Hi Bod,
We've actually got some of these already, many in widespread use.
I'm not the only editor with {{User:EVula/Userboxes/admin
since|year=yyyy|month=mm|day=dd}} or {{User Wikipedian
For|day=dd|month=mm|year=yyyy}}
Or indeed {{user contrib}} and even {{User:WereSpielChequers/Userbox
Editcountitis}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS gives you blocks per admin
and a whole bunch of other stats including several top 25s.
I was involved in getting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITSextended from the 4,000
with the highest edit counts to the top 8,000 with
extra separate files for the next two thousand (for space issues we couldn't
do 10,000 in one list). Extending the list to 8,000 brought it into range
for many newer or less active editors. You now need well over 12,000 edits
to get in the top 4,000, in early 2008 it was less than 6,000 - it takes as
many edits to get into the top 8,000 today as it did to get into the top
4,000 in early 2008.
I don't know if the other features you wanted exist, but if there is demand
they may well do already.
WereSpielChequers
On 30 September 2011 17:46, Bod Notbod <bodnot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good day Wikipedians,
>
> I have of late got into a football management computer game. Don't
> panic, I will be relating this post to Wikipedia, hang on. I'm really
> enjoying the game. To such an extent that I've actually started to
> follow football. I've never particularly liked football. I only
> started playing the computer game cos there was a free demo. Now I
> like the computer game so much I'm following football in the real
> world.
>
> After quite a few hours of playing it struck me that all I was really
> doing most of the time was evaluating numbers: player abilities rated
> out of 5, 10 or 20 depending on the stat in question. Numbers of
> goals. Numbered position in league. Tier of football I'm playing in.
>
> I don't know why this should be so compelling. Watching numbers
> change. But the game is incredibly successful (some editions have
> broken records for fastest selling computer game according to our
> articles).
>
> The numbers are clearly giving us players an emotional response. They
> engage.
>
> Last year, during the Strategy process and before I started playing
> this game, I proposed that what Wikipedia needed was "more rewards"
> for editors. I proposed a few things. In the end we got Wiki-love,
> which I support and like, but they isn't really like what I proposed
> at Strategy. To be honest I can barely remember what it was I proposed
> back then...
>
> I still think we could do with more rewards and maybe this damned game
> has given me an answer.
>
> More editor stats.
>
> All of us who have been around for some time know that edit counts are
> not very reliable indicators of effort. Nevertheless we still do keep
> a public record of editors with high counts. I think there's a reason
> for that. I think it's because we still, despite protestations, know
> that an edit count does tell us *something* about a Wikipedian. Even
> if it's just "(s)he edits a lot".
>
> I believe I'm right in saying that the Foundation is in the process of
> setting up something like Toolserver. I suggest we plan to put it to
> work. I suggest we expand greatly the stats we keep on individual
> editors and form league tables from them. I believe that aiming for a
> place in a table will motivate people. I realise that a) this is
> unproven and b) there will be objections, particularly regarding
> 'gaming the system and 'unintended consequences' but perhaps we can
> discuss those and mitigate them (more later).
>
> New Stats that could be placed in league tables could include:
>
> * Length of service (difference in days between first edit and last)
> * Number of consecutive days/months/weeks where 5 or more edits have
> been made (or 50 edits, or a hundred): in short there could be quite a
> number of these tables that relate to consistency and number of edits
> all of which, I feel, might spur people on to keep contributing.
> * Most characters/bytes added (without being removed)
> * Most blocks for admins
> * Most welcomes, barn stars awarded
> * Most reverts / undos
> * Average reader-rating of articles user has edited at least ten times
>
> You could also have these as percentage of number of edits and rank
> for those too, eg welcomes, blocks or reverts as a percentage of total
> edits, (with a minimum number of edits to qualify for inclusion on the
> table).
>
> Now, it could be (WILL be!) that someone decides "I'm going for the
> revert league title" and starts doing things we wouldn't ideally like
> (to put it mildly). However their presence at the head of the league,
> I feel, will actually subject their edits to greater scrutiny. People
> will look at their contributions and it may well result in needed
> censure, showing their activity to be undesirable and action could be
> taken accordingly. Also, you may have people in the top table who
> aren't even *trying* and their presence at or near the top might cause
> some examination of their contribs.
>
> Perhaps you can think of some league tables that would really push
> desirable behaviours at minimal risk of negative ones?
>
> If you don't like this idea I'd like to hear the concerns, HOWEVER! I
> would also like you to just entertain the idea and - even if you're
> against - think of some individual editor stats that could be tracked
> you think *may* provide useful feedback, even if you ultimately don't
> think we *should*.
>
> So: I propose we greatly increase feedback on user performance to
> drive people on. Support editor stats today.
>
> User:Bodnotbod
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
