Karma: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:49, 6 March 2023

(English) This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes.

Meta has relevant essays:

Karma is a term denoting points accumulated to one's account. At Wikimedia projects in various languages, such concepts include (but are not limited to):

Number of barnstars

Designed for contributors to award other contributors with barnstars for what they did well.

In fact, some content work is not noticed and hence appears less rewarding! And it's unconstructive to just thank where a human feedback on the actions could be useful instead...)

Edit count

Total edit count, or that in namespaces.

Some people make large rare edits of content of use to the project and aren't as welcomed as they could've been.

Number of FAs you contributed to

Designed to motivate a contributor to expand existing articles.

Imposes excessive focus on FA criteria rather than on common sense.

People who only correct mistakes in articles or write stubs don't get this award, which is imbalanced.

Service awards

Designed to do what edit count and barnstars do, at the same time... Shares pros and cons of both.

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user

Designed to help new and inexperienced users by pairing them with more experienced Wikipedians.

This makes a newcomer feel “inexperienced”, in contrast to the mentor.

In fact, we are all learning, we're all more or less experienced...

AFC backlog elimination drives

Some reviews are more difficult. Scoring them all as 1 point is not balanced.

Quality > Quantity; this system gives more points for quantity instead.

These are disastrous, barbarous concepts; apart from being confusing, they mislead contributors' work. Examples are included, as an illustration of the concept.

Good Humour barnstar — misused to apply more humour and pay less attention to the content and context being worked on.
GA and FA class style guidelines (a follow-up) — considered more valuable when justifying work on article, over reaching agreement and understanding with another contributor.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{essay}}
+{{side box
-{| class="sister-project"
+|text=[[Meta]] has relevant essays:
-|-
+* '''''[[Catalytic]]'''''
-| [[Meta]] has relevant essays:
-* '''''[[Meta:Catalytic|Catalytic]]'''''
+* '''''[[Clogged talk pages]]'''''
-* '''''[[Meta:Clogged talk pages|Clogged talk pages]]'''''
+* '''''[[Karma]]'''''
+}}
-* '''''[[Meta:Karma|Karma]]'''''
-|}
 ''[[:wikt:Karma|Karma]]'' is a term denoting points accumulated to one's account. At Wikimedia projects in various languages, such  concepts include (but are not limited to):
 * Number of [[:wikipedia:WP:BARNSTAR|barnstars]]
+::''Designed for contributors to award other contributors with barnstars for what they did well.''
+::''In fact, some content work is not noticed and hence appears less rewarding! And it's unconstructive to just thank where a human feedback on the actions could be useful instead...)''
 * [[:wikipedia:WP:EC|Edit count]]
+::''Total edit count, or that in namespaces.''
+::''Some people make large rare edits of content of use to the project and aren't as welcomed as they could've been.''
 * Number of FAs you contributed to
+::''Designed to motivate a contributor to expand existing articles.''
+::''Imposes excessive focus on FA criteria rather than on common sense.''
+::''People who only correct mistakes in articles or write stubs don't get this award, which is imbalanced.''
 * [[:wikipedia:Wikipedia:SERVICE|Service awards]]
+::''Designed to do what edit count and barnstars do, at the same time... Shares pros and cons of both.''
+* [[:wikipedia:Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user|Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user]]
+::''Designed to help new and inexperienced users by pairing them with more experienced Wikipedians.''
+::''This makes a newcomer feel “inexperienced”, in contrast to the mentor.''
+:::''In fact, we are all learning, we're all more or less experienced...''
+* [[:wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Backlog_elimination_drives|AFC backlog elimination drives]]
+::''Some reviews are more difficult. Scoring them all as 1 point is not balanced.''
+::''Quality > Quantity; this system gives more points for quantity instead.''
 These are disastrous, barbarous concepts; apart from being confusing, they mislead contributors' work. Examples are included, as an illustration of the concept.
 <div class="plainlinks">
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyphoidbomb&oldid=592305043#Looking_into_the_details_of_the_helpme_queries... Good Humour barnstar] — misused to apply more humour and pay less attention to the content and context being worked on.
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dcheagle/Archive_7#2007_NFL_Draft_Fiasco GA and FA class style guidelines] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dcheagle&oldid=590487285 a follow-up]) — considered more valuable when justifying work on article, over reaching agreement and understanding with another contributor.
+* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dcheagle/Archive_7#2007_NFL_Draft_Fiasco GA and FA class style guidelines] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dcheagle&oldid=590487285#Tables_and_prose a follow-up]) — considered more valuable when justifying work on article, over reaching agreement and understanding with another contributor.
 </div>