Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Contest5"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Contest 5 Point System: re and change up)
m (→‎Masterpiece nominations: levelling playing field ;)
 
(129 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
This is the rough draft of what eventually will be the format for the new point system, please discuss the format and any other concerns regarding the Contest [[Conservapedia talk:Contest5|here]].
+
This contest focuses on insights and quality, not quantity.  The point system (see below) has been adjusted accordingly.
−
==Contest 5 Point System==
 
  
−
Things changed from Contest 4's:
+
Like many sports contests, one side "kicks off" by starting an entry.  The other side must then work with that entry, by improving it and adding links.  The first team then must work within those links, and so on until time elapses.  One team cannot intentionally fill in a link created by itself: it must try to fill in links created by the other team. (Inadvertent mistakes about who created the link will still count towards points.)
−
<dl>
 
−
<dt>'''Increased the gap between quality and short articles'''
 
−
<dd>Normal articles can easily be transformed into quality articles - and thus there should be some more gratification for doing so
 
−
: Agree. Great suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 
  
−
<dt>'''Decreased the gap between normal and entertainment anything'''
+
In other words, like in basketball or football or soccer, a player can only "run with the ball" if it is intercepted or otherwise obtained from the other side.
−
: Can't say I agree with this.  Entertainment entries are rarely educational or informative in any meaningful way.  Frankly, most are a waste of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 
−
::While I agree that many entertainment articles are pointless - I think it's also tough to say that ALL are. Like for example - articles on sports teams are entertainment - but at the same time sports do have a big history, and it's certainly encyclopedic. That being said, an article on Britney Spears' hairstyles would obviously be less significant. Perhaps we should figure out how to distinguish these--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 
  
−
::: I think the judges should have greater authority to take points away from uninformative entertainment entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
Special points are awarded to quality improvements to Conservapedia entries that rank high in search engines, such as traditional Conservapedia features like [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] or [[faith]] or [[liberal]], as well as the [[Conservapedia terms]].
−
::::agreed.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 
−
<dd>If someone spends the time to make a quality entertainment article, then they should still get close to the points of a quality regular article
 
−
: Same comment as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 
  
−
<dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a fully copied entry'''
+
===The Final Steps===
−
<dd>Only by a bit though - given that you have to go through and wikilink anyway - creating that entry is essentially the same as a minor edit
+
After the Contest is complete, the teams will, as a group, pick their best 3-4 articles. The judge (Bethany) will review each of these articles, and award the top 3 the status of "Masterpiece" - which will earn 400 points for whatever player/team the article is from.
−
: Agree.  We reward improvements here. If well said by someone else and we have rights to copy (as in already paying for it as a government work), then let's use it and reward with points.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 
  
−
<dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a quality edit'''
+
===Teams===
−
<dd>It was getting almost the same amount of points as a short entry - when really, based on the description, it involved more work than a short entry
+
{|width="75%" class="wikitable" cellspacing="0"
−
: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
|-
 +
!colspan="2" width="50%" style="font-variant:small-caps"|Team 1
 +
!colspan="2" width="50%" style="font-variant:small-caps"|Team 2
 +
|-
 +
!width="25%"|Captain
 +
|width="25%"|[[User:Fox|Fox]]
 +
!width="25%"|Captain
 +
|width="25%"|[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
 +
|-
 +
!colspan="2"|Members
 +
!colspan="2"|Members
 +
|-
 +
|colspan="2"|
 +
#[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]
 +
#[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]
  
−
<dt>'''Increased the amount of points for an image'''
+
|colspan="2"|
−
<dd>You could at least two minor edits in the time that you could find one image appropriate to the article you have, and insert that image appropriately
+
#[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquin]]
−
: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
#[[User:Iduan|Iduan]]
 +
|-
 +
!colspan="4"|Point Tally
 +
|-
 +
|colspan="2"|
 +
{| align="center" width="50%" class="wikitable"
 +
|[[User:Fox/Contest5|Fox]]
 +
|1540
 +
|-
 +
|[[User:Crocoite/Contest|Crocoite]]
 +
|486
 +
|-
 +
|[[User:SharonS/Contest|SharonS]]
 +
|246
 +
|-
 +
!Total
 +
|{{#expr: 1540 + 486 + 246}}
 +
|}
 +
|colspan="2"|
 +
{|align="center" width="50%" class="wikitable"
 +
|[[User:Aschlafly/Contest5|Aschlafly]]
 +
|462
 +
|-
 +
|Joaquin
 +
|290 + (*)
 +
|-
 +
|[[User:Iduan/Contest5|Iduan]]
 +
|733
 +
|-
 +
!Total
 +
|{{#expr: 462 + 261 + 733}}
 +
|}
 +
|}
  
−
<dt>'''Increased the amount of points for breaking news'''
+
==Kickoff Entries (each player may add their kickoff entry to this list)==
−
<dd>This was only so I could increase the gap between a user who finds a breaking news article, and a sysop who adds that article to the main page
+
 
−
: Why do we want to increase that gap?  I do agree that quality breaking news should be highly rewarded with points.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
*[[Deconstruction]]
−
::I honestly don't really want to increase the gap - but in the last contest a user complained about the handicap of non-sysops, so I added it for him. But I'd befine if you reverted--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
*[[Roberta McCain]]
−
<dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a template'''
+
*[[Johns Hopkins University]]
−
<dd>Templates take a lot - they should probably be getting the same amount of points as an ordinary entry, but I thought that doing that would be too drastic of a change.
+
*[[Kamakura]]
−
: Don't know.  If you say so, it's OK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
*[[Holy Days]]
−
<dt>'''Redefined what a template had to have'''
+
*[[Colorado Springs]]
−
<dd>read:Userboxes don't count
+
 
−
: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
==Masterpiece nominations==
−
</dl>
+
*[[Passover]] (Fox)
−
'''General comment''': ''insightful'' entries should be rewarded more.  Although subjective, these contests should create better incentives for the masterpieces, long or short, that deliver particularly good writing, insights, explanations, etc.  Perhaps a "masterpiece" category that could be give special attention (and final decision) by judges after self-nomination of the best entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
*[[Deconstruction]] (Sharon)
−
:Ok! How about this: each team nominates ... about 10 ... of it's best articles, and then the judges pick the top two among those - and those articles will be worth 100 points.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
+
*[[National Institutes of Health]] (Crocoite)
 +
*[[Holy Days]] (Fox)
 +
*[[Afikoman]] (Fox)
 +
*[[Charoset]](Fox)
 +
 
 +
====Team 2 Tentative List====
 +
*[[Johns Hopkins University]] (Iduan)
 +
*[[Roberta McCain]] (Aschlafly)
 +
*[[Howard University]] (Iduan)
 +
*[[Allan Rohan Crite]] (Joaquin)
 +
*[[Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart]] (Aschlafly)
 +
*[[University of Arizona]] (Iduan)
 +
 
 +
==Points==
  
−
:: That's an interesting suggestion!  I like it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 
  
 
===New entry===
 
===New entry===
−
<u>Quality</u> new entry: '''20 points'''
+
 
 +
<u>Masterpiece</u>: '''100 points'''
 +
*''Definition'': At the end of the contest each team (if they want to) will nominate their 2-3 best entries, and then the judges will award 400 points to one or more "masterpieces".
 +
 
 +
<u>Quality</u> New Entry: '''20 points'''
 
*''Definition'':A Quality New Entry includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, an emboldened subject, several links to other entries, some in-depth content and designations of category, and is not entirely copied.
 
*''Definition'':A Quality New Entry includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, an emboldened subject, several links to other entries, some in-depth content and designations of category, and is not entirely copied.
−
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* Quality New Entries will receive only '''18 points'''.
 
  
−
<u>Ordinary</u> New Entry: '''12 points'''
+
<u>Ordinary</u> New Entry or Insight: '''12 points'''
 
*''Definition'': An Ordinary New Entry is a new entry which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality New Entry, but is of higher quality than a Short New Entry, and is not entirely copied.
 
*''Definition'': An Ordinary New Entry is a new entry which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality New Entry, but is of higher quality than a Short New Entry, and is not entirely copied.
−
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* Ordinary New Entries will receive only '''10 points'''.
 
  
 
<u>Short</u> New Entry: '''6 points'''
 
<u>Short</u> New Entry: '''6 points'''
 
*''Definition'': A Short New Entry contains only a few sentences and may or may not have a reference, and is not entirely copied.
 
*''Definition'': A Short New Entry contains only a few sentences and may or may not have a reference, and is not entirely copied.
−
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related Short New Entries will receive only '''4 points'''.
 
  
 
<u>Copied</u> Entries That Add Little Value: '''3 point'''
 
<u>Copied</u> Entries That Add Little Value: '''3 point'''
 
*''Definition'': A entry copied from a public domain source such as .gov site - you MUST link to other articles and the article can not be of trivial nature (i.e. non-encyclopedic, non-educational or non-historical)
 
*''Definition'': A entry copied from a public domain source such as .gov site - you MUST link to other articles and the article can not be of trivial nature (i.e. non-encyclopedic, non-educational or non-historical)
 +
 +
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* New Entries will receive only half-credit.
  
 
===Existing entry===
 
===Existing entry===
−
<u>Quality edit</u> of an existing entry: '''8 points'''
+
<u>Quality edit</u> or insight added to an entry ranking in the top 20 on [[Google]]: '''20 points'''
 
*''Definition'': A Quality Edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
 
*''Definition'': A Quality Edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
−
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* Quality Edits will receive only '''6 points'''.
+
*''Definition'':A Quality Insight is an edit that conveys a profound truth that is not widely known, and which has an effect on the reader for days.  It can be succinct and need not contain multiple sentences, though a references must be provided.
 +
 
 +
<u>Quality edit</u> or insight added to an ordinary, existing entry: '''15 points'''
 +
*''Definition'':  A Quality edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
 +
*''Definition'':  A Quality new insight is an edit that conveys a profound truth that is not widely known, and which has an effect on the reader for days.  It can be succinct and need not contain multiple sentences or even a reference, though references are encouraged.
 +
 
 +
<u>Ordinary edit</u> or insight added to an ordinary, existing entry: '''8 points'''
 +
*''Definition'': An Ordinary edit contains some substance of value.
 +
*''Definition'':An Ordinary insight is an edit that conveys truths that may be widely known among [[conservatives]] but which is generally suppressed or censored by [[liberals]] or otherwise highly informative. No reference is required.
  
 
<u>Minor Edit</u> of an existing entry: '''2 points'''
 
<u>Minor Edit</u> of an existing entry: '''2 points'''
 
*''Definition'': A Minor Edit is an edit which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality Edit. These edits might include small formatting changes, spelling and grammatical changes and/or the addition of a category.
 
*''Definition'': A Minor Edit is an edit which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality Edit. These edits might include small formatting changes, spelling and grammatical changes and/or the addition of a category.
 +
 +
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* Quality Edits will receive only half credit.
  
 
===Images===
 
===Images===
−
Adding a quality public domain image to an entry: '''4pts''' (+2 points per article if it's an image you uploaded)
+
Adding a quality public domain or fair use image to an entry: '''4pts''' (+2 points per article if it's an image you uploaded)
 
*''Beware:'' Copyright violations will result in harsh penalties!
 
*''Beware:'' Copyright violations will result in harsh penalties!
  
Line 81: Line 141:
  
 
===Breaking News===
 
===Breaking News===
−
Breaking News Item: '''6 points'''
+
Breaking News Item: '''3 points'''
 
*''Definition:'' A Breaking news item is placed on the Main page with wiki links to Conservapedia articles and a link to the external reference article.  
 
*''Definition:'' A Breaking news item is placed on the Main page with wiki links to Conservapedia articles and a link to the external reference article.  
−
*''Exception:'' A non-administrator who submits an article to an administrator and the article is placed on the Main page will receive 5 point and the administrator will receive 6 points for adding the article and links. It is at the administrator's discretion whether to place the article on the Main page.
+
*''Exception:'' A non-administrator who submits an article to an administrator and the article is placed on the Main page will receive 3 points and the administrator will receive 1 points for adding the article and links. It is at the administrator's discretion whether to place the article on the Main page.
  
 
===Bonus Points===
 
===Bonus Points===
Line 97: Line 157:
 
*''Exception'': Full credit will be given for notable or important historical subjects, and for political entries.
 
*''Exception'': Full credit will be given for notable or important historical subjects, and for political entries.
 
*''Exception'': Full credit will be given for reasonable subjects which are educational but not necessarily taught in a typical school.
 
*''Exception'': Full credit will be given for reasonable subjects which are educational but not necessarily taught in a typical school.
 +
*''Exception'': If entertainment entries are excessively useless - judges can deduct points
 +
[[Category:Conservapedia Contest]]

Latest revision as of 14:54, February 22, 2008

This contest focuses on insights and quality, not quantity. The point system (see below) has been adjusted accordingly.

Like many sports contests, one side "kicks off" by starting an entry. The other side must then work with that entry, by improving it and adding links. The first team then must work within those links, and so on until time elapses. One team cannot intentionally fill in a link created by itself: it must try to fill in links created by the other team. (Inadvertent mistakes about who created the link will still count towards points.)

In other words, like in basketball or football or soccer, a player can only "run with the ball" if it is intercepted or otherwise obtained from the other side.

Special points are awarded to quality improvements to Conservapedia entries that rank high in search engines, such as traditional Conservapedia features like Examples of Bias in Wikipedia or faith or liberal, as well as the Conservapedia terms.

The Final Steps

After the Contest is complete, the teams will, as a group, pick their best 3-4 articles. The judge (Bethany) will review each of these articles, and award the top 3 the status of "Masterpiece" - which will earn 400 points for whatever player/team the article is from.

Teams

Team 1 Team 2
Captain Fox Captain Aschlafly
Members Members
  1. Crocoite
  2. Sharon
  1. Joaquin
  2. Iduan
Point Tally
Fox 1540
Crocoite 486
SharonS 246
Total 2272
Aschlafly 462
Joaquin 290 + (*)
Iduan 733
Total 1456

Kickoff Entries (each player may add their kickoff entry to this list)

Masterpiece nominations

Team 2 Tentative List

Points

New entry

Masterpiece: 100 points

  • Definition: At the end of the contest each team (if they want to) will nominate their 2-3 best entries, and then the judges will award 400 points to one or more "masterpieces".

Quality New Entry: 20 points

  • Definition:A Quality New Entry includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, an emboldened subject, several links to other entries, some in-depth content and designations of category, and is not entirely copied.

Ordinary New Entry or Insight: 12 points

  • Definition: An Ordinary New Entry is a new entry which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality New Entry, but is of higher quality than a Short New Entry, and is not entirely copied.

Short New Entry: 6 points

  • Definition: A Short New Entry contains only a few sentences and may or may not have a reference, and is not entirely copied.

Copied Entries That Add Little Value: 3 point

  • Definition: A entry copied from a public domain source such as .gov site - you MUST link to other articles and the article can not be of trivial nature (i.e. non-encyclopedic, non-educational or non-historical)
  • Exception: Entertainment-related* New Entries will receive only half-credit.

Existing entry

Quality edit or insight added to an entry ranking in the top 20 on Google: 20 points

  • Definition: A Quality Edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
  • Definition:A Quality Insight is an edit that conveys a profound truth that is not widely known, and which has an effect on the reader for days. It can be succinct and need not contain multiple sentences, though a references must be provided.

Quality edit or insight added to an ordinary, existing entry: 15 points

  • Definition: A Quality edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
  • Definition: A Quality new insight is an edit that conveys a profound truth that is not widely known, and which has an effect on the reader for days. It can be succinct and need not contain multiple sentences or even a reference, though references are encouraged.

Ordinary edit or insight added to an ordinary, existing entry: 8 points

  • Definition: An Ordinary edit contains some substance of value.
  • Definition:An Ordinary insight is an edit that conveys truths that may be widely known among conservatives but which is generally suppressed or censored by liberals or otherwise highly informative. No reference is required.

Minor Edit of an existing entry: 2 points

  • Definition: A Minor Edit is an edit which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality Edit. These edits might include small formatting changes, spelling and grammatical changes and/or the addition of a category.
  • Exception: Entertainment-related* Quality Edits will receive only half credit.

Images

Adding a quality public domain or fair use image to an entry: 4pts (+2 points per article if it's an image you uploaded)

  • Beware: Copyright violations will result in harsh penalties!

Templates

New Template: 8 points

  • Definition: The template must have at least 4 non-userspace links.

Redirects

Redirecting a Page: 1 point

  • Definition: Redirecting any page - whether the page was something different or not. Misspellings don't count.

Breaking News

Breaking News Item: 3 points

  • Definition: A Breaking news item is placed on the Main page with wiki links to Conservapedia articles and a link to the external reference article.
  • Exception: A non-administrator who submits an article to an administrator and the article is placed on the Main page will receive 3 points and the administrator will receive 1 points for adding the article and links. It is at the administrator's discretion whether to place the article on the Main page.

Bonus Points

  • An additional bonus of 3 points is awarded for adding a new entry on the "most-wanted" list, Special:Wantedpages
    • Note carefully: The entry must be on this list
  • An additional bonus of 1 point is awarded for adding a link to an entry on the Special:Deadendpages, and thereby removing that entry from that list
  • An edit to an existing entry may qualify as a New Entry if the edit is substantial enough (however, mark these pages off so the judges can review).
  • Adding a relevant photo to Breaking News will receive a 2 points bonus.
  • Blocking a vandal/sock/troll or reverting their vandalism: 2 points.

Notes

An entry is "entertainment-related" if it relates to a subject not taught as core curriculum in a typical high school or college. This includes articles on sports, popular music, movies, and other entertaining but not necessarily educational subjects.

  • Exception: Full credit will be given for notable or important historical subjects, and for political entries.
  • Exception: Full credit will be given for reasonable subjects which are educational but not necessarily taught in a typical school.
  • Exception: If entertainment entries are excessively useless - judges can deduct points
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Contest5&oldid=392799"