User:WereSpielChequers/Awards proposal
The following is a draft working towards a proposal for adoption as a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal. |
This request for comment is to seek feedback on three potential reforms to the Wikipedia:Service awards, specifically to the metals used for the medals. As the Wikimedia Foundation looks for justifications for its fundraising success, and the movement is looking to pivot from a decade long focus on recruiting new editors to an attempt to retain more of our existing editors. Obviously one part of this is the need to build on the existing long service award system, and fill in the missing step of actually making these medals and awarding them. It also solves the existing problems that Bronze is an alloy, Iron rusts and why does Rhodium come up three times? Also we have practical problems as many of the metals involved are fictional. Some of these metals are not licensed under an open source, and not all of them are currently in production. So we need to tidy up this system with some metals that really exist (albeit briefly and in rather small quantities).
As per the following table we have two very different proposals for new metals, One giving a first commercial use for many new transuranic elements, the other creating a logical link between service length and half life.
Both proposals have the advantage that for many of these metals this would be the first practical use of this substance - which should let us fill out some relevant Wikipedia articles once the press picks up on this. More to the point, not only would this project be expensive enough to justify the continued existence of the WMF fundraising team, the necessary investment should usefully reflate the global economy.
This request for comment is seeking consensus as to which proposal we should implement, 1 and 2 are alternatives, 3 is a logical extension to option 2 but could be combined with 1.
Option 1 - the transuranic elements
[edit]This proposal would standardise the metals for elements by sourcing all new awards from the periodic table, specifically the upper end. Most of these elements are suitably dense for medal purposes, and many have a natural glow to them. The vexed issue of when to announce a new service level award would be solved by issuing one whenever a new element is first made. The new interval being scientifically determined by the difference in time between the first edit on Wikipedia and the discovery of the new element.
Support standardising long service awards to transuranic elements
[edit]Oppose transuranic
[edit]Discuss transuranic proposal
[edit]Option 2 use elements with commensurate halflives
[edit]This proposal would put the award system on to a sound scientific basis by basing new award levels on the commensurate half life. Unfortunately there isn't an exact fit between all current levels and suitable elements. Though Ruthenium-106 is a near natural for the one year award, or at least would be with a modest (and usefully climate change mitigating) boost to Earth's orbit. However future levels would simply be triggered by reaching the next half life. Would these medals be distinctive and suitably weighty? True many of them will eventually decay to lead, but when first awarded they should really glow. Is this proposal future proof? Even when the Foundation has loaded Wikipedia onto Von Neuman Machines and sent copies out across the galaxy, those editors who have chosen to be uploaded as AI editors after death will still qualify for long service awards for thousands of millions of years into the future.
Sadly some of the table entries are quite a long way from the commensurate service length, if anyone can track down a more appropriate radioisotope please upload the table, and of course the source.
Support Option 2 the halflife proposal
[edit]Oppose Option 2 the halflife proposal
[edit]Discuss Option 2 halflives
[edit]Option 3 redesign on the assumption that Wikipedia will be around for quite a while
[edit]Up to now the awards system has grown with Wikipedia. Every year or two we look around and see that Wikipedia still exists, pinch ourselves, realise that there are now people who might soon qualify for a new award, and respond by creating a new award level. There is some charm in this method, but it has created anomalies such as the overly early use of mithril, and excessive use of coffee cup stains and post it notes from Jimbo. Reworking the existing award medal system to use isotopes of commensurate half life gives us a logical extension path, not just for the near future as the adolescent admins of the mid 2000s become the middle aged editors of the Wikipedia of 2030, but the empty nesters of the 2050s, the retirees of the 2060s, the carehome keyboarders of the 2090s and after uploading, the cyborg stewards of the 2100s. linking the award system to the list of radioactive isotopes gives us clarity and foresight with a system that will work from now to the heatdeath of the universe, and beyond!
Support Option 3 - Futureproofing
[edit]Oppose Option 3 - Futureproofing
[edit]Discuss Option 3 - Futureproofing
[edit]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).