The main brainstorming and development work for women contests will be started here. Discussions to be held here on contests and potential ideas.
I've long wanted to see a contest for the US. Covering all states would be wonderful to see. From my perspective I would prefer it if it was a general contest as we badly need articles improved for many places and topics in the US, particularly geography related. We've got what 180,000 stubs for the US? Do we run a Destubathon to allow for both destubs and new articles like the Africa one? Or a pure women creation contest for the US? I think it should be a general Destubathon but give the best prizes to editors who flesh out and create the most articles on women? Further thoughts please, but we can be relaxed about this over the next few weeks as the money is already there!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou Rosie, good speaking to you too. Might depend on how many people are willing to help run it. A general contest like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon is a lot of work to run without numbers, requires more judging work, but that covered all types of article improvement up to GA level. For me, given that we have 180,000 odd stubs, and already have a fair number of GAs and FAs for the US, we should make it the US Destubathon, but like with the Africa Destubathon allow new articles on women only, so you effectively cover both. Let's see general content improved for the US, and some of those existing poor quality bios on women cleaned up too. I would be willing to help draw up a core article list for the US in January-February with support, so you could probably find important articles to destub and cleanup and target those. So would benefit the Women in Green cause too. If we make it a Destubathon, a simple expansion requirement with 1.,5kb total prose etc, that's easier to check and judge, so if there's a lot of articles it's possible we could build in a rule in which editors have to check one article, rather like QPQ with DYK. Why not give a small prize for the editor who approves the most articles of other editors done in the contest?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
See my post below about the international contest happening in March and April. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Contests#Newly announced international contest The women you never meet I think by WiR linking all of these contests together all of them will benefit. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 and I spoke again about the WMDC contest, and we've nailed down a few particulars. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Though long term of course we really need to get existing articles destubbed and improved, I think for the inaugural contest it's best if we give the article creations the full throttle. $100 for each country and then $500 for each field of occupation. Perhaps reduce the expected prose to 750 char or 1 kb. 750 char I think would be more ideal for Africa in particular. Though we want to reduce stubs of course, there's good and bad stubs, cleanly written, well sourced 750 entries I think are just about acceptable. I just think we need to run a big contest first to see potentially how many articles could purely be created in 4-6 weeks. Obviously we expect the articles to be properly sourced and written, but if you run future contests then we'll split the prize money into new articles and destubs. So we'll get there eventually, but I really want to try running a pure article creation contest as the pilot one and see how many articles can be created globally.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott Thoughts? I'm not sure how many editors such a contest would really attract, but with the Destubathon I set 2000 articles as the target, and we reached that with 1.5 kb expected for Africa, which is tough to do a lot of the time. A full global contest with 750 kb min requirement and just new articles, possibly something like 5000-10,000 is achievable in 6 weeks on the larger scale and funding, not sure. We could try to set the bar at 10,000 new articles and see how it goes. Globally I think with the prizes planned, there's a way we could really do that. We'll have to generate a list of 10,000 articles we want created covering every country though. A way to enchance this might be to make it a contest with whoever creates the most articles out of given batch and reaches a certain number of bios for a given country first wins the prize. That gives the incentive then to max out production and encourage different editors to pick a country to work on and go for it. The issue there though is potential quality/paraphrasing issues. I think you really need to run a full throttle maximum impact article creation contest initially though to see how it goes!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Please copy it here then Ipigott as the others are going to commenting on this here as well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, made a decent start on this! Can you give me a list of the different main fields of occupation we're dealing with with women? Is there a way we could narrow it down to 10 primary fields of occupation for women or is that not enough? I was thinking something like $5000 divided by 10 to cover the occupation aspect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
So far I think
How about the above? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Manufacturing I don't think is as viable as one for Leadership and business, how about the above now?♦
Dr. Blofeld
18:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm convinced feminism (meaning women's rights, fighting for status, pioneering women's activities) deserves a slot of its own. I don't really think food and drink is so important; it falls within the other activities. You might consider a slot for other occupations: military, aviation, exploring, etc. The one we haven't mentioned and in which there is superlative interest is sports. So how about:
You might be able to find better headings but I think these represent the ten main slots. There will be grey areas between art and entertainment and between science and education. But all this could be explained. I think you're on the right track. We could also use these headings for editathons or whatever. What's missing is geographical/religious origins and ethnicity. Nothing for the Jews, eskimos, or aboriginees -- but these could no doubt be accommodated under the other headings?-- Ipigott ( talk) 18:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those are good, we can include Food and Drink in Art I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
No rush, but feel free sometime this week to further outline sub fields which would be included under each here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Food and Drink could also be an aspect of leadership. Maybe there should be an 11th category: "Other", to cater for anything unexpected. Many of the women in the BBC 100 Women would fall into this slot. Also many women who become famous because of news coverage on murders, rape and other crimes, spying, accidents, or because of their notability in travel, gardening, demonstrations, etc. There could be a way of combining participation in Other with that in the 10 main slots. I'll also try to participate in the discussions on the other pages addressing contests on Women.-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hors concours: Other (everything else)
Ipigott ( talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Ipigott: I decided to cut the minimum requirement to 750 char. The main reason is that in many developing world countries, particularly Africa, it's often tough to produce 1.5 kb. I tried a few during the Destubathon and it's often very tough. I think 750, maybe 1 kb should be the minimum requirement, but then you could have a larger prize at the end for "most start class articles created oiver 1.5 or something".♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep it at 750 char min, and then for the larger prizes make it a requirement that they're 1.5 kb or something, that would work, and also allow people to freely create. All articles would be expected to be formatted and written properly, even if shortish, so overall it would give women bios a massive boost.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The Challenge series combined, see Template:The 100,000 Challenge, has produced well over 7,000 articles in just a few months and with only three contests. The challenges motivate a lot of editors to produce content and see a body of work collecting. While it is true that many of the participants contributed anyway, the work coming in from all the regions demonstrates that there is interest for this in most areas and it's enjoyable. Now the current largest challenge is 50,000 for the United States, with the rough idea of 1000 for each state, though inevitably it won't work out like that as some states have a lot more activity than others. I believe the Challenges and the percentage bar is something which can motivate editors.
I think with the women project, if you keep in mind some contests, global in scope, then potentially you could have many new editors contributing articles. I think if we are to truly be ambitious but keep it within reach, at least within a few years, then we should set a 100,000 article long term for women. Make it 50,000 new articles, 50,000 destubs or 75,000 new articles and 25,000 destubs. Make it the main vehicle to get WIR to 20% + biographies on wikipedia. Having that percentage bar I think will motivate more people. If not, then a large scale contest is going to give the challenge a fuel boost. I think we roughly worked out that it would currently take up to 8 years at current rate to get us to over 20%, I want to try to aim to get us there in two years through this. I think it would be a fantastic thing to see women articles all numbered coming in, and a way editors can claim credit for them. for example . 467. Sheila Davis, new article by Penny Richards etc.
I think the 100,000 Challenge for Women would be the best way t0 cover both WIR and Women in Green, boosting new output and existing quality at the same time, which has been lacking from WIR, but something which badly needs development as there's so many stubs on women and important articles which are nowhere near the standard they should be. Two different percentage bars towards the 100,000, to separate excisting article entries from the missing ones.
Rosie, your contacts are increasingly globally. OK, if we set a 100,000 article target for English wiki, if we could somehow scale WIR to at least the top 50 wikipedias long term, no reason why we couldn't launch a global 1 million Challenge for women long term involving all languages and people regularly contributing towards the challenge and contests. We'd find a way of scooping all entries into one big master list. At present we lack the framework and coordination needed to launch something that big, but I think with this we need to create a momentum, and starting it on English wikipedia to start with is enough. Then you can start to get your contacts, particularly Spanish and French wikipedians working on their own challenges for their wikipedias. Then when we run a contest, these language wikipedias would participate and the entries done would be used to boost all of the challenges. Perhaps the idea of a global 1 million goal would be the motivator to get more wikipedias doing it and launching WIR and starting to work towards something huge worldwide.
I would love this to start in January 2017, but at present I don't think we have the support and contest infrastructure in place that we need to make it realistic. I think it's doable with a larger grant to fuel say 4 big contests a year, and have entries done for it feeding the challenge. I think we should wait on this now until we have the funding needed to run large scale contests which are run globally/regionally.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I initially proposed a Book Fund to WP:Africa a few months back but I still think it would be something valuable, particularly for women editing. As potentially there would be a lot of money to be earned from the contests, I think setting up a Book Fund for Women in Red would work well. People can donate any excess earnings they might not want and donate it to the WIR Book Fund. Books on demand can then be bought and handed out to editors on English wikipedia and any of the other wikis and sent to editors who need them to contribute to wikipedia. The book fund could also potentially support editors at editathons and give them working materials to be productive at the editathons and encourage them to continue contributing long term.
As we've seen with editathons and other things, sometimes running WIR can be tough, a lot of work to salvage and copyedit articles done by newbies. I suggest we build in aspects to the contest which are going to reduce the problems we'd otherwise get. If we're running a contest and there's an editathon being held that month, say by Art+Feminism, we build in some prizes for editors who expand the most stubs created by newbies/cleanup the most articles/help the most editors etc. That way we reduce AFDs, increase the quality of work, provide support to the other women groups, and send out a strong message to newbies than their work is appreciated and being cared for.
Please identify problems we encounter at WIR and discuss contests as a means of helping resolve them or reduce the problems which occur:
Recently a new international contest related to women was announced. Since WiR often works with these type of global events/contents, I wanted to draw your attention to it as planning is happening for WiR contents.
I think that this contest is relevant for future planning and coordination of WiR events next year as is Art+Feminism. (Excuse the dulipate post if it is already mentioned somewhere on this page.) Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Great to see an international contest, though might be tricky as there's a US one running about the same time I think, though there's a possibility of it being in April. Something like 1700 articles is excellent!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The main brainstorming and development work for women contests will be started here. Discussions to be held here on contests and potential ideas.
I've long wanted to see a contest for the US. Covering all states would be wonderful to see. From my perspective I would prefer it if it was a general contest as we badly need articles improved for many places and topics in the US, particularly geography related. We've got what 180,000 stubs for the US? Do we run a Destubathon to allow for both destubs and new articles like the Africa one? Or a pure women creation contest for the US? I think it should be a general Destubathon but give the best prizes to editors who flesh out and create the most articles on women? Further thoughts please, but we can be relaxed about this over the next few weeks as the money is already there!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou Rosie, good speaking to you too. Might depend on how many people are willing to help run it. A general contest like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon is a lot of work to run without numbers, requires more judging work, but that covered all types of article improvement up to GA level. For me, given that we have 180,000 odd stubs, and already have a fair number of GAs and FAs for the US, we should make it the US Destubathon, but like with the Africa Destubathon allow new articles on women only, so you effectively cover both. Let's see general content improved for the US, and some of those existing poor quality bios on women cleaned up too. I would be willing to help draw up a core article list for the US in January-February with support, so you could probably find important articles to destub and cleanup and target those. So would benefit the Women in Green cause too. If we make it a Destubathon, a simple expansion requirement with 1.,5kb total prose etc, that's easier to check and judge, so if there's a lot of articles it's possible we could build in a rule in which editors have to check one article, rather like QPQ with DYK. Why not give a small prize for the editor who approves the most articles of other editors done in the contest?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
See my post below about the international contest happening in March and April. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Contests#Newly announced international contest The women you never meet I think by WiR linking all of these contests together all of them will benefit. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 and I spoke again about the WMDC contest, and we've nailed down a few particulars. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Though long term of course we really need to get existing articles destubbed and improved, I think for the inaugural contest it's best if we give the article creations the full throttle. $100 for each country and then $500 for each field of occupation. Perhaps reduce the expected prose to 750 char or 1 kb. 750 char I think would be more ideal for Africa in particular. Though we want to reduce stubs of course, there's good and bad stubs, cleanly written, well sourced 750 entries I think are just about acceptable. I just think we need to run a big contest first to see potentially how many articles could purely be created in 4-6 weeks. Obviously we expect the articles to be properly sourced and written, but if you run future contests then we'll split the prize money into new articles and destubs. So we'll get there eventually, but I really want to try running a pure article creation contest as the pilot one and see how many articles can be created globally.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott Thoughts? I'm not sure how many editors such a contest would really attract, but with the Destubathon I set 2000 articles as the target, and we reached that with 1.5 kb expected for Africa, which is tough to do a lot of the time. A full global contest with 750 kb min requirement and just new articles, possibly something like 5000-10,000 is achievable in 6 weeks on the larger scale and funding, not sure. We could try to set the bar at 10,000 new articles and see how it goes. Globally I think with the prizes planned, there's a way we could really do that. We'll have to generate a list of 10,000 articles we want created covering every country though. A way to enchance this might be to make it a contest with whoever creates the most articles out of given batch and reaches a certain number of bios for a given country first wins the prize. That gives the incentive then to max out production and encourage different editors to pick a country to work on and go for it. The issue there though is potential quality/paraphrasing issues. I think you really need to run a full throttle maximum impact article creation contest initially though to see how it goes!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Please copy it here then Ipigott as the others are going to commenting on this here as well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, made a decent start on this! Can you give me a list of the different main fields of occupation we're dealing with with women? Is there a way we could narrow it down to 10 primary fields of occupation for women or is that not enough? I was thinking something like $5000 divided by 10 to cover the occupation aspect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
So far I think
How about the above? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Manufacturing I don't think is as viable as one for Leadership and business, how about the above now?♦
Dr. Blofeld
18:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm convinced feminism (meaning women's rights, fighting for status, pioneering women's activities) deserves a slot of its own. I don't really think food and drink is so important; it falls within the other activities. You might consider a slot for other occupations: military, aviation, exploring, etc. The one we haven't mentioned and in which there is superlative interest is sports. So how about:
You might be able to find better headings but I think these represent the ten main slots. There will be grey areas between art and entertainment and between science and education. But all this could be explained. I think you're on the right track. We could also use these headings for editathons or whatever. What's missing is geographical/religious origins and ethnicity. Nothing for the Jews, eskimos, or aboriginees -- but these could no doubt be accommodated under the other headings?-- Ipigott ( talk) 18:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those are good, we can include Food and Drink in Art I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
No rush, but feel free sometime this week to further outline sub fields which would be included under each here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Food and Drink could also be an aspect of leadership. Maybe there should be an 11th category: "Other", to cater for anything unexpected. Many of the women in the BBC 100 Women would fall into this slot. Also many women who become famous because of news coverage on murders, rape and other crimes, spying, accidents, or because of their notability in travel, gardening, demonstrations, etc. There could be a way of combining participation in Other with that in the 10 main slots. I'll also try to participate in the discussions on the other pages addressing contests on Women.-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hors concours: Other (everything else)
Ipigott ( talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Ipigott: I decided to cut the minimum requirement to 750 char. The main reason is that in many developing world countries, particularly Africa, it's often tough to produce 1.5 kb. I tried a few during the Destubathon and it's often very tough. I think 750, maybe 1 kb should be the minimum requirement, but then you could have a larger prize at the end for "most start class articles created oiver 1.5 or something".♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep it at 750 char min, and then for the larger prizes make it a requirement that they're 1.5 kb or something, that would work, and also allow people to freely create. All articles would be expected to be formatted and written properly, even if shortish, so overall it would give women bios a massive boost.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The Challenge series combined, see Template:The 100,000 Challenge, has produced well over 7,000 articles in just a few months and with only three contests. The challenges motivate a lot of editors to produce content and see a body of work collecting. While it is true that many of the participants contributed anyway, the work coming in from all the regions demonstrates that there is interest for this in most areas and it's enjoyable. Now the current largest challenge is 50,000 for the United States, with the rough idea of 1000 for each state, though inevitably it won't work out like that as some states have a lot more activity than others. I believe the Challenges and the percentage bar is something which can motivate editors.
I think with the women project, if you keep in mind some contests, global in scope, then potentially you could have many new editors contributing articles. I think if we are to truly be ambitious but keep it within reach, at least within a few years, then we should set a 100,000 article long term for women. Make it 50,000 new articles, 50,000 destubs or 75,000 new articles and 25,000 destubs. Make it the main vehicle to get WIR to 20% + biographies on wikipedia. Having that percentage bar I think will motivate more people. If not, then a large scale contest is going to give the challenge a fuel boost. I think we roughly worked out that it would currently take up to 8 years at current rate to get us to over 20%, I want to try to aim to get us there in two years through this. I think it would be a fantastic thing to see women articles all numbered coming in, and a way editors can claim credit for them. for example . 467. Sheila Davis, new article by Penny Richards etc.
I think the 100,000 Challenge for Women would be the best way t0 cover both WIR and Women in Green, boosting new output and existing quality at the same time, which has been lacking from WIR, but something which badly needs development as there's so many stubs on women and important articles which are nowhere near the standard they should be. Two different percentage bars towards the 100,000, to separate excisting article entries from the missing ones.
Rosie, your contacts are increasingly globally. OK, if we set a 100,000 article target for English wiki, if we could somehow scale WIR to at least the top 50 wikipedias long term, no reason why we couldn't launch a global 1 million Challenge for women long term involving all languages and people regularly contributing towards the challenge and contests. We'd find a way of scooping all entries into one big master list. At present we lack the framework and coordination needed to launch something that big, but I think with this we need to create a momentum, and starting it on English wikipedia to start with is enough. Then you can start to get your contacts, particularly Spanish and French wikipedians working on their own challenges for their wikipedias. Then when we run a contest, these language wikipedias would participate and the entries done would be used to boost all of the challenges. Perhaps the idea of a global 1 million goal would be the motivator to get more wikipedias doing it and launching WIR and starting to work towards something huge worldwide.
I would love this to start in January 2017, but at present I don't think we have the support and contest infrastructure in place that we need to make it realistic. I think it's doable with a larger grant to fuel say 4 big contests a year, and have entries done for it feeding the challenge. I think we should wait on this now until we have the funding needed to run large scale contests which are run globally/regionally.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I initially proposed a Book Fund to WP:Africa a few months back but I still think it would be something valuable, particularly for women editing. As potentially there would be a lot of money to be earned from the contests, I think setting up a Book Fund for Women in Red would work well. People can donate any excess earnings they might not want and donate it to the WIR Book Fund. Books on demand can then be bought and handed out to editors on English wikipedia and any of the other wikis and sent to editors who need them to contribute to wikipedia. The book fund could also potentially support editors at editathons and give them working materials to be productive at the editathons and encourage them to continue contributing long term.
As we've seen with editathons and other things, sometimes running WIR can be tough, a lot of work to salvage and copyedit articles done by newbies. I suggest we build in aspects to the contest which are going to reduce the problems we'd otherwise get. If we're running a contest and there's an editathon being held that month, say by Art+Feminism, we build in some prizes for editors who expand the most stubs created by newbies/cleanup the most articles/help the most editors etc. That way we reduce AFDs, increase the quality of work, provide support to the other women groups, and send out a strong message to newbies than their work is appreciated and being cared for.
Please identify problems we encounter at WIR and discuss contests as a means of helping resolve them or reduce the problems which occur:
Recently a new international contest related to women was announced. Since WiR often works with these type of global events/contents, I wanted to draw your attention to it as planning is happening for WiR contents.
I think that this contest is relevant for future planning and coordination of WiR events next year as is Art+Feminism. (Excuse the dulipate post if it is already mentioned somewhere on this page.) Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Great to see an international contest, though might be tricky as there's a US one running about the same time I think, though there's a possibility of it being in April. Something like 1700 articles is excellent!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)