FANDOM


(Add)
(Sure, why not?)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
#Breaking the habit of a lifetime, I know. Yes there will be people who will abuse the system, but if it encourages users to edit the wiki more often, then I'm all for it. {{User:Jeppo/sig}} 23:09, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 
#Breaking the habit of a lifetime, I know. Yes there will be people who will abuse the system, but if it encourages users to edit the wiki more often, then I'm all for it. {{User:Jeppo/sig}} 23:09, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 
#Because I like to <s>brag.</s> have my efforts rewarded with browser-slowing goodness. {{OavatosDK/sig}} 23:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 
#Because I like to <s>brag.</s> have my efforts rewarded with browser-slowing goodness. {{OavatosDK/sig}} 23:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  +
#I'm all for it, but I am pissed at whoever removed my Penny Arcade joke (you know the one). [[User:Exdeath64|Exdeath64]] 20:04, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
   
 
===Nah, it's fine.===
 
===Nah, it's fine.===

Revision as of 20:04, August 5, 2010

FFWiki forum logo
Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Wikia now has achievements


In what has got to certainly got to be the most novel addition to wikia, you can now enable achivements for your wiki. Read about it here:

Wikia Achievements Help page

Unlike so many other recent new additions, I'm not against this. For one thing, they didn't force it on us. Even if they did, I wouldn't mind because it's just some harmless fun that doesn't alter anything about the wiki (plus I love the concept of achievements and always welcome them being integrated into anything).

So yeah, little poll here. Shall we turn them on? Diablocon 21:23, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not?

  1. Seems like the Merit Award, or Barnstar, done right. BLUER一番 21:57, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Because we have failed to come up with a working award system. Having users recognize others for their work is awesome, but it's been tried and failed. People get lazy and don't look for great contributions, and don't nominate others for the awards we had. Because of that, right now the only means of recognition of great work on this wiki is to award one with modship, and even then, that's not saying much because of the nature of the position. There are plenty of users who deserve recognition for their hard work here, and sadly, will never get it. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 22:30, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Breaking the habit of a lifetime, I know. Yes there will be people who will abuse the system, but if it encourages users to edit the wiki more often, then I'm all for it. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:09, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Because I like to brag. have my efforts rewarded with browser-slowing goodness. 15px-358_icon.png 死の 15px-358_icon.png 23:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  5. I'm all for it, but I am pissed at whoever removed my Penny Arcade joke (you know the one). Exdeath64 20:04, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine.

  1. The concept for these is good. It could be a great way to motivate people to start editing things. However, a few things do bother me. Firsly, these awards would be displayed on the page. While this seems like common sense, I am wary as followed pages single-handedly screwed up the format of most userpages (that, and they were a dumb idea). Secondly, it could become competitive, with users making dumb edits to make the leaderboards. Also, these awards seem to be about editcount, and not contributions, which I don't like. So yeah, unsurprisingly, I'm against it. ScatheMote 21:49, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  2. No, at the beginning, everyone will be happy about it but later no one will give a crap about it so...no. TenzaZangetsu 22:51, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  3. I'm gonna agree with what Scathe said. --SilverCrono 22:55, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  4. No. I just learnt at #wikia that the thing only takes into account edit counts, as opposed to fewer but substantial edits. There's no justice in this being the only criterion being followed. Fëasindë te audio 00:10, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Agreed with Fae - it's not an even playing ground, and that'd bother me. I'm also anti-this-idea in general. They have a similar system on the God of War wiki and it's terrible. - Paramina 00:15, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  6. If it's based on only edit count then...well...eh? We already have the edit count in needlessly giant numbers on everyone's userpage. (Who has the most wins? :p)Keltainentoukokuu 00:47, August 5, 2010 (UTC)Keltainentoukokuu
  7. People above gave the arguments. I won't repeat them. KujaRhapsodos 02:35, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  8. The Merit Award system mostly failed because users were unwilling to nominate and recognize others' contributions. I think a system that just automatically measures edit counts and dispenses badges is worse. Actual people should offer praise for the work of their fellow editors, not a calculator. If we have a large amount of customization available, and could issue badges like "This user helped with the restoration of Revenant Wings location images" instead of "This user has achieved 1000 file edits", it would work, but I don't think that's possible. 8bit BlackMage 03:29, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Not that my opinion counts for much, but even as a newbie, I see issues with it. I have something over 300 edits now, but I have to say the lion's share of them have been small things, like spelling, grammar, and standardizing things like italics. Also, lots of questions. While I wouldn't call these things useless, they really don't compare to someone getting a guide and providing in-depth info on every monster and such. Just doing it by edit count doesn't reflect the quality of the edits and encourages elitism for people who've simply been around longer. Bluestarultor 04:27, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  10. The idea has credence, but users editing solely for rewards are editing for all the wrong reasons.  Armageddon11! Dissicon ff12 Gab2 11:42, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

T4HoL-Kuore
occu-27.png
Winterwolf ff1 psp
Talkbox.png
FFTA2-Chaos
Winterwolf ff1 psp
VIIBCKatanaM
ParaAvatar
occu-27.png
kainfinal.png
sd-hanako-c.png

Like Jeppo, I came from a forum background. Unlike Jeppo, I was completely against postcount based ranks at every forum I was at. I was also against reputation based ranks. The thing is, postcount ranks mean people with the more posts meant they would have a sort of authority. And most of them would have elitist attitudes anyway. And it is normal for people to seek higher ranks so they'd post more. And then the spammers would post loads and be a higher rank than those who actually contribute to discussions.

But edits its even worse, since there is a far easier way to rank how important an editcount is. Although, that's subject to personal opinion.

I could get a 1000 edits extremely quickly. I could decide that we should have a consistency and that all "Weak against" and "Resistant to" sections of enemy articles should read "Nothing", not "None" or "N/A". That's one edit to at least half (far more than half in reality) of our enemy articles. Then, all our enemy articles have additional problems, which I will try to change at the same time, but then I'll realise I forgot to do something for about a tenth of the articles. We have surely over 3000 enemy articles. So I'm suggesting I could do 1650 edits just by doing that.

To get to my point, those 1650 mainspace edits don't actually mean anything individually. As one, they are a minor contribution to the wiki. If I were to give this a worth, I would give it 3, because of the effort. Write an article as in-depth as Limit (Final Fantasy VII) (sorry, I just know how good it is since I wrote it myself) and it takes potentially one edit (though in reality a bit more for things I remember to add). So if I were to give it to worth, I would give it about 3.

And I'm sure people would argue the article is more important than the enemy-article consistency.

So yeah, editcount is a silly way to award users.

And people who don't care about editcounts think it doesn't reflect the meaning of the contribution of their edits, or anyone elses, since editcounts don't reflect meaningfulness of edits, just the superfluous amount of times they've had to his "Save page". 88.108.109.23 19:31, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.