Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge/Archive1

Actual money?

I stumbled across this from a mass message that was placed on one of the user talk pages that I watch. From that message it seems like the "prize money" is coming from the WMF. Is that correct? Did the person who authorized that know about the paid editing restriction in the Terms of Use? If you participate in this editathon with the potential for real money you would need to disclose that information in order to comply with the TOU. Am I understanding this correctly? Just want to make sure and perhaps the person who liaised with the WMF on this should double check with them. --Majora (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many contests with modest cash prizes, for example Wikipedia:The Core Contest, and this has not been a problem, if only because only the prize-winners get "paid". Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: That contest says it will be in store credit, not actual money. ~~and the last time it was done was in 2012. The restriction on paid editing was not placed into the TOU until 2014. So the example is a little apples to oranges in my opinion.~~ --Majora (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally misread that. But it still says store credit. Which is different from real money. --Majora (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a lot easier and cheaper to transfer small amounts internationally. I imagine these prizes will be vouchers too, but I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to emphasize the part of the TOU I am talking about. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. (Emphasis added) If you expect to receive paid compensation for this contest (which you would as that is the "prize") then you would have to disclose that you are a paid editor per the TOU. At least that is how I am reading the TOU. Could be wrong though. --Majora (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong yes, as it's not "paid editing". @Majora: Prizes would be Amazon vouchers and books which people in turn can use to buy books to further contribute to wikipedia. So it's constructive all around. There is a difference.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm not aware of any Amazon voucher (gift card?) program where you can limit it to books. And I'm certainly not aware of any program where you can limit it to only books that can be used to further contribute to Wikipedia. For all we know the "winner" will just go and buy a flat screen with their voucher. Constructive or not, this is clear paid editing by the definition laid out in the TOU that every editor agrees to every time they hit the save button. Who at the WMF authorized this? Is WMF-Legal aware of the fact that by authorizing this they have essentially agreed to begin paying editors for their contributions? By providing cash payouts for contributions, and large payouts at that, the WMF not only opens themselves up to further problems down the road but also raises the question of their safe harbor status. So, I ask again, who at the WMF authorized this and are they aware of the ramifications of doing so? --Majora (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "systemic bias" idea has always been flawed (in the sense of clashing directly with neutrality, which translates into Wikipedia's core duty of reliably representing rather than "deconstructing" any systemic bias that happens to exist in the world). Any argument of "systemic bias" is inherently political. So now Wikimedia has reached the stage where they spend donation money on their politics. This does not bode well at all. It's the usual near-sighted quest to "fix reality". This is the job of the activist, of course, but it breaks the project of Wikipedia at its very core because in order to keep documenting reality, Wikipedia as a project has to keep scrupulous distance from the constant and trivial temptation to fix reality. [edit: "things like wildlife and women". lol. you cannot make this up :D ] --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that the general coverage of Africa is poor and it could really use a significant boost in content. Not interested in politics, I'm interested in improving content. It's about time Africa was given more attention I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between incentivising people to improve Wikipedia in an area where Wikipedians and others consider it to be weak, and incentivising people to tilt Wikipedia in a particular direction. My view of this contest as it has been explained here and on the project page is that it falls on the acceptable side of the line. If people are really concerned and can see a problem that I don't then they are free to ask for uninvolved opinions at WP:COIN. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WereSpielChequers: This is not really a "normal" COIN matter. I'm going to assume good faith and believe that everyone that signs up for this already understand what is and isn't Wikipedia appropriate. This is a TOU matter and whether or not the prize constitutes paid editing requiring disclosure. If we aren't willing to enforce the TOU amongst ourselves what right do we have to insist that other, real paid editors, follow it? We can't be hypocrites or there is no point in pursuing any paid editor at all. --Majora (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is a "normal" COIN matter, COIN is the best noticeboard to seek a neutral third party opinion on this sort of matter. If the ruling there is that the rules need changing in order to comply then I would be surprised, but not following that ruling would be hypocrisy. I think it more likely that they would rule this as compliant with the TOU. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will participate in the drive, but stop at that. I ain't signing up for the contest. It's a good move, though. BroVic (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) BroVic (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specific user task (?)

"We encourage articles to be written and researched properly and then translated into other languages to benefit a lot of people across Africa and the wider world." So, what are we actually doing here? To collaboratively work on specific articles? Individually work on a specific article? Expand an article (e.g., North Africa -- oy vey!), or create a new ones? Translate a specific article, individually or collectively? Thanks. Prburley (talk)

Everything, from missing articles, destubbing and cleanup to core article improvements. Anybody can work on anything, though to win the top prize it's going to require work on multiple articles. Generally aiming to improve quality of coverage. North Africa will be on the core list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this together! I can't actually be in a contest because of my job. I am at a library with one of the largest collections of African print materials anywhere, so hopefully that's a resource. Prburley (talk)

People can choose to contribute in the contest to win prizes or just edit as part of an editathon without "rules". Any material contributed by anybody is welcome!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Africa

I'm see a lot of support emerging for Southern Africa, even though it would probably the last one I'd do. Would we rather start with Southern Africa first then? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should start with North Africa, which is much in the news, and have those signed up vote on which area to work on next, perhaps in January.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to the contest

How would an interested editor contribute money to this contest?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dthomsen8 What do you mean, help contribute to the prize fund?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sending a check to WMF earmarked for this contest.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dthomsen8: Depends on how much it is? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least $200.00 US, maybe more. Oh, and is there recognition, or requests for others to contribute?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's generous of you! I'm due to speak to WM and WMUK about the Africa contests in the next few days so I will mention this. I'm sure it would be mentioned somewhere. The $200 could be the bonus for doing the most women destubs or something. We'll need really good funding for Africa I think to attract new editors as it's an area which a lot of editors on here wouldn't be interested in in normal editing. We need to change that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator needed

The proposal isn't going very well at the moment. We need the support of a few coordinators within Africa I think. If there's anybody here who lives in northern Africa and would be willing to be one of the coordinators of this inaugural Northern Africa challenge please contact me, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's not going well, and what do you need from a coordinator(s)? Thanks! Prburley (talk)

The grant request. WM believe that a few coordinators in Africa are needed before they can approve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the discussion there. I think they're the wrong questions for this particular grant/project. Guiding participants to primary/secondary resources is a real issue, and perhaps one that we could make progress on. Finding local contacts in places like Western Sahara or Eritrea: that's not going to happen, and shouldn't be considered as part of the grant. Prburley (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, which is why I was surprised to see that initially!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll volunteer to be a coordinator or resource person. I can't actually compete in the contest b/c of my work.Prburley (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Core articles

Hi, though Wikimedia have been very quiet so far in responding to the grant request I think given the level of support here somebody would be willing to fund something towards this. If we could build some core article lists in preparation for North Africa first. Start the pages of the red links in Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Core articles by country. Base the lists roughly on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Core articles by topic, but probably less articles I'd imagine. Embolden the really core articles in bold, you know, Algeria for instance Economy of Algeria, Algiers etc and leave others normal. I'll be taking a wikibreak for a week or two in a few days so I'll resume with this later in the month, hopefully some of the editors here can start building some decent starter lists and help out, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these core lists will immediately benefit African editors on what to really focus on with quality improvements long term anyway, feel free anybody to also start lists for other regions of Africa and countries. If we can try to follow the format of the Algerian list I've started that would be great. We can put a link up to the core article directory on the main WP:Africa page once more lists develop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping

Hi everybody. Based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK and Ireland and the level of support here and the obvious gradual increase in numbers editing African articles, I've revised the contest series into a permanent ongoing challenge to improve or create 10,000 articles for the continent long term. The planned contests will still hopefully go ahead, but will be tools towards makign reaching the target more realistic and increase output. Everybody feel free to start list articles you've edited and improved recently to the bottom of the page. So this is now open, hope people find this enjoyable. Obviously it's going to take a long time to reach to target but it's achieveable over time, and I do believe that wikipedia is around to stay and that our editorial base will only increase over time. I thought 10,000 would be more ambitious than 1000 or 5000 as if you look at the sheer size of Africa compared to the UK, it needs to be the same goal!

If you have signed up, don't feel obligated to have to contribute all the time to this. A couple of articles from a few different people all count. At the end of the day contributing has to be enjoyable and rewarding. I hope that being able to display articles you edit and gain credit for them will give people more motivation, and that every article improvement or creation really counts towards the bigger picture!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such a talkative lot... ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different language wikis

Is it possible to participe in the contest on other wikipedias and to the pages edited here?Munci (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why not? They all badly need development and anything which encourages that. We could set an initial 1000 articles goal separately at the bottom for other language wikis combined and keep the 10,000 target for just English wiki.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: your suggestion looks good. --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French, Arabic, Afrikaans, Yoruba and Swahili spring to mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: You might wanna let this Yoruba editor know on his talk page. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That can work. I can imagine something even more ambitous, where several thousand articles are attributed to each country and each language but that's still something. My Malagasy needs some work before it's still so my edits there will be minor; I'll concentrate more on the French, German, Scots and English versions; languages I know better. Would adding to the Réunion Creole incubated wiki [1] also count? On a tangential note, could Réunion be added to East Africa by any chance? Munci (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and any other east African islands. I don't speak any of these languages so if anybody here does have language proficiency if you could alert others this would be great.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwa2Chainz, I have to say that's it's frustrating that you don't respond when spoken to or thank people. I created that Seychelles barnstar especially for you for instance and not a word of appreciation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Can I just make something very clear? I've been involved with African content on here since 2006 and did a lot to help start many of the African wikiprojects. I've not been so active in this area the past few years because of a range of commitments on here which steal my time. But I am pleasantly surprised that there has been a great organizational effort here to create contests like the women one to try to counteract systematic bias and high quality articles consistently coming in in recent years. I just want to say that my last intention here is to try to "compete" with a previous contest, "steal the thunder of the organizers of it", "pass work produced towards that as my own" or act as if I'm trying to be the "saviour" of the African content situation. It's very clear that a movement is already well underway to improve content for Africa and motivate people to edit. This is a part of that, and way to scale this movement so it benefits every country on the continent and for every topic, based on a principle which has really worked for the UK. The reason why I decided to include articles created from July was because that was when this started as a contest proposal and in good faith I thought it might be more productive here if we counted the good articles produced during the women contest to another purpose long term and inspire people to create. I wanted those articles to count towards this and make reaching the goal of 10,000 article improvements easier.

I would really like universal support from coordinators and contributors in Africa on this, and to see how successful the British contests and article output has been and to do this for Africa. I could not give a rat's ass about taking credit for this, and the last thing I want to seem like I'm doing is "invading somebody's turf" or trying to "compete" with previous contests or those who've organized them. So please keep this in mind, this could be a tremendous success if it was publicized and fully supported. Past coordinators of Wiki women and other events are perfectly welcome to take administrative control of this if she wish, I'm just trying to help set this on its way. If the slow response from Wikimedia on this is because some people within Africa have objected then go ahead and take responsibility for this, I'm genuinely trying to help set this on its way and I know what works. User:Islahaddow, User:Anthere and User:Oluwa2Chainz, we need all your support on this to make this work, We need everybody. If you want to take responsibility for promoting this, you're quite welcome. This is something which eventually I'd like to see with African contributors being in the majority and producing most of the content towards this, but it needs to start somewhere, and we need something to attract editors and contribute and show what is being done together to improve wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting afresh

As more people seem to want this reset I've made it strictly starting from September. Hope I've not removed anything done recently by accident! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]