- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Userfy. Whpq ( talk) 23:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:9t5 User Page Contest (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Malinaccier ( talk) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Because of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and because the page does not meet any of the criteria listed as appropriate under Wikipedia:Project namespace#Pages within project namespace. Possibly also because of WP:NOTHERE, as it seems to provide monetary incentives for users to do something else using Wikipedia's platform other than improve the encyclopedia. Maybe a request at some central forum to create something like this and demonstrate community support for it might overcome some of these objections, but I don't know that this is supportable coming from an individual initiative. If this were commonly replicated by other users, or even if this one initiative attracted wide participation it seems like it could hurt the goal of the encyclopedia. Mathglot ( talk) 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for random user-page-design contests. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikipedia
already has a history of holding contests. My point was to encourage friendly competition, and give back to Wikipedia in the process. Just because web design isn’t the purpose of Wikipedia doesn’t mean that Wikipedians are barred from enjoying competitions that celebrate their skills. And again, like I said, it’s been something that has been done plenty in the past.
9t5 (
talk)
20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point to some examples of successful contests that weren't directly related to editing (and hopefully improving) article content? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would also note that "done plenty in the past" (i.e.,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not a defense against deletion. This is a volunteer project, and there are plenty of things out there that are contrary to guidelines for any number of reasons. For example, if you create an article with no citations, the presence of
these 136,000 unreferenced articles is not an argument that will protect your unreferenced article from deletion, if it should be nominated. So, rather than rely on previous contests, please find a
policy or guideline that supports your position and negates the ones listed above that argue in favor of deletion.
Mathglot (
talk)
00:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Mathglot So case law and precedent is good enough to run the United States legal system on but .. not Wikipedia. Okay. Noted. Seems a bit like you’re implying that at the end of the day it comes down to the preference of higher ranking editors and not principle at all.
- @ AndyTheGrump A fair request. I will post my response to that later tonight!
- Best,
9t5 (
talk)
00:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please
assume good faith. To answer your question, the preference of senior editors, administrators, or even the founder of Wikipedia has no special force on the outcome of deletion discussions. Nor, perhaps surprisingly, does having ten people on one side
voting their preference, versus only
two on the other stating an opposing view make any difference, because
consensus is not a majority vote. The only thing that counts is the strength of your argument in interpreting the facts at hand in the light of
Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and the
consensus resulting from such discussion. (See also,
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) So, yes, you are right in your statement that decisions at Wikipedia are not determined by precedent the way they are in U.S. case law, which is based on
common law; instead, they are determined by written standards, which is closer to the
civil law legal system used in France and much of Europe and the rest of the world.
Mathglot (
talk)
01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Mathglot I personally hold the belief that what I was trying to do was address the growing problem of the decline in new editors WP:LOSE2WIN.. by engaging the community in a way that would allow for perhaps some genuine relationships to grow/allow new editors to interact with their peers in a lighthearted way that isn’t so serious such as an AfD.. the issue is the inability to have any room for change on the platform by those up on the top. The rigid inability to grow with the times, has led to a rapid decline. Paired with the fact that deletionists overtook a platform that used to be MUCH more inclusive. Listen, you can wikilink almost anything anybody says to WP:.. whatever the hell you choose to shape your narrative.
- I was offering to donate $5 per contestant who participates simply to make it something that was something people could enjoy AND it would be doing some good for the Wikimedia Foundation. I must’ve been misguided though.. it’s not like they’re begging for donations or something crazy like that. Maybe I should redirect my energy towards finding things to delete simply because “well pointing to cases in the past where pages weren’t deleted under the same exact circumstance isn’t technically an argument against deletion because section 405 of the gotta kill all the fun section of the destroy Wikipedia from the inside out section states: if an editor smiles, it’s gotta be deleted” 9t5 ( talk) 02:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please
assume good faith. To answer your question, the preference of senior editors, administrators, or even the founder of Wikipedia has no special force on the outcome of deletion discussions. Nor, perhaps surprisingly, does having ten people on one side
voting their preference, versus only
two on the other stating an opposing view make any difference, because
consensus is not a majority vote. The only thing that counts is the strength of your argument in interpreting the facts at hand in the light of
Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and the
consensus resulting from such discussion. (See also,
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) So, yes, you are right in your statement that decisions at Wikipedia are not determined by precedent the way they are in U.S. case law, which is based on
common law; instead, they are determined by written standards, which is closer to the
civil law legal system used in France and much of Europe and the rest of the world.
Mathglot (
talk)
01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ 9t5, see WP:WAX. 48JCL TALK 02:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete in the absence of a detailed explanation as to what this contest is about and what its purpose is.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon The format is for editors to sign up, and then on August 2nd a theme gets announced (examples: Gothic Architecture, Greek Mythology, Marine Life). Then August 2nd-August 9th, editors who signed up are able to edit their user pages to have it creatively incorporate the theme. They can revert their user pages right back to what they were prior — submissions are of the specific revision of their final user page design. Those who submit a revision before the week closes will be considered valid entries. Then August 12th-August 19th (allowing a weekend for me to go through and make sure no guidelines were violated etc.) voting would be open to extended confirmed users (to prevent meatpuppetry). August 20th I was going to announce three winners with the most votes.
- I thought it would be fun to bring the community together. I am not very shocked, I guess that the attempt was met with a deletion nomination.
9t5 (
talk)
14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia:Danny's contest was held as a means to increase the amount of featured articles on the website because the issue on Wikipedia back then in 2006 was getting quality of the writing to improve. Today, the issue on Wikipedia is retaining new editors. Danny’s contest sought to implement donation as a means of a larger contribution to a cause while encouraging positive change on Wikipedia.. I simply am confused why this contest is seen as aiming to do anything different. The changes are to user pages and would not affect the mainspace at all, but if the issue is that people want only writing contests to exist… I will happily change the contest to a creative writing one. However, this website consists of more than just article writers. There are template editors who have entirely different skill sets that I am sure would be really into a coding contest like this. I rest my case. 9t5 ( talk) 14:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation may have little or no value to the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is the labor of love of its volunteers. The WMF owns the servers, but that is about the extent of the support that the English Wikipedia receives. Some of our volunteers are deeply skeptical of the WMF.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon Interesting. I didn’t know this. 9t5 ( talk) 14:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy Does not work as a projectspace page, but I don't see why it could not be a page in 9t5's userspace. The requirements there are much less strict. QuicoleJR ( talk) 13:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Mathglot and AndyTheGrump.—
Alalch E.
17:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: For my argument on the topic, see WP:CREATECOMMUNITY.
- 9t5 ( talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Move to User:9t5/Userpage Contest per arguments above. I see absolutely no reason to just straight up delete it. 48JCL TALK 02:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that there is at least a clear consensus that this page should be moved to the Userspace, if not deleted.
It is not clear that there is a consensus on whether this is acceptable for Wikipedia even if moved to the Userspace. Some comments read as though opposed to the idea of such a contest and make good points that Wikipedia is not a social network, while several others are not opposed to this contest being run in the userspace and make good points that there is a precedent of editing contests and other community engagement.
Thus, I am relisting to ask for additional commentary so that a closing administrator can determine if there is a consensus to delete or move the contest to the userspace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy it is far from a community contest, but it looks like it may do some good at very low risk of going wrong - Nabla ( talk) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy. I prefer userfication to deletion. This activity is probably meant to be a morale booster and a community-building activity. It was clearly created in good faith. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
23:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. It absolutely was. 9t5 ( talk) 00:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy or weak keep: Clearly a good-faith creation. Contests like this have happened before. I don't see an issue with it in project space but there certainly is no reason not to userfy it. C F A 💬 13:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Userfy. Whpq ( talk) 23:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:9t5 User Page Contest (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Malinaccier ( talk) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Because of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and because the page does not meet any of the criteria listed as appropriate under Wikipedia:Project namespace#Pages within project namespace. Possibly also because of WP:NOTHERE, as it seems to provide monetary incentives for users to do something else using Wikipedia's platform other than improve the encyclopedia. Maybe a request at some central forum to create something like this and demonstrate community support for it might overcome some of these objections, but I don't know that this is supportable coming from an individual initiative. If this were commonly replicated by other users, or even if this one initiative attracted wide participation it seems like it could hurt the goal of the encyclopedia. Mathglot ( talk) 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for random user-page-design contests. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikipedia
already has a history of holding contests. My point was to encourage friendly competition, and give back to Wikipedia in the process. Just because web design isn’t the purpose of Wikipedia doesn’t mean that Wikipedians are barred from enjoying competitions that celebrate their skills. And again, like I said, it’s been something that has been done plenty in the past.
9t5 (
talk)
20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point to some examples of successful contests that weren't directly related to editing (and hopefully improving) article content? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would also note that "done plenty in the past" (i.e.,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not a defense against deletion. This is a volunteer project, and there are plenty of things out there that are contrary to guidelines for any number of reasons. For example, if you create an article with no citations, the presence of
these 136,000 unreferenced articles is not an argument that will protect your unreferenced article from deletion, if it should be nominated. So, rather than rely on previous contests, please find a
policy or guideline that supports your position and negates the ones listed above that argue in favor of deletion.
Mathglot (
talk)
00:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Mathglot So case law and precedent is good enough to run the United States legal system on but .. not Wikipedia. Okay. Noted. Seems a bit like you’re implying that at the end of the day it comes down to the preference of higher ranking editors and not principle at all.
- @ AndyTheGrump A fair request. I will post my response to that later tonight!
- Best,
9t5 (
talk)
00:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please
assume good faith. To answer your question, the preference of senior editors, administrators, or even the founder of Wikipedia has no special force on the outcome of deletion discussions. Nor, perhaps surprisingly, does having ten people on one side
voting their preference, versus only
two on the other stating an opposing view make any difference, because
consensus is not a majority vote. The only thing that counts is the strength of your argument in interpreting the facts at hand in the light of
Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and the
consensus resulting from such discussion. (See also,
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) So, yes, you are right in your statement that decisions at Wikipedia are not determined by precedent the way they are in U.S. case law, which is based on
common law; instead, they are determined by written standards, which is closer to the
civil law legal system used in France and much of Europe and the rest of the world.
Mathglot (
talk)
01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Mathglot I personally hold the belief that what I was trying to do was address the growing problem of the decline in new editors WP:LOSE2WIN.. by engaging the community in a way that would allow for perhaps some genuine relationships to grow/allow new editors to interact with their peers in a lighthearted way that isn’t so serious such as an AfD.. the issue is the inability to have any room for change on the platform by those up on the top. The rigid inability to grow with the times, has led to a rapid decline. Paired with the fact that deletionists overtook a platform that used to be MUCH more inclusive. Listen, you can wikilink almost anything anybody says to WP:.. whatever the hell you choose to shape your narrative.
- I was offering to donate $5 per contestant who participates simply to make it something that was something people could enjoy AND it would be doing some good for the Wikimedia Foundation. I must’ve been misguided though.. it’s not like they’re begging for donations or something crazy like that. Maybe I should redirect my energy towards finding things to delete simply because “well pointing to cases in the past where pages weren’t deleted under the same exact circumstance isn’t technically an argument against deletion because section 405 of the gotta kill all the fun section of the destroy Wikipedia from the inside out section states: if an editor smiles, it’s gotta be deleted” 9t5 ( talk) 02:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please
assume good faith. To answer your question, the preference of senior editors, administrators, or even the founder of Wikipedia has no special force on the outcome of deletion discussions. Nor, perhaps surprisingly, does having ten people on one side
voting their preference, versus only
two on the other stating an opposing view make any difference, because
consensus is not a majority vote. The only thing that counts is the strength of your argument in interpreting the facts at hand in the light of
Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and the
consensus resulting from such discussion. (See also,
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) So, yes, you are right in your statement that decisions at Wikipedia are not determined by precedent the way they are in U.S. case law, which is based on
common law; instead, they are determined by written standards, which is closer to the
civil law legal system used in France and much of Europe and the rest of the world.
Mathglot (
talk)
01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ 9t5, see WP:WAX. 48JCL TALK 02:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete in the absence of a detailed explanation as to what this contest is about and what its purpose is.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon The format is for editors to sign up, and then on August 2nd a theme gets announced (examples: Gothic Architecture, Greek Mythology, Marine Life). Then August 2nd-August 9th, editors who signed up are able to edit their user pages to have it creatively incorporate the theme. They can revert their user pages right back to what they were prior — submissions are of the specific revision of their final user page design. Those who submit a revision before the week closes will be considered valid entries. Then August 12th-August 19th (allowing a weekend for me to go through and make sure no guidelines were violated etc.) voting would be open to extended confirmed users (to prevent meatpuppetry). August 20th I was going to announce three winners with the most votes.
- I thought it would be fun to bring the community together. I am not very shocked, I guess that the attempt was met with a deletion nomination.
9t5 (
talk)
14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia:Danny's contest was held as a means to increase the amount of featured articles on the website because the issue on Wikipedia back then in 2006 was getting quality of the writing to improve. Today, the issue on Wikipedia is retaining new editors. Danny’s contest sought to implement donation as a means of a larger contribution to a cause while encouraging positive change on Wikipedia.. I simply am confused why this contest is seen as aiming to do anything different. The changes are to user pages and would not affect the mainspace at all, but if the issue is that people want only writing contests to exist… I will happily change the contest to a creative writing one. However, this website consists of more than just article writers. There are template editors who have entirely different skill sets that I am sure would be really into a coding contest like this. I rest my case. 9t5 ( talk) 14:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation may have little or no value to the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is the labor of love of its volunteers. The WMF owns the servers, but that is about the extent of the support that the English Wikipedia receives. Some of our volunteers are deeply skeptical of the WMF.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon Interesting. I didn’t know this. 9t5 ( talk) 14:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy Does not work as a projectspace page, but I don't see why it could not be a page in 9t5's userspace. The requirements there are much less strict. QuicoleJR ( talk) 13:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Mathglot and AndyTheGrump.—
Alalch E.
17:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: For my argument on the topic, see WP:CREATECOMMUNITY.
- 9t5 ( talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Move to User:9t5/Userpage Contest per arguments above. I see absolutely no reason to just straight up delete it. 48JCL TALK 02:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that there is at least a clear consensus that this page should be moved to the Userspace, if not deleted.
It is not clear that there is a consensus on whether this is acceptable for Wikipedia even if moved to the Userspace. Some comments read as though opposed to the idea of such a contest and make good points that Wikipedia is not a social network, while several others are not opposed to this contest being run in the userspace and make good points that there is a precedent of editing contests and other community engagement.
Thus, I am relisting to ask for additional commentary so that a closing administrator can determine if there is a consensus to delete or move the contest to the userspace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy it is far from a community contest, but it looks like it may do some good at very low risk of going wrong - Nabla ( talk) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy. I prefer userfication to deletion. This activity is probably meant to be a morale booster and a community-building activity. It was clearly created in good faith. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
23:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. It absolutely was. 9t5 ( talk) 00:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy or weak keep: Clearly a good-faith creation. Contests like this have happened before. I don't see an issue with it in project space but there certainly is no reason not to userfy it. C F A 💬 13:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.