Conservapedia talk:Contest4

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NOTE: The contest will start Sunday at 12:00 a.m. - NOT 12:00 p.m.! Many things need to be worked out until this is finalized. Among them are:

  • How to do selection of teams[1]
  • What the role of team captain comes down to[2]
  • How to ensure all players understand the rules[3]
  • How to mandate clear point tallies[4]
  • How to word the purpose of the contest[5]
  • How to enact a system that would solve rule conflicts[6]
  • How to rewrite the Wanted pages rule[7]

Please feel free to create a section for other concerns - and for more specifics on the above, simply visit the link to the right of each item, where clarification is given.--IDuan 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Relating to Teams

Selections of Teams

Role of Team Captain

I suggest that team captains have as small a role as possible. They should be selected based on who were the top contributers in the previous contest (in this case Contest3) and they should pick teams. After the Contest as started, however, there role should become nominal.--IDuan 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I think the captains should have some responsibilities to watch and curb what team players are doing. Good sportsmanship starts with the captain in directing his team in the proper way.--Aschlafly 23:58, 7 January 2008 (EST)
I agree with Andy in this regard, we need accountability within the teams. Geo.Complain! 17:54, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I'd like my team captain to remind me (or help me) whenever I forget to claim credit for entries. --Ed Poor Talk 09:20, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Haha - that's probably fine, although that should not be an official responsibility, as we can't ask all the two captains to go through each of their players contribs and check if the players are keeping track - and keep in mind the captains themselves are trying to get points.--IDuan 11:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Relating to Rules

Ensuring the Rules are Understood

Point Tallies

Perhaps the best way to do this is a general format. Geo and HelpJazz were kind enough to point out my layout as suitable - however I agree with them that it is far too specific. Perhaps something like this would be better:

==Type of Edit(Points the edit is Worth)(Number of this type made)==
links to diff (no organization necessary).

--IDuan 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)


I believe the purpose of the contest is to improve Conservapedia by tapping into the competitive side of our editors--IDuan 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I agree. Like all sports competitions, however, fostering sportsmanship is also a goal. "Winning at any price" may be true in war, but not in good-spirited competitions.--Aschlafly 23:59, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Right. This contest should be fun and competitive, but everyone needs to keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to improve Conservapedia. ~ SharonTalk 09:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Specific Point Issues

Please place all disagreements with regards to point values here (i.e. if you think "x" should get 20 points instead of 5) - and try to separate by section--IDuan 23:43, 6 January 2008 (EST)


Wanted Pages Rule

I think that in order to avoid cheating - only wanted pages that exist at the start of the contest should be allowed to count - these pages would be recorded on a page (and the page would be protected) to ensure accuracy. That way we won't have people artificially creating wanted pages they can create--IDuan 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I don't know that have to limit it that sharply. But obviously creating wanted pages simply to extinguish them is silly and unacceptable.--Aschlafly 00:00, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I think Iduan's idea of putting all the wanted pages on a list would work pretty well. I can't really think of anything better. ~ SharonTalk 09:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Personally, I don't think it's necessary. It is understood at this point what a wanted page is and the honor system should suffice. The difficulty last time was with a concerted effort to bend the rules. With the spirit of the contest being more clear this time, I don't think you would run into the same issues. Treat everyone like trusted positive contributors, and chances are they will live up to your expectations. Learn together 13:51, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I intend to claim credit for any new "wanted entries" which spring into being because they are legitimately linked.
If anyone can claim credit for "wikifying" an article, and any of their links push 3-link page over the line (so it becomes a 4-link page), then I would think this has now become a legitimate "most wanted" page.
Otherwise, I'd prefer to see a manually-created list of desired articles. --Ed Poor Talk 09:25, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Scoring Examples

Perhaps we should have links "guideline" articles which meet the minimum qualifications for each level. This way there would be something specific to look at when there are questions. HelpJazz 19:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Could the judges review each players claimed credits every day? This would ensure that no one can make mistakes or use a strange interpretation of the rules to gain advantage. Remember last time, when somebody just did a copy and paste of several hundred short definitions?
I'd say that the entire group of definitions should be assembled into a one-page glossary (with redirects from each term). Or maybe the glossary itself should judged the same as any other article. I don't think each glossary entry should stand alone, and I don't think players should get even 1 point for creating a page simply by pasting something. I could write a computer program to do that (in fact I have started to design it already). --Ed Poor Talk 09:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I'm going to stick my neck out, a bit too far, perhaps, and suggest that copy and pasted entries not count as anything, or perhaps 0.5 points, 1 at most. Of course, the former is the most optimal. --MakeTomorrow 10:27, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Ed - so far there's only one judge - and I think asking her to look at each person's contributions every day might be too much--IDuan 11:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Speaking from experience from the last contest, it's just too much work to judge each and every entry. I believe the first contest was judged this way and it took more time to judge than it did to perform the contest. For this last contest Geo and I individually checkted a random sampling (of, roughly 10% of each person's contributions) and browsed over the rest. Then if we thought we needed to look further we did. That seemed to work very well, especially because, for the most part, everyone was honest with their interpretations. HelpJazz 13:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, checking a random sampling is a good way to review. --Ed Poor Talk 13:31, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Ok - the random sampling should be fine - although every day is still tough - as long as we don't put too much strain on Bethany then I'm fine--IDuan 13:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Copy & Pasted pages

I'm of the opinion that these should score one point, not two. The phenomenally miniscule amount of effort that is required for these, and the fact that they are almost always allowed to remain dead-ends and such until after a contest… --AngryCommunist 16:12, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Ok, I've changed it--IDuan 11:16, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Thank you. --MakeTomorrow 15:16, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Double counting

I think there should a rule which states that your article can only fall into one category. In other words, you can't claim credit for creating an article, then again claim credit for editing that same article. I don't think this has been done before, but it theoretically could be done under the rules. HelpJazz 14:48, 12 January 2008 (EST)

That would severely discourage working for depth and quality. The moment you create an article and passed the mark for "Quality new entry" (2 paragraphs, 3 refs, bunch of links, category), there would be zero incentive to improve that article any further.
I can see where you're coming from: Endless tweaking with minor edits to boost your score isn't cool. But your suggestion seems to be quite... radical.
(Unless you meant filing the same edit under multiple categories. Then I misunderstood.) --Jenkins 15:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I don't mean that you should only keep your very first score, but I don't think it's that radical to suggest that if someone creates a QNE that they should not get any points for fixing all their own spelling, say. And if you started out with a Minor new article but later improved it, there's no problem with claiming credit for the article as a whole. The only time there's "no incentive" is when you create a quality entry, but if it's already quality, how many more points could you earn anyway? If you can earn substantial points by improving it, it probably wasn't a valid quality new entry to start with. HelpJazz 15:24, 12 January 2008 (EST)
My entire reply can be summed up with three links: Homosexuality, Atheism, Theory of Evolution. ;)
But I'll give a less silly version, anyway. The issue is that "quality" in the context of the contest means "two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, several links to other entries, some in-depth content and designations of category". That's really not much. I could easily reach "quality" level within minutes if I set my mind to it - without getting close to having an actually good article.
I could normally start with a quality article and add more pieces as I see fit. For example, our article about Barack Obama spends more than three full paragraphs only on the intro and his early life. Add a few more references to that, and you already got a QNE, so edits beyond that suddenly don't count anymore?
I could live with your suggestion (and it would help against potential abuse such as spending fifty edits to fix one typo each), but for it to actually lead to a better Conservapedia, the "Quality New Entry" (and "Normal New Entry") criteria would have to be WAY higher, or we'd need more levels. --Jenkins 15:45, 12 January 2008 (EST)
You make a good point. Either "extreme" is flawed: if we let people make as many edits as they want, they could intentionally build their article over time to inflate their score (and how would you ever know?) but on the other hand, if we don't allow more than 15 points (plus bonus when applicable), then there's no incentive to improve it. How about this (and since the contest starts tomorrow it won't be included in this one anyway): You get points for whatever level article it is. If you improve, you don't get points for editing, but it bumps your article up to the next level. Then, once you get to a Quality article, every paragraph past 2 is worth 1 point. Maybe not those numbers, but something along those lines. HelpJazz 20:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)
That sounds quite fascinating, actually! A system that doesn't reward edits, but rather overall improvements! There are a few issues to be worked out, depending on how you implement it, but the basic idea is very sound and should definitely be kept in mind for the next round! --Jenkins 20:17, 12 January 2008 (EST)


I wonder if a handicap should be offered for teams with members who don't have upload, edit and/or blocking privileges? I don't know how one would quantify that, but some editors can literally edit twice as much as others. Just something to think about, not necessarily something that needs solved for this contest. HelpJazz 14:48, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Redirects should be very low value

I am not even sure why this is controversial. [8] StephenW 23:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Firstly, the reason I reverted was because the change wasn't brought up here first - and in order to AVOID a bunch of reverts we should try and discuss point changes before doing them. I do think redirects should get two points, though, because while it is easy to do a redirect, it is just as easy to, say, add a period to an article, which is also worth two points (minor edit).--IDuan 23:49, 6 January 2008 (EST)
You're the only one reverting. Sounds like you should have lowered the value of adding a comma to an article. StephenW 23:51, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Again - I reverted because it wasn't brought up here first. And per precedent the value of minor edits has alway been 2 points--IDuan 23:53, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Fine, if you want to vet minor points on the talk page first, you are basically asking me not to collaborate with you. Just put a notice at the top of the page "This is a work by Iduan, please do not edit, it's mine." StephenW 00:08, 7 January 2008 (EST)
I reverted you because all changes should be discussed here first. You started discussing here - I said I disagreed with you - but I'm not the authority on this - when more people start commenting on this talk page then it might end up that we do make redirects worth one point.--IDuan 11:41, 7 January 2008 (EST)
I agree that redirects should be less than 2 points. It's easier than even copy/pasting an article.HelpJazz 19:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, though then should we make minor edits less than two points? Because really it's incredibly easy ot just find an article that, say, doesn't have the title bolded in the intro-sentence, and then change that and claim 2 points. --IDuan 21:09, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Personally, I never counted bolding on its own as a minor edit; the article would need to have some other change as well. You may wish to consider implementing a similar standard. Learn together 23:04, 7 January 2008 (EST)
I should add as well that as someone who does a lot of redirects, that I also believe they should be 1 point. A redirect is usually an afterthought to help those who use this site find what they are looking for more easily, but the thought that goes into it is not the same as for article creation or for true edits which should, at least in theory, include reading through the article. Learn together 13:57, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Quality New Article

There is a 14-point difference between a QNA and the next level down. I think this level should be lowered (to, say, 15 points) or raise the requirements a bit. HelpJazz 19:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I agree--IDuan 21:10, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Placement of this page

Shouldn't this be Conservapedia:Contest 4? --AngryCommunist 23:24, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Probably so. DanH 23:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Thank you :). --AngryCommunist 23:29, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Yes I suppose you're right - I was actually going to make it this - but I noticed that we had done Contest3 in the namespace - so in order to avoid any conflict I figured I should go with the precedent - but in hindsight I should've placed it here - thanks for the heads up.--IDuan 23:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)


If you have judges or something of the sort, put me on the list!! --~BCSTalk2ME 17:21, 7 January 2008 (EST)

You'd be great! I "second" your "motion" to be a judge.--Aschlafly 00:01, 8 January 2008 (EST)

If there is a need for an additional judge, then I could fill that role. I can go wherever I can best be used (judge or participant). Learn together 14:23, 12 January 2008 (EST)


So, can I participate? --AngryCommunist 16:11, 9 January 2008 (EST)

The teams will be eventually selected through a draft by captains (although like last time, we'll have a "those interested" area where you can put yoru name) - although this won't be for a while as we have to work out scoring, rules etc.--IDuan 16:40, 9 January 2008 (EST)
When does the contest start? --AngryCommunist 21:49, 9 January 2008 (EST)
There's no date yet - we have to get all the rules straightened out first--IDuan 21:52, 9 January 2008 (EST)
That's cool, thanks for informing me. --AngryCommunist 22:26, 9 January 2008 (EST)

A thought on balance

I believe it should be considered that in the event that one of the captains finds that through no fault of his own that he has fewer participants than the other team by a number of at least 2, that the last player picked by the captain with extra players be transferred to the team that finds itself short. That should help to keep things balanced and, I believe, coincides with our belief in fair play. Learn together 20:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)

(I think you're talking about like a mid-contest thing here): Assuming that the players who have left the team have their points officially discarded, then I would agree with that.--IDuan 21:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

On the subject of balance, shouldn't the team member have the various rights currently restricted conferred upon them? I, for one, can't edit after 12 A.M. until whenever editing is turned back on. --MakeTomorrow 21:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Agreed. Edit rights should be a given, at least... Helplessly watching the others edit like crazy isn't too cool. --Jenkins 07:15, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Overnight edit privileges are earned, and not given simply because of a contest. It's easy to prepare entries offline and simply upload when general editing is turned back on. The top pick on my team lacks overnight editing rights so there is nothing unfair about this, and other team members that have overnight editing rights rarely use them in the early morning hours.--Aschlafly 07:23, 13 January 2008 (EST)

If it would be so absolutely no problem, then surely you could go a week without editing at night? ;)
I'm not arguing that a team is handicapped (Last time I checked, I didn't even have a team yet! It's possible that I'm discussing with my future Captain here!), but rather that individuals are handicapped by this. The argument about "prepare it offline" doesn't quite work because it adds work and time that could be better spent otherwise.
But whatever. We'll just have to do without edit, upload, block, edit breaking news, add-links-without-CAPTCHA, rollback, edit-protected, and move rights then. "It's just a flesh wound!" ;) --Jenkins 07:30, 13 January 2008 (EST)


Shouldn't this be happening now? --MakeTomorrow 16:43, 12 January 2008 (EST)

It is, Brian has already selected his first candidate - whenever andy gets back he'll select two. There are many hours left in the day--IDuan 16:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I'll be back in an hour. BrianCo can take his time picking his next two.--Aschlafly 16:46, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Brian - don't pick yet - apparently I didn't explain the draft well enough: In order to ensure that each team has an about equal number of players - Brian will draft one pick, then Andy will draft two, and then Brian will draft two - and each captain will continue to draft two until finished. This ensures that the maximum difference between the teams is only one player--IDuan 16:54, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I'm back. Sorry, I didn't realize I could pick 2! I'll pick my second now.--Aschlafly 18:26, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Do userboxen count towards the template score? --MakeTomorrow 18:45, 12 January 2008 (EST)

No--IDuan 18:45, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Didn't think so. --MakeTomorrow 19:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Team pages

Shouldn't these be assembled now? And can we please have sensible names for the teams this time? :) --MakeTomorrow 22:16, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Slow down Make tommorow - the captains aren't even done picking the teams--IDuan 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Copying issue

I think we need to revise the copying-from-federal-government point. There is nothing wrong with copying from government sites. We're here to improve this resource, not reward creative writing. A quality entry can and should copy extensively from a .gov (federal government) site rather than rewrite the material in poor form. We commissioned .gov work and we own it and we should use it. Unless there is an objection, I'm going to clarify the "1 point" (penalty) provision.--Aschlafly 22:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I do think that you should get less for copying, but not as significantly less as we're doing now - for what it's worth I say go ahead!--IDuan 22:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Valuable copying is ... valuable! In free enterprise it's not just how hard one works, but how valuable one's work is. Cleverness is rewarded. We don't want people rewording stuff and introducing mistakes simply to earn more points.
The credits for adding links to lectures (and also terms) should be removed. That was a source of abuse last time. Also, why are we giving 3 points for images added NOT to entries??? If no objection, I'll make these changes now.--Aschlafly 22:58, 12 January 2008 (EST)
The image points were completely my fault - i just remember some confusion last time- and I just did the wrong thing to try and clear that up - sorry. I'm for you on everything (although are you saying that copying should get as much as writing?)--IDuan 23:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)
The key is how much the copying adds value here. I'll take the copying of high quality material (from a federal .gov site) over poor quality writing any day. Wouldn't you? The contest is not to reward effort. It is to reward value.--Aschlafly 23:05, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, fair enough I suppose--IDuan 23:07, 12 January 2008 (EST)
The only thing I would worry about with what you did is - well we don't have a scale for value, so probably no one will say their copied entry adds little value. I do like everything else you did though - especially with the "and not entirely copied" lines - maybe with that we can make people remember to do links--IDuan 23:14, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Wait… linking counts as "original content"? --MakeTomorrow 18:27, 13 January 2008 (EST)
No - but if people are going in and adding their own original content then they might remember to go in and look for links--IDuan 18:29, 13 January 2008 (EST)

New ruleset

I protest the new provisions to protect slackers who trawl through .gov sites to artificially inflate their score. It's the wiki equivalent of a Google bomb. --MakeTomorrow 23:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Wanted Pages List

Ok everyone, there might be 1 or two mistakes in this list, but it was really frustrating to format so I didn't really have time to go over it twice. ((Conservapedia:Contest4/Wanted))--IDuan 23:31, 12 January 2008 (EST)


How much is a rewrite worth? It's not a new article, but it's also more than a regular edit. For example, I found percent to be somewhat too technical and rewrote it for clarity and accessibility, leaving basically only the category intact. --Jenkins 08:38, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, I guess that's what the "An edit to an existing entry may qualify as a New Entry if the edit is substantial enough." rule is for... --Jenkins 08:57, 13 January 2008 (EST)


Friends, you can now use template:Contest4 on your user page, under the userbox heading, to display your teamname and points for you! The format is like this: {{Contest4|Team Name + "Member"|Points}}, so for me it reads, {{Contest4|Team Freedom Member|132}}. Hope you enjoy!-MexMax 23:47, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Cats for images

How many points for adding categories to images? I had 61 on 1/17. The points list 3 for an image, 2 for a minor edit - my feeling s/b these are worth 1 pt each. --Crocoite 10:18, 18 January 2008 (EST)

The points guide says 2 points for adding a category/categories. They're perhaps harder to categorize than a straightforward article would be, so I think they should score 2 just as though they were an article. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 10:21, 18 January 2008 (EST)


I tried to talk about this to Learn Together on his user talk page, but for some reason either he didn't have time or he didn't want to talk. Nonetheless, I feel it's a relatively important issue, so... Learn together is occasionally giving himself four points if he makes what he considers a good enough minor edit, despite the fact that it would seem that no such allowance exists in the rules. Now granted, he's also cutting himself short by occasionally giving himself one point. Given that the contest is almost over - and it would be hard for users to go back and change everything, I would like to propose that all minor edits be worth exactly 2 points, and all quality edits be worth 6, and then perhaps after the contest we could discuss a "regular edit" type thing. Judges?--IDuan 22:03, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Well, shoot!

I thought we had today until midnight! I guess I should read the instructions :-) ? Ugh, I'm sorry...-MexMax 13:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Thoughts after the contest

Since Andy is apparently already about to set up a fifth contest, I figure I better post my own thoughts here now. There were a few good parts, but personally, the bad parts overshadowed them. I'm sure Andy will disagree with me on MOST points (thus making this post effectively pointless), but I still feel like voicing them because I don't want it to look as if everything was happy sunshine.

  1. I acknowledge that Iduan tried his best to prevent abuse. Kudos for that. Especially the "copy-pasting gives 1 point" rule was a GREAT change. However, most of this hard work was suddenly undermined when Andy introduced the extremely fuzzy "not entirely copied" addition that could lead to copy-pasted entries counting for as much as 15 points (and 4 points at the very least!).
    • Suggestion: Be consequent and undo the fuzzy-maybe-not-quite-completely-copied stuff. This isn't about what "adds value", it's about time vs. points. When you put your mind to winning the contest, you will try to use the method that gives you the most points per time. If I find a .gov article, add some wikilinks and a category (estimated time: one or two minutes tops), that should not give four or more points. If you stumble over a pile of such articles-to-be, you can get hundreds of points in ridiculously little time. I'm sorry, but that's exactly what the rule tried to prevent. It's called abuse (or "gaming the system" if you want to avoid strong words).
    • I also challenge the assertion that rabid copy-pasting adds value to the encyclopedia. It's spam. Tons of copy-pasted stuff falls into two categories: "Way Too Long" or "Laughably Short and Technical". Both results lead to articles that are very hard to improve without completely scrapping the old ones first. Some ships have much longer articles than some people who wrote history - simply because some Public Domain source had incredibly long and detailed accounts of certain ships (random samples: Advance-6 (1570 words) versus John von Neumann (214 words, including section headers)). That alone should illustrate that something is off.
    • Duplicating content (and worse: duplicating content without pointing at where it came from or indicating that it's copied) is useless. Scrap it and just add an external link to the glossary or source. People can read it there, too. Have a link collection. Like "Conservapedia's Guide to Government Glossaries" (You could call it "CP G3" - fetchy!).
  2. Timing was a MAJOR issue. The contest was suddenly rushed onto people, leaving little time to finetune the rules or even pick teams.
  3. The "Quality New Entry" bar was WAY too low, especially when you were allowed to copy-paste. Alternatively, the reward was WAY too high for it (especially when you consider that just one or two more references can make the difference between 6 and 15 points).
  4. Some players were flat-out handicapped to ridiculous degrees. When you got members who can't even upload a picture or edit early in the morning or late at night (which were the only times I was online on some days that week - meaning that I simply couldn't participate on those days), it's hard not to feel completely inadequate. Sure, both sides had handicapped players, but it still led to a two-class system and to things like "The night is the only time I would be around!".
    • Suggestion: Either acknowledge that handicap in the scoring or at least give people EDIT rights. That's not some sort of epic demand in my eyes - it's the MediaWiki DEFAULT SETTING. Speaking of which, I spent my time editing on Wikipedia. I improved some of the articles there and had discussions that led to more in-depth improvements. Nobody loomed over my head and told me that I hadn't earned some mysterious "right". Quite refreshing!
  5. (It's minor, but since I'm at it...) Somewhat connected since sysops clearly have it easier: Don't expect me to undo vandalism sprees anymore. It gets ridiculous when the software punishes me for it by adding YET another step to the Undo process: There is a CAPTCHA-ish math test each time an edit introduces a new link - and when undoing page-blanking, I usually do exactly that. Sorry, not worth it. I'll just leave that for the people who merely have to hit "Rollback" and do with one click what I need several page-loads for.
  6. After the halftime mark, I had suddenly fallen off the scoring table. And you know what that meant? It meant that all my work up to that point had suddenly become completely worthless. It suddenly didn't matter anymore that I had spent three hours creating a shiny periodic table or that I had improved other articles. For the contest, I counted exactly as much as somebody who hadn't made a single edit: Not at all. Sorry, not feeling the love. (Especially bad when it's combined with the "You don't deserve to edit when we're not around to monitor you" issue.)

I think that's about it... hopefully it is - this post is long enough already.

Overall, I believe that it's possible to create a contest that encourages quality and not abuse (HelpJazz had a very interesting idea on this very page for example). However, this would take time, and it would require certain sysops to actually let go of their game-the-system goldmines.

Personally, I actually don't think that such contests do much good on the grand scale. Fuzzy rules, arbitrary scoring, implied emphasis on doing instead of discussing, the sense of being in the same team, but not in the same league... I believe that we should just go back to freestyle editing without wasting time to fill out silly scorecards.

Rephrasing my favorite Demotivator (no link - don't want the software to rub in that I'm not a trusted user by giving me a CAPTCHA) poster: "If being in some contest and a pat on the back are needed to motivate you, you probably have a very boring task. The kind robots will be doing soon." --Jenkins 19:08, 21 January 2008 (EST)