Wikinews talk:Writing contest 2023

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk pages[edit]

I'm leaving messages to inform about this contest on the talk page of each accredited reporter or reviewer active in the last year, along with a couple of other constructive editors active during that time (with the obvious exceptions of myself, Koavf, RockerballAustralia, and SVTCobra). Heavy Water (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfair advantage for reviewers[edit]

{{Flag}} I think, and perhaps this is a relic of a more rancorous period in Wikinews history, that assigning so many points for reviews (including one for simply ticking 'yes' or 'no') gives myself and other reviewers an unfair advantage and I would recommend this retroactively apply, that a nonspecific review gets no points, and a specific one gets one. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JJLiu112: No, I wrote that, actually. As you can see here, the 2013 contest considered reviewing "Other Wikinews community building"-not an accurate description and ignoring review's central role in the creation process. That contest assigned 0.5 points for detailed review feedback, an extra point if publishing an article with over 1,000 characters, and no points for all other reviews.
I increased the points for reviewing in the hopes of motivating reviewers; what I really didn't want was a few newbies to sign up and their articles to go stale for lack of reviewers, thus further souring them on Wikinews.
That said, we should note-except for SVTCobra, all users actively reviewing are also accredited. The rules require all accredited reporters' scores to be handicapped to 85% at the conclusion of the contest, inadvertently reducing those reviewers' scores. Heavy Water (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Koavf, RockerballAustralia, A Chinese ID, Johnson524, DRC-B5, SVTCobra, Gryllida: pinging all other contestants to hasten the discussion. Heavy Water (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could have two sets of results: one for reviewers, one for non-reviewers. Or we could just accept it as is. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to reply. Sounds good to me. JJLiu112 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem for me in this proposal. DRC-B5 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a good proposal to me. Johnson524 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There "proposal". I just outlined the current rules, as lifted from the previous contest. --Heavy Water (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's OK. A Chinese ID (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is a 'nonspecific review'? Gryllida (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gryllida: I was thinking of not-ready reviews of new users' articles that are vague and don't link to the appropriate policy, and also reviews where the reviewer edits a fair amount but doesn't use the review comments to teach and give feedback. These rules are vague, anyhow, as in previous contests. Heavy Water (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't be giving any points for those and would be questioning whether the reviewer is responsible. Gryllida (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I recognise my recent inactivity. I'll write an article now, and work on reviewing articles when I'm more available. Please excuse this, real life has been really busy. JJLiu112 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's ok @JJLiu112, I'm also busy in my real life but still contributing few. M:DRC (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good for you. I'm saying what I'm doing. JJLiu112 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]