems? We all know of some politicians who pull that.--Degenret01 23:28, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

You can cover your ears and yell as loud as you can, but we still have a problem. Things are going downhill and they will continue to do so unless we do something about it. You're cherrypicking statistics, and bad ones at that. We have been on an upward trajectory for years, and to have such an immediate drop is definitely a problem. If, for example, we took the United States GDP and said "hey, it's still higher than it's been for 17 of the last 37 [years]", it's a very bad thing, because that means it went down more than 50%. It's a terrible way to justify your position, especially when it's not at all mathematically sound. These aren't scare tactics, they are the truth. ʞooɔ 23:37, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
I think you're the one that needs to check your mathematics, Cook. The number of users being higher than 17 of 37 months means that it's lower than over 50% of the months tested; it doesn't necessarily mean that the actual number of users plummeted over 50%. --LiquidTalk 23:47, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Beyond that, there is still the simple fact that we don't have as many editors as we could have. ajr 23:58, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I should have made that clearer. It had nothing to do with 17/37 being about 50%, just with the particular example I gave, the worst case scenario was it going down to about 7 trillion, about half. Forget that point. But it still stands that your numbers mean nothing. ʞooɔ 02:41, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Does it honestly matter if there's a two week trial of it? Hell, I'd go for a month or two or even three while we're at it. Let's look at when I started editing, I wanted to be an admin, I wanted a hilite, I wanted everyone to respect me, listen to me...etc. Now...frankly, I don't care. I edit to help others, it's not about the edit count, it's not about being a sysop, sometimes it's not even about what other people think about you, whether they respect you or not, hopefully they listen to you, but sometimes they don't. The point being after a while here, my priorities changed. If we can get more active editors making helpful edits, even if it's just fixing grammar/spelling/basic incorrect information-that's getting more people involved and they will make more beneficial edits as they grow in age and maturity and wiki knowledge. We can give people editing tips, but the larger userbase we have, the better off we are. It's not like we don't have enough sysops to deal with everything, because as many people like to point out, we have a very high sysop:user ratio. So I say-why the hell not? HaloTalk 00:22, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Super Extremely Strong Support, and Total Disagree With Everything Every Single Opposer has Said - Seriously guys? You're given a huge opportunity to boost wiki activity and you oppose... because it's too much like a contest? That's it? WHY NOT MAKE IT A CONTEST. The whole reason we edit this wiki is cause it's fun. It's not like we're helping people in Haiti or Japan and want to help the world; no, this is a wiki about a video game. And Liquid, you say that badges would give people a false sense of superiority. This is incorrect - they WOULD be superior, in editing efforts at least. Sure, we've got AEAE, but that doesn't change the fact that some people here are better editors than others. And like AJ said, the disadvantages of spam edits is greatly outweighed by the benefits. We already have countless people showing off their impressive edit counts in "Milestones" sections, and the huge number displayed in everyone's user pages. Why not have shiny badges. If someone works hard enough to make this wiki as a whole more awesome than it already is, they deserve a lot more than just a few pixels on a screen. Yes, we are incentivizing editing (again, with a few pixels on a screen). With Liquid's logic, every single person in America shouldn't be paid for their careers; they should all be a public service. "Does adminship force users to strive to do better just to have accomplished something?" Sure. I sure felt accomplished when I became an admin. Who wouldn't? "Not now, not ever. I'm not interested in seeing this wiki turn into Halopedia with ridiculous little gadgets like achievements." You mean, Halopedia, a wiki with [[w:c:community:Hub:Most active communities|one of the highest numbers of contributers in the history of Wikia]]? Yeah, it would be terrible if that happened. You're all acting as if things like competition and accomplishment are deadly sins. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 02:26, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Number of edits != good edits. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:29, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
More edits==higher chance of good edits. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:30, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Aha! White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:45, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
@C Teng: What you linked (or tried to link, but I fixed) shows that we have 400+ active users while Halopedia has 90. Last I checked, 400+ > 90. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:36, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Let us leave the competition for the upcoming ScavengerHunt extension. With luck, this extension will make more people edit and stay longer. Although I must press that should we keep reverting edits without summaries for said edits, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot and nullify this altogether. Ryan PM 03:07, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
@Evil, glad to see that you've done your research. Halopedia has reduced activity because the community forked. Last time I checked, that causes a tiny drain in activity ;) - and I completely agree with C Teng, even though he is a bit out of date ;D ajr 03:39, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Okay I was unaware of this Lol Still, badges seemed to be encouraging enough (until recently apparently) and I doubt they caused Halopedia's drop in activity. Thanks for the link fix btw Smile White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:45, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Try [[w:c:lego]], which went from ~60 to ~100 the month after achievements were enabled. A /tiny/ jump, wouldn't you say? We went from being about the 20th most active to now the 11th, with 116 active last month. ajr 03:48, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
@Ryan, that doesn't explain why we shouldn't give this a try. How can you know when we haven't tried it? ajr 03:40, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
I support using this extension, but loathe not being able to exclude myself. Besides that, I do believe that the continued trek of undoing or reverting without summaries, as others have stated elsewhere, will not weigh evenly in my opinion. Sadly, this makes it hard to justify that statement without facts. Clarified, I hope. Ryan PM 03:56, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
To be completely blunt, you aren't going to be on the leaderboard. It only shows the top 20, not even I will be on it, and I am more active than you. How does undoing without summaries even relate to this, that was a stupid reason I used to oppose an RfA to try and get a reaction out of the person. You're right, it is sad that you can't justify your statement with facts, but I can - we don't know 100% until we try, and where is the harm in trying? ajr 04:16, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Super Extremely Strong Support, and Total Disagree With Everything Every Single Opposer has Said - Per C Teng. Matt (t) 07:02, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Extreme lol with some rofl and XD, total disagree with people without humour - @matt JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:06, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like? - @joey Matt (t) 07:13, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
[1] - @matt JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:50, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per C Teng SaradominSign Me! 16:06, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I've written basically an essay on this before, so I won't do it again. It just fosters a need for useless, shit edits. Christine 17:52, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

What a lovely statement made without any supportive evidence at all. The entire point of this trial is to see if it makes a lot of useless edits, though I admire your gift of foresight. ajr 18:13, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
That is one idiotic argument. What you said applies to anything that has not been tried yet, you can't possibly expect anyone to go try them all out. People have brains for a reason, they can think and see what consequences a change could bring. bad_fetustalk 20:33, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Not for this - how on Earth does she know what this will do? This trial is meant for us to see, hence why it is called a "trial". We don't know - will it increase activity, will it cause lots of bad edits? From my experience, it doesn't cause bad edits. She doesn't know if it will, she thinks that it will, and rejects the trial outright because for whatever reason she feels that her thoughts are better than actual experience. Considering it isn't hurting us to try it, why not? Also, if you want to review some stupid arguments, look up at just about anyone opposing. ajr 22:00, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, we all have brains Chess. One would hope you would use yours and carry out this new feature to its logical conclusion (though I am not hopeful!). That is, that people are going to want to get these awards and will get them by making lots of useless edits simply to increase edit count. (wszx) 04:59, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
Because like a lot of the opposers have said, once it's "implemented," there will be no getting it out. See this idea. See this specifically for my reasoning for opposing, and all these for more reasons. And do some research next time before saying I haven't given any supportive evidence, because I've put a shit ton of research into my oppose, and you've done nothing for your support. You "thinking it will work" is just as flimsy as my "thinking it won't", so if our opposes are "stupid arguments" then so are your supports. Christine 04:58, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
What if we made the trial an opt-in after two weeks rather than an opt-out? ʞooɔ 06:47, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I was clear enough with that. I was calling ajr's argument idiotic, not Christine's. I was pretty confused when I saw Christine's and Harle's replies. Oh well. bad_fetustalk 15:28, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - It doesn't matter if it's a trial or not; achievements just encourage poor edits and image uploads. Smuff [citation provided] 18:42, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It's so darn easy to edit the wiki while playing RuneScape that it's a wonder how we don't have more editors. Not everyone is doing something that requires concentration, and surely not everyone is trying to maximize their "xp/hour" by refusing to multi-task while fishing or cooking. Just how much more activity we are capable of gaining when there is something, anything, that motivates people to edit? I don't know. But this trial, which is not permanent and may not necessarily give rise to poor edits and even if it did it is not permanent and is not guaranteed to be implemented anyway, may give us the answer.  Tien  20:29, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Human nature is to look for the easiest way. If you think that every editor will suddenly think "oh look, an achievement, I'll carry on editing nicely," you're wrong. They will look at the achievements, and spam useless edits/uploads to get them. We may attract more good editors, but ultimately we'll get more vandals too. Real Mad 07:18, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly think vandals will do more vandalism to get badges? Come on. O_o ʞooɔ 07:53, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
No, not vandals... This kind of things will also happen though. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:47, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
It is also human nature to be competitive, to want to look good and to want to be acknowledged or rewarded, all of which the achievement system fulfils. And of course not every editor will continue editing because of it, but I am 99% sure the amount wouldn't decrease from the amount we have now. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:26, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
I am 100% sure we'll get an influx of edits that are just adding an unnecessary line break between the last paragraph, and the categories. Or the infobox and the text in the article, for example. And yeah, that's a form of vandalism as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty sure it's what Real meant. Christine 16:18, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much. The system probably can't recognise whether edits are constructive, or someone adding HAGGER??????????? over and over. Therefore, bad edits get prizes as well as good ones. Real Mad 18:46, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
...Except they'll be blocked before they can do that three times. That really makes no sense at all. ʞooɔ 18:51, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
Then there is the point that this kind of vandalism is kinda hard to recognise. With that example, the user doing that started by adding semi-useless categories that would fall under RS:AGF. Then he ended with that edit, so they could as well play it very well, which would make them look like editors who do really want to help (Even though we don't block that quickly at nlrsw, he did manage to keep it up for 477 edits) The vandalists might be harder to deal with, as often the achievement boosting vandalism would look too much like good faith edits, because people might as well have good faith but still do achievement boosting. Note that I do support doing a 2 week trial, I'm just pointing out some problems we might have with this if we decide to use the achievement system, we might have some problems. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:08, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
The HAGGER?????? example didn't quite work, in hindsight. What I mean is people adding rubbish to pages, like linebreaks or extra spaces, all to get a shiny medal that they can show off. You want to reward people for crappy edits? Real Mad 06:34, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
So your opposing a trial because you know we will get a lot of low quality edits from lots of new people? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:41, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose permanently implementing them anyway, why would I support a trial? Real Mad 16:36, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
So you can find out if you're completely wrong. ʞooɔ 17:13, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
If the trial passes, a ton of users we've never seen before will want the shinies, so they'll go and add to the discussion on keeping the extension, and due to RS:AGF they can't be discounted as only wanting achievements for competitivity. Quality of edits is what matters. This proposal only rewards quantity. Look at this example that Degen brought up at a previous discussion for a trial. The system isn't only going to make people edit for the wrong reasons, it's also unfair to the people who make large rewrites and add a lot of information at once. Unless the system can somehow recognise constructive edits and reward people for rewrites, I firmly stand by my position. Real Mad 19:13, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

(tab reset) - You make it sound like the achievements/leaderboard actually matter. For obvious reasons, they do not, but if they help people edit, that's good. There's no unfairness because there is no reward for this. If you think that the leaderboard actually matters, that's your choice. But I know, and I think most of the supporters know, that the achievements mean very little, and will only mean something to the new users. I'm guessing that the vast majority of people that would get drawn in with the achievements would have no idea about the Yew Grove, anyway. ʞooɔ 19:50, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Can I borrow your crystal ball some time, Real? (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
Me too. The Kentucky Derby's coming up and I could use some money. ʞooɔ 20:13, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
Don't be a dick. Christine 20:38, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
Don't take a joke so seriously. ʞooɔ 20:39, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, look. Here's the overarching reasoning for my continuous opposes, revised and rewritten for anyone who doesn't want to read the numerous supporting arguments we've had against this before. Consider a random anon who is browsing the wiki. The idea of the community-driven encyclopedia on a topic he enjoys and is knowledgeable about appeals to him, so he joins and contributes and all is well. Consider a second anon who sees we have the "achievements" turned on, and, disregarding the idea of community, joins to extend his e-peen. Obviously the first anon is someone we want in our community, someone who would contribute. But the second anon who joins is likely to just cause headaches. I'm sure there's some essay or some policy (and just plain common sense) about quality > quantity. The second anon wouldn't actually be contributing anything useful, and think of all the gaming the system violations we would have. There are two sides to every wiki, and how you present it depends on the community. Some wikis are geared towards providing the best content for its viewers. Others are really set up in such a way that makes editing for contributors more pleasant. Our readers don't pay much attention to community, so we're really free to do what best serves our editors' needs. All I can see (and have seen) achievements doing is causing strife within the editing community. Pointless edits will cause petty arguments and won't really do wonders for us. Our editors should know that they're appreciated, not through superficial badges, but through compliments and thanks from those in the community - something personal that means much more than some automated (and, as clearly demonstrated with the ability to make pointless edits, arbitrary) system.

As such, I want to refute Ajr's earlier comments about what we already do. Of course, the first two links can be tossed out of this argument, because such features (sysops and crats) are necessary for the functionality of the wiki. Literally, required for some key actions on the wiki. But UotM and WikiCapes can be linked back to the "personal" aspect of rewarding good contributions that, as I wrote above, are far more appealing than something automated. Taking the time to nominate someone for UotM, indicating that you not only want all the editors to take notice of their contributions, but everyone who views the wiki to know (main page feature), is enormously motivating and gratifying.

WikiCapes are our version of barnstars, so I don't think I need to say much about them, but showing someone that you appreciate their actions and efforts is, again, much more personal than some bot telling you the same, and I don't really see the need to duplicate the feature. If this feature gets implemented, even as a "trial", I don't see it being removed regardless of the reasons opposing it. It's harder to take something away once people have had a taste of it, and this just seems like a ploy to add something without real consensus on it. Christine 21:13, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

In case you have not realized (it appears you have not), the badges would be removed after two weeks and consensus would be needed to implement them again. How is that hard to understand? Also, I'm glad you know exactly what will happen if we implement the badges, without even bothering with a trial. ʞooɔ 21:18, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

And WikiCapes would be well and good if they worked. They don't because apparently we're all too lazy to give them out often enough for it to be some sort of incentive. We've had wikicapes and we've tried to revive them, but they lead to no noticeable change in activity. ʞooɔ 21:20, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
So you're proposing that you allow people to be even lazier and less social by making everything automatic? Yeah wtg. Christine 22:14, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
If people were willing to do WikiCapes on a large basis, I would be content with that. But they're not and I don't think any amount of pushing and prodding will make people do so. ʞooɔ 22:21, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
Then we don't have wikicapes or achievements. It's not like they are fundamental to the functioning of this wiki. Christine 01:16, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Did you not read the proposal? Obviously they are not fundamental to anything. But the numbers show that we are going downhill from where we used to be in terms of activity. This could be a way to fix it. ʞooɔ 01:26, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
But some people don't think this is providing the right method to tackle the situation. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 04:12, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - (I apologize if I messed up the format of the page, this new editing method is bullcrap) I truly don't think this is inspiring anybody for any real good reason. The main argument that I've seen is "These will get us more editors, which means overall a better wiki!" No, this cannot be easily forecast or predicted. In simple, it's the old figure of speech "Too many cooks spoil the applesauce." These so called new and great editors could easily come here to raise their Wikia points (if those exist, I don't look into that), or simply to try and "outperk" everyone for their own amusement. What is being suggested is already defined by the psychiatric community and used on lab rats for information and amusement. In my opinion, we shouldn't be pushing mindgames onto any Wikian ever, let alone an anon who has no idea that we're using them simply for traffic and minor information. Could they be the greatest sysop or b'crat ever? Yes, but they're possibly doing it for the wring reasons, leading to a wiki run for all the wrong moral reasons. This isn't XBOX Live or whatever the PS3 rewards system is, we are an online encyclopedia about a game. Also, I know this is for a trial, but I'd rather cut this thorn before it possibly goes from this to this form of corrupt mutation. I'd rather be safe than sorry. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 02:46, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

um... this trial exists so that we can see if that will happen or not... ajr 03:10, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to even plant the seed of the idea into the wiki. I mean sure our traffic is down, but it's not like it's only like 10 people editing, we still have a fair base of editors/general viewers. I just don't like this idea at all due to the fact that it's a ploy of positive reinforcement that could attract more achievement-seeking trolls/assholes than honest to goodness editors. If our numbers were lower I'd understand, but the wiki is in no state of disrepair whatsoever in my opinion. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 03:53, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I think Ajr's last comment is the problem for opposers. Your only argument is "Why don't we just try it cause we can" and popping the same question back at us when we provide some kind of argument. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 04:09, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
The wiki is not in a state of disrepair, but it is heading that way. Looking at WikiStats, we have have barely half as many active (5+ edits per month) users as we did at this time last year. That in itself is not an enormous problem, but the numbers continue to fall. Unless we do something about it, things will go downhill. ʞooɔ 05:06, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Then find a better wY to deal with it, instead of relying on making the wiki into a game. How Bout making thewelcome template less bland, and making it more about the user than the wiki? Real Mad 06:55, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
It appears you've not read my thread Lol ʞooɔ 06:58, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I have. I'm suggesting it here so anyone reading THIS thread can see it as an alternative to achievements, and maybe reconsider their stance.
As I said about the WikiCapes, doing more personal things is great...if you can get people to do them long-term. At this point I think that people are not willing to go the extra step, either in awarding wikicapes or making personal messages. Until that point, we need to resort to other options. ʞooɔ 07:58, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
About personal messages, I'll put a personal message on people's pages as welcome if they've edited and there's something to be personal about. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:17, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Cook, L2Read, I said amend the template, and make it more welcoming than "here's some links kthxbai". Real Mad 16:04, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

(tab reset)Look, I know what you said. But there's no way to make the template more "welcoming" as you say without investing a small amount of time for each user. ʞooɔ 17:33, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back in my section. As stated above, the only argument against opposition I see most is "Why not try and see?" Well, there were also people who drank the Kool-Aid and see where that got them. Am I saying it will be as dramatic as that? No, not at all, but it could easily become more of a nuisance than a blessing. If we did perma-add it, then decide to nix it, there would be constant fights to bring it back just like the Wilderness a year back. In short, we are simply an encyclopedia about a game, not an achievement section for someone to pick at until they suck us dry. I'd rather have those who want to add and learn rather than those who just want to take achievements and perhaps stop at nothing (aka troll and make shitty edits) to get what they desire. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 18:50, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that we would rather have people who edit out of the good of their heart than people who (at least at commencement) would do so for the sake of some badges, I don't think we have the luxury of being able to do nothing. We are in a period of major stagnation, and unfortunately wikicapes and personal welcomes will not be the whole answer. Anyway, at this point I don't think anyone feels very strongly about making the badges permanent if they were to pass the trial. ʞooɔ 19:35, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I got it on my wiki, it takes up space, it really annoying, worthless! don't try it!--Project Myface Parsonsda Talk | Sign Here | Project Myface Project Myface 21:25, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

You do not have/own a wiki. Even if you are the only contributor, it is not "yours".--Degenret01 22:20, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I refer to RSW as "my wiki" quite often tbh Lol White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 23:49, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Wikia achievements will be enabled for two weeks. I will make it very clear to staff that it should be disabled after the two weeks for further discussion, on a second thread. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 00:46, April 11, 2011 (UTC)