Talk:TED conferences/TED speakers challenge/Lessons learned

For the record, here is the code for a Listeria list of TED speakers: {{Wikidata list |sparql=SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P2611 ?sub1 } |section= |sort=label |columns=P18,label:Title,description,P106,P569,P21,P27,P2611,item |thumb=128 |min_section= }} ... {{Wikidata list end}}

Point system

I hope that one of the lessons learned will be that the point system is unfair to writers who have to do significantly more effort to get points. Like uploading a file and using it in 8 different articles and claiming 8 x 4 points is a bit over the top. I hope, that in the future TED will use a point system that encourages writing articles more than the current system and doesn’t give people who spend a few minutes adding photographs un unfair advantage. Natuur12 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Of course with an eye towards future challenges it would be nice to set up a standard points system that is inclusive to all projects (Wikipedia/Commons/Wikidata etc) without seeming unfair. I am very interested in setting up a page on Outreach for use by anyone trying to setup their own writing challenge. The Dutch Wikipedia has lots of experience with writing challenges, but not so much with cross-project points. I do think a picture says a 1,000 words so getting those linked to existing pages is a pretty high priority in my opinion. When I set up that page on points systems I will link to it from here. Jane023 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I can agree that adding images (even not uploading, just finding articles in obscure languages and adding existing images) was an easy way to get points. I feel that additions to Wikidata were properly valuated, not as easy as for images. I resorted to writing articles (11 of them got me 7th place). I see a future problem here with Wikidata coming to infoboxes. Usually infobox is an "easy" wat to get more bytes, but with Wikidata powered infoboxes they are becoming way shorter. In the future I suggest counting just base text (need to have easy to use tool for that). To find topics I took a look at your list, but I also wrote a query to find TED female speakers ordered by interwiki links.--Papuass (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oooh - love that query, thanks! I was a bit puzzled until I saw "Lilija Tomlina" and realized I was looking at the names in Latvian. Glad to hear you used my list at all! When you say topics do you mean that you were looking at the talks list? About the infoboxes I was under the impression once included the text is copied, so it will count. As far as "getting points for text you didn't technically write" I disagree, because you do check them when the template is created and that is at least as important, I think. --Jane023 (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Local coordinators

Take a look at Europeana 280 where Liam worked with local coordinators to improve reach in specific countries. It was not equal effort in all countries and required a special prize in each country, but it proved to be successful. Additionaly it was included as a part of CEE Spring competition. --Papuass (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that comment and I totally agree. I guess because I participated in the Art History challenge and saw that several coordinators did nothing, it didn't occur to me to spend any time setting this up. I realize now that was a mistake (and I discussed this with a few people at Wikimania, but of course by then it was too late). This is one of the things I wanted to discuss with my local WMNL chapter because I also see a role for them in retweeting and reposting on facebook etc. --Jane023 (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)