• I seem to recall the WikiGrail is another example of wiki contests. Though it sadly appears to be dormant at the moment. Hopefully a member of WikiProject Christianity will revive it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also the Monthly DAB Challenge which is a friendly competition to see who can disambiguate the most links in a month. Except for once or twice there is no money in it, and then just a nominal amount. The contest structure has a way in which one can check to see if an editor is working constructively or not, and I've only been aware of a few people trying to game the system. Try it it's fun. SchreiberBike talk 22:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WPMILHIST is having a backlog drive this month (February) to focus on World War I articles ahead of the centennial of the start of the war. I'm participating primarily because there will be awards, regardless of the fact that I'm a history major and I've been a member of the WikiProject for months. I participated in the AfC drive that just ended as well as the GA drive because they're handing out awards, too. I've worked on articles like Rudy Boesch and Ernest C. Brace just because, but it's nice to have a barnstar or Wiki Chevrons to display for your hard work. Often real scholarship and research is too tiring to not have an incentive. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been my experience that people trying to notch up a high number of "Did you know?" main page mentions can be more annoying in creating or greatly expanding articles on subject that they know very little about... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This was the first time the Stub Contest was run, and it was not intended or predicted that mere re-rating would turn out to be easily the most effective strategy for gaining points. Next time the rules will I'm sure be adjusted, as the WikiCup ones have been many times. In any case, we do have '000s of "stubs" that aren't - partly I think because editors are reluctant to re-rate their own expansions, and these days no one else may come along to do it. I lost my inhibitions over that ages ago. I wasn't aware that there was a real problem with excessive/wrong re-rating, and the class criteria are somewhat subjective anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The total points awarded in the Stub Contest was 18324, of these 7250 (39.57%) were for sub-expansion with bonuses and 11074 (60.43%) were for re-rating. I think that these numbers are without some arithmetic mistakes that are seen in the current scoreboard. The ratio is approximately 40:60, so what is wrong with that? Snowman (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that over 99.9% of the rerating was valid. There will always be some grey areas and I am keen to open that up for discussion before the next running. Looking over the stubs I was fascinated by what folks found and expanded. Each contest I have resurrected I have done so for a reason. I have edited knee-deep in content for several years here and feel I have a sense of what our content is like and where it is being improved (or not). I saw many pages or broader material lying stagnant (apart from vandal reversion) for years, with main improvements restricted to GA, FA or DYK pushes alot of the time. The thoroughness of the FA (and to a lesser extent GA) processes means that broad/core articles are very difficult to buff to this level successfully. I resurrected the Core Contest as a means to lure folks in a fun way to attack some of these articles. The Stub contest I revived after noticing that the vast proportion of DYKs were new articles rather than expanded stubs, and sought to induce folks to do this. Also induce folks to work on larger unreferenced stubs that might be too ambitious to buff for a quick DYK. As an afterthought I tacked on the rerate, and was surprised by where the bulk of entries were.....but I think this was worth it as well. This has been a journey and an experience and I hope has brought some editors together to feel more part of a community. Sven's criticisms are valid and I hope he joins discussion on how to run the next contest (as I hope to run it again midyear).Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key fact is that the editor is not being paid by the subject of the article or someone with a conflict of interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great point, Ssilvers, I fully agree. --Hispalois (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that in the Gibraltarpedia contest, it was the Gibraltar Tourism Ministry who sponsored the prizes (the top prize being a trip to Gibraltar). Andreas JN466 22:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also ... The receipt of money outside of Wikipedia is not participating in Wikipedia. The money contract portion that controls paid editing is outside the consensus application of Wikipedia policy and procedure. Payment for edits is tied to a particular external interest and results in intractable positions on article content (at least as long as the money flows). Paid editors can double their earnings by covertly using two accounts to accomplish one goal, particularly where a middle person is between the payor and payee, and payors can increase the chance of successful results by paying two editors to accomplish one goal. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense, you mean, you don't like how they participate. I voted for the "bright line", but the failure to have consensus, means that the community would rather throw rocks than provide clear rules.

the deification of "policy and procedure" would be funny if it weren't so sad. will you now elevate policy over good relations with the Foundation, or the quality of Wikipedia? it's no wonder outsiders would pay others to edit, since the culture is so toxic and opaque. the trend is that only the paid editors will remain, to edit around the ideological admins. wikinews here we come. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:'( – all I've got to say. Cloudchased (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My kids hate Comic Sans too...what is it with that font?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloudchased:@Casliber: I don't see comic sans... I just see the default font. -Newyorkadam (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Mind you, I appreciated the pink, at least. Cloudchased (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloudchased: I don't see pink either... :o -Newyorkadam (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Newyorkadam We're talking about the graph. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 19:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh :P -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

I think that Sven was appropriate in starting a discussion on re-rating issues he noticed in this year's Stub Contest, which took place in December 2013. I think that it is important to add that he made his comments on re-rating on the first day of the contest. The resulting discussion was not prolonged; the discussion was started on 1 December 2013 and the last comment in the thread was made on 2 December 2013; see archived comments at Wikipedia_talk:Stub Contest/2013 archive#Problems with the reassessments done thus far. I think that Sven's comments may have helped to orientate some of the competitors as they began re-rating articles, as did much of the discussion about the contest at around that time. The contest may or may not have seen some teething problems; nevertheless, I think that the judges and competitors worked together with editing quality, fair application of the rules of the contest, and a element of fun at the front of their minds. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly were a lot of good re-ratings, but throughout the contest there were also reassessments that were made that I would have left as stubs (including two that I passed over and someone else re-rated later). Ultimately, it comes down to individual editors' perceptions as to the boundary between Stub and Start. Where I differ from my colleagues is in the application of the line "It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category" from the assessment guideline. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 20:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki had 48,830 fewer Stubs at the end of the 2013 Stub Contest than at at start of the contest. The contest scoreboard shows that 11,074 Stubs were re-rated at part of the competition (the current scoreboard has some arithmetic errors). Stubs were re-rated to a higher class or to Redirect, Disambiguation, List class and so on, because of all sorts of pages being wrongly classed as Stubs. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowmanradio: Don't forget ChrisGualtieri's re-rates. -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

I have not included those, because User ChrisGualtieri withdrew and deleted all his submitted re-rated articles from the competition and they do not appear on the scoreboard. I understand that a hefty proportion of the amendments that he did were the removal of the Stub template from articles that were already rated as a Stub in WP Banners on the relevant talk pages and that such amendments do not affect the total Stub count as calculated in the Signpost article. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowmanradio: I actually did include them in the count; note that the sentence says, "Overall, 48,830 articles were re-rated from stub to start (or higher)-class during the contest." It doesn't say that 11,074 stubs were re-rated in the contest, it just says that during the time span of the contest, 48,830 articles were re-rated. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

I am aware that the sentence in the Signpost article is referring to the reduction in the count of of all relevant WP banners on talk pages on the entire en-Wiki. My point on numbers is that the scoreboard for the contest recognised 11,074 re-rates, which I think would be a relevant number to use when talking about the what the Contest achieved. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]