Wikinews talk:Writing contest

Contest Requirements

Does this mean one article per day on the average, or at least one article? What counts as a day (i.e. if I write one article at 00:01 one day, and at 23:59 the following day, is this one day still, even though it's been almost 48 hours)? -- IlyaHaykinson 00:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) One article per day, to make it easier to verify (and also to increase the chance that someone will actually win this thing, because it's easy to miss a day out).

2) I don't see why 00:01 => 23:59 would be almost 48 hours? We could just use the server time of the submission to count the dates.--Eloquence 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I meant, say, 00:01 on Monday and then 23:59 on Tuesday — there's still one article per day, but there's a span of 48 hrs between them. -- IlyaHaykinson 02:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Understood. I don't really see a reason why that shouldn't be allowed.--Eloquence

Ok. In that case we need to amend the instructions saying that there must be no more than one 48 hour gap between at most one pair of articles in the entire set (we need to allow for people's 00:01 being morning/noon/night, with the 48 hour gap being someone else's whole day. i.e. 00:01 for the author is actually 23:01 for the judge, thus it would appear that a whole day was skipped). There should also be a provision for wikidown days. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great Idea

Absolutely great idea Eloquence, hope this boosts contributions without damaging quality. Feel free to remove the gmail invite if someone actually donates something valuable. CGorman 21:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Special Circumstances

What happens if the database is locked for a few hours (as happened yesterday) or there is a site crash? Will an exception be made for that day, or will the lucky few who made early posts pre-crash only continue, or will there be a double article requirement for the following day? CGorman 18:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Hope you don't my altering the chapter title). i would like to expand this question a bit. Besides databse locks, i can think of a whole scale of circumstances which may disable a person from creating articles. A death in the family for instance, or a computer crash at home/work. But to answer my own question: I suggest anyone not able to publish explain himself as soon as he/she is once again able to, and the judges decide whether the reason is good enough. How's that? -- Redge (Talk) 20:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would say the following: Site downtime is a valid excuse. Personal reasons are only a valid excuse if they can be verified by the judge(s) -- that may seem a bit harsh, but a) we do want someone to eventually win the contest, so it's OK if people drop out, and b) it is too easy to make up unverifiable excuses ("The dog ate my homework").--Eloquence 21:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not the noble prize we are competing for here. I think that personal reasons validated or otherwise, are just too tricky. If you the site wont let you fine; if its any other reasons, oh well, it not like its that big a deal anyway. The bellman 10:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Escrow account?

Does anyone know of a reliable, reasonably-priced escrow service that we could use to hold the prize funds?

If not, would it be better to deposit prize funds with Eloquence for safe keeping?

If the amount of pledged prize money grows much more, it would give the contestants greater confidence knowing that there is a reliable and neutral third party holding the cash prizes in a safe place.

— DV 06:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to make sure the contest eventually ends with a winner

Before the contest begins, I propose that the contest should become more difficult after some period of time.

I'm concerned that certain participants may have more free time than they are letting on, and will easily be able to contribute an article a day indefinitely.

For all we know, there may even be one or two professionals signed up for this contest. :)

The prizes will become meaningless if it becomes apparent that no one will ever win.

How about if the contest is not over after one month, that the article requirement goes up by one, i.e. two articles per day the next month, three articles per day the third month, and so forth, for each additional month that the contest continues?

One article per day might be doable indefinitely, but adding one additional article per month would guarantee an eventual winner.

Doubling the requirement each month would be silly, as the requirement would grow too quickly, to 32 articles per day after only six months. A slower escalation in the number of required articles per day for each additional contest month is reasonable to achieve, yet will provide interest to the contest.

I will leave it to Eloquence to decide if he agrees with the merits of this suggestion, because he proposed this contest, but I thought I would float this idea ahead of time to avoid being accused of trying to change the rules after the contest has started. — DV 07:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the ultimate goal of the contest is to have more stories - not to have a winner. If it goes on indefinitely, then that would only be a good thing. It is an "iron man" competition. :) Probably the biggest cause of attrition is the 3-paragraphs of original reporting requirement. Just writing a compiled wire-type story every day won't be enough, we'll have to write ORIGINAL stories. -- Davodd | Talk 10:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Erm, just to be clear, this does not need to be original reporting. It needs to be original writing. This requirement is in there to prevent copy & pasting, even from public domain sources like Voice of America.--Eloquence 10:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Eloquence. So we can submit a compiled wire-type story, using original writing, once every day and still win?

The original reporting quotient on Wikinews is slowly rising, which is a good thing, so I hope there will be some of that even if most of us are simply rewriting stories from other news outlets.

Since Davodd seemed to think that submitting a compiled wire-type story each day was not sufficient to remain in the contest, perhaps the stated rules should make this point a bit more explicit, to make sure that everyone has the same expectations going in? — DV 10:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Could you edit the page accordingly?--Eloquence

I'm one of the contestants, so it's probably not a good idea for me to edit the rules so close to the entry deadline. I'm comfortable relying on your comments here on the talk page if you don't care to edit the rules yourself. After all, we're relying on you and Fuzheado to be fair and impartial judges.

The contest begins in 12 hours. Cheers, — DV 11:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though the contest has already started, I would like to give my thoughts. I would suggest leaving the requierments at one, and see how long this will go on. So what if it goes on forever? Imagine a reporter doing a study on the history of wikinews in 10 years, and finds this contest is still going. How cool is that? ;D -- Redge (Talk) 09:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it could motivate people to continue to contribute and be an incentive for more people to get involved. VF 10:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

well... so far so good.

well, we've had a massive increase in the daily number of articles so that's good. I know i know, its still early days, dont count youre chickens b4 they hatch etc etc. Still, what we've had so far looks preety good. The bellman 12:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed - more stories certainly = more traffic, look at the daily Alexa Traffic Ranking, its spiked up to 15,566 - compared to about 25k over the last month. CGorman 22:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Writing stories - story ideas - higher traffic

If you are at a loss of what to write, or are trying to write about something other than the latest political tragedy in Fillintheblankstan - here is a list of the most-popular search terms. They could be useful for, 1. providing ideas of what people on the net are looking for, and, 2. increase traffic and the profile of Wikinews:

• Google: http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
• Yahoo: http://buzz.yahoo.com/
• MSN Search: http://www.imagine-msn.com/insider/
• Ask Jeeves: http://sp.ask.com/docs/about/jeevesiq.html
• AOL search: http://hot.aol.com/hot/hot
• Lycos: http://50.lycos.com/

-- Davodd | Talk 22:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also ask all of you to help with Wikinews:Story propagation. I've submitted a couple of stories to Slashdot (both rejected), using &oldid= to refer to a specific version so that vandalism doesn't matter. Getting slashdotted a few times could make a substantial difference in terms of attracting long-term contributors. More tech and science stories would help with that.--Eloquence 23:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Winding down

With three contestants left, I'd like to suggest that we wind down this contest before starting the next one (see Wikinews:Original Reporting contest of May 2005). My proposal is as follows: From Monday, 0:00 UTC until Sunday (May 1), 0:00 UTC, all participants are asked to write as many stories as possible (with "story" being defined according to the established contest guidelines). On May 1, we will declare the winner based on who has written the most stories. The winner can decide to take any prizes they want, and to pass on any remaining prizes to the next contest.

I ask all the contestants to kindly state here whether they agree or disagree with this procedure.--Eloquence 02:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm a little worried that this plan will induce me to generate a lot of crappy stories, which is not exactly what we want. However, I would also like to end this before the original reporting contest starts. I suggest that Simeon and Alan drop out. No, seriously, I'm not sure what sort of reward structure would end this with dignity. Can we split the prizes three ways? Pingswept 04:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm .. I tend to agree with pingswept's viewpoint. I wouldn't like to glut up Wikinews with heaps of three-par stories written in a half-arsed way. But it may be what Eloquence's proposal would descend unto. And I wouldn't like to just give in if one of the other contestants fell to this level.

Perhaps if higher quality stories were demanded. But it really actually sounds very difficult, which is my main concern. The winner is likely to be the one who has the most free time, or is most able to skive off from 'real work'. Which seems unfair.

Perhaps a judgement could be made on who of the three has the best quality stories during this last week, maintaining the single-story per day limit? Although then this comes down to POV of the people asked to judge quality, and anyone objective enough to judge may not like being put into that situation, ie might be hard to find objective judges.

I haven't looked at the prize list recently, it seems like a cop-out, but I think perhaps pingswept's suggestion is the best option. - Simeon 07:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a tough choice Erik. The three finalists have all done an excellent job. Perhaps we could base 1st, 2nd and third on word count between now and monday? This would stop the incetive to create short but poorly written articles as opposed to well written, well sourced ones... only problem is it would be very difficult to calculate exactly how many words each writer has written! Any other suggestions anyone? → CGorman (Talk) 15:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from sunny Houston, home of the Lap-Dance Law! Pingswept and Simeon have both agreed to split the prizes. How 'bout they split 1/2 and I take the other half!

But really, there are three winners here and I am honored to be among them. If someone can do the math and divvy it all up (I will yield my share of G-mail invites since I have amassed a few of them already on my own) then I think we should continue thru the end of the month, one article a day as we have been doing. If one of us bows out before then, so be it. If we all survive, we split. --HiFlyer 15:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose that, assuming nobody drops out before May 1, the prizes are distributed as follows:

• Alan gets $50 from DV, a stolen possession of SJ's from me, and a postcard from Pingswept.
• Simeon gets $50 from DV, a stolen possession of SJ's from me, a postcard from Pingswept, and the Gmail invites.
• Pingswept gets $20 from Davodd and enough $CA from Amgine to total $50, and a postcard from the Bellman.
• DV and Odigity each pay the Wikimedia Foundation $41 ($1/day).
• The "strange, bizarre gift" gets sent by DV to Jimmy Wales on behalf of Wikinews.

Sound fair? Pingswept 20:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Much as I like reconciliatory solutions, I'd like to keep the competitive spirit going. So here's my proposal:

• As noted above, you all can write as many stories as you want in the final week and submit them here.
• The judges will grade each of these stories on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) (if multiple judges grade a story, the average is chosen).
• The person with the highest score at the end wins.

As judge, I would take into account how much effort has visibly gone into a story (e.g. original reporting will almost certainly get a higher score). I think this way we could address the quality issue.--Eloquence 20:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I knew putting my name down as a judge would pay off <rubs hands with glee!> ;) → CGorman (Talk) 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pingswept's offer

• I accept Pingswept's division of goodies, and would write one a day through the end of the month. Competition has been fun, but it's time to congratulate each other for a good job and wind down, IMO. --HiFlyer 14:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I agree to the division of booty suggested, although on condition that "a stolen possession of SJ's" does not consist of smelly sox, ageing fish heads ...

Re Eloquence's suggestion, vs wordcount, versus just stopping at the end of the month, I don't have a preference. I think that all three contestents should get something, but I don't mind whether there is a 1st 2nd 3rd place system, or an even split as suggested by pingswept for example.

Re how to do word count, simply cut and paste raw wikimarkup text of all the stories together from one entrant, and pass to the unix program 'wc' or some other standardised word counter, eg MS Word, as long as the same prog counts all entries, it shouldn't be too much work and will average out to 'fair'. - Simeon 16:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also I agree with my proposal. I'd rather save my energy for the OR contest than blow it all trying to defeat my comrades.

The "stolen possessions" are actually just pins that say "Ask me about Wikipedia." They're a little on the small side, so they're kind of hard to read. I'll see if I can get any extra Wikipedia posters advertising JWales' Harvard law school talk tomorrow too.

Eloquence, will you go along with this? Pingswept 17:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to go for a combination of grading (1-5) as described above with prizes for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place (the 1st place winner gets to express a preference on which prizes they'd like to have).--Eloquence 19:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The wikiway is based on wikilove, and what better demonstration than the sharing of prizes. ~The bellman | Smile 14:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be cosidered a tie, i.e. Pingswept cuts the cake as outlined, and we can stop today instead of running till the end of the month. I will still do my article a day contest or no contest...it's all about wikilove to me, too, thebellman ;-)) --HiFlyer 15:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few experimental grades to the stories so far. As I said, I'd like to end this in a competitive fashion, while still giving all three remaining contestants a prize. We can keep it at one story per day if you guys prefer that.--Eloquence 08:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Eloquence is judging entries, which is fine...as long as he remains aware that the contest I entered has no such requirements. It would not be nice to shift the goal posts on the last week of the 'contest,' and I would hope no such move is in the cards.

Simeon and I agreed with Pingswept to finish the week with one article each. If there is another contest going on in the background, I am the last to be aware of it...and once again...after a fairly grueling round of catch up, would find such a move arbitrary and unfair to all of us. --HiFlyer 15:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nor does the original contest have an ending date or a "the last three contestants split the prizes among themselves" rule. We make up the rules as we go along, trying to find consensus and compromise. Consensus among the contestants to share the prizes is not sufficient; this decision requires both the input and the agreement from the organizers and judges. The ultimate decision who gets a prize and who does not is of course one made by the judges, not the contestants.

Don't get me wrong: I think all of you did a great job, and I have no intention to lessen that. But this has always been a competition (with the original rules stating that the winner gets all, and nobody else gets anything), and I think an added competitive element in the final days is appropriate. To be clear, my proposal is a compromise between the original rules and your suggestion ("splitting the booty"). I suggest that there will be a ranking by the time the contest ends, and that all remaining entrants get a prize, but that the winners will get to choose what prizes to accept in the order of their ranking (which is based on the grading of the entries by the judges).--Eloquence 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Eloquence,

I am happy to stay with the original rules. No one needs to do me any favor by stopping early or "winding down." That was your suggestion to the last three of us. I think we accomodated your winding down request in quite a friendly manner, and still provided WN with our original promise of 1/day.

I would be very disappointed if you decided that our agreement didn't include you when it was your idea to come to an agreement. What are people to think in future contests? You will make decisions "as we go along?!?" Isn't that called "RIGGING" the contest?

As we Texans say, "that dog don't hunt."

I am good with the agreement reached at your prodding, or the contest can continue until there is only one left. But what you are doing is trying to hijack the rules to your own liking. That dog don't hunt, amigo.

I waited until the other guys had their say before I agreed to this split of a ooupla bucks and some postcards. You are showing you don't appreciate what we do or have done by jerry-rigging the end of the contest. Do you think any of us need $50 or some postcards that bad? This was a project I entered for FUN. I think we have performed quite remarkably and you are taking a lot of the FUN out of this for me. As a matter of fact, I value my associates who are in this contest to the point that I would offer for them to split the results NOW and blow the rest of it off. That would wind it down right now. If the other contestants agree, I would suggest that we not write any further contest articles starting right now--which was the essence of the original agreement between the authors. I think this may be addressed in chat. I'll see if I can find you there, although the other two guys may be asleep. --HiFlyer 23:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not communicate in this tone. I hereby resign as judge and will leave it to the remaining judges to find an appropriate end to the contest.--Eloquence 00:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motion to end the contest and divide prizes

I, --HiFlyer 15:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) , hereby motion that the contest be declared over and the winners, Pingswept, Simeon and HiFlyer (myself) divide gifts as previously agreed.

Do I have a second?

--- I second my own motion, as the dateline and deadline have passed. Congratulations to Pingswept and Simeon. And a special Hi-Hello to User:Eloquence who was only trying to make things more fun when the tone of the tune went sour for him :-( --HiFlyer 05:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Settling up

Per my pledge of a site donation and the above comments, I will add a public comment, "From Pingswept, Simeon, and HiFlyer on behalf of Wikinews." to a US$41 donation to Wikimedia (one dollar for each day of the contest), at the One time donation via PayPal page on the Wikimedia Foundation web site.

As for the other pledges I made, I'm confused from reading the above text about how to allocate the prize money that was supposed to go to the winner(s). Was the prize division suggested by Pingswept accepted, or was Eloquence's suggestion of having one winner with the highest "score" accepted? Eloquence resigned as a judge, so it appears that Pingswept's allocation of the prize winnings is accepted by default.

As for the strange and bizarre prize of my choosing - it is not stinky socks, nor is it a marital aid. The prize is a unique offering obtained from my travels overseas. However, it may be subject to import restrictions if you are overseas, depending upon your local laws and customs. I stand ready to mail this offering out to the first contestant to claim this prize. If no one wants it, I will withdraw the prize and offer it for the Original reporting contest.

(cc'd to each of the remaining writers) — DV 06:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hiflyer, Simeon, and I have all agreed to my proposal. If the remaining judge (CGorman, as Fuzheado seems to have disappeared) and the prize givers (Amgine, DV, me, the Bellman, and Odigity) agree, I suggest that we apply my proposal and get on with the OR contest. Pingswept 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Pingswept. After re-reading the details of your plan, I understand that Alan and Simeon split the US$100. I left a comment on HiFlyer's and Simeon's user talk pages, so hopefully they will check in on this page to affirm that agreement. To complete the above plan, HiFlyer and Simeon need to let me know how to get the payment to them (PayPal, wire transfer, bank check, money order, etc). To protect their privacy, I encourage HiFlyer and Simeon to e-mail the info I will need to make payment.

I went ahead and made a donation of US$41 to the Wikimedia Foundation, via PayPal, in all of your names. (Receipt ID upon request by e-mail.) The message sent with the donation reads, "From Pingswept, Simeon, and HiFlyer on behalf of English Wikinews."

Congratulations. — DV 08:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi DV...I agree to the dispersal as set by Pingswept. Please let me know by email if you need my mailing address...and thank you very much for being such a strong supporter of WN. --HiFlyer 17:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations for sticking with the contest for as long as you did, HiFlyer. I sent an e-mail to you requesting a mailing address or a PayPal contact. Please check your inbox. — DV 03:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Revival

Would there be any interest in starting a second writing contest? This had marked success in increasing article output, and I'd be really keen to participate a second time around. It looks like the planned original reporting contest never took off (not surprising, IMHO), but how about repeating the original? Ambi 12:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

People have expressed this interest, have you posted to the Wikinews:Water cooler too? Dan100 (Talk) 12:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Have now. Ambi 15:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll be in it. However I propose that there be some rule that allows for those who don't use the Internet on the weekend. Perhaps writing two articles in advance, i.e. allowing people to get into credit? Or even making the target 5 articles per week rather than 1 article per day? - Borofkin 23:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)