Grants:IdeaLab/Introduce reputation points and priveledges like in StackExchange

Introduce reputation points and privileges like in StackExchange
Reputation points could be added for constructive deeds such as "edit an article"; "create an article"; and probably by "+1"ing by others. Privileges like "write on a person's discussion page" are to be given to those who have enough reputation points.
idea creator
Eastern man
this project needs...
created on23:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Project idea edit

What is the problem you're trying to solve? edit

If properly implemented, a reputation-privileges-badges system can solve many problems, such as: preventing harassment, encouraging editing, and involvement, and probably learning some platform/community rules.

What is your solution? edit

It's rather simple: only people with enough privilege can add comments that might contain harassment. However, this would require them to take constructive action- which is a filter by itself. engaging in these activities, they risk subtraction by "-1"ing, to their reputation. This might look like: mods/high-reputation users who have the access to stop others, because they've earned enough reputation points to block lower reputation users, who may have started doing those nasty things.

However, the reputation-privileges-badges system must be designed first, because Wikipedia's goals and mechanics are different from those of StackExchange.

Goals edit

Get Involved edit

About the idea creator edit

I seldom edit Wiki, and this is partially due to problems with understanding some meta issues; I often use Stackoverflow and I have to admit, the reputation-privileges-badges system used there is quite efficient

Participants edit

Endorsements edit

  • It would be great if the people who volunteer so many hours of their time to improving Wikipedia, could get some kind of visible reward/recognition for their dedication. Zowayix001 (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK with that. Zezen (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding a karma-system, yes, adding privileges (rights) driven by karma, that is somewhat problematic. Some privileges (rights) like allowing someone to edit other users posts only after they reach a certain level is already partly done, but we have not turned it on. It is possible to do that for individual posts on Flow, but it would be limited to talk pages otherwise. — Jeblad 09:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've seen a few proposals like this now. I'm not familiar with StackExchange but I think that a system like this would appeal to the sort of person who likes to edit Wikipedia. However, we must be careful of this changing the culture in negative ways. I'd say, use a one-year trial program that automatically deletes itself unless renewed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reputation points are the ideal solution, other editors can see who is generally helpful and generally unhelpful. Those with low reputation can be monitored more closely and their protestations of good faith given less heed than those with high reputation. Most editors should be in positive reputation and those nuisance editors on minus reputation. I would not endorse any kind of automatic banning based upon a numerical score, this should be done only for specific serious misdemeanours or repetitive abuse. Szzuk (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the idea is worth pursuing, but I fear the positive point assignment can easily be stacked or "ballot-stuffed" by friends, much in the way FAC reviews are corruptible by cronyism. Only way to avert that that pops to my mind is to randomize the evaluation process. That is, you dont get to choose which user to evaluate (kind of like jury duty notice doesnt offer a choice of trial cases). This might not be much fun, because the random user picked may not contribute to any topic you're remotely interested in.
I think the way it should work is, a particular edit that gets a "thanks" should trigger point assessement, but randomly to some other user. A user isn't compelled to evaluate once he's chosen for this "jury duty", but neither is he allowed to evaluate any more new ones until he does the one he's sitting on.--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. A structured reputation and privilege system is absolutely necessary, and the lack thereof has wrecked and limited Wikipedia substantially. No social environment from a household or village on up, can exist without reputation. It's a power vacuum, which will be filled by something else. The dangers can be overcome, and a system can be soft-tested and unenforced as Flow has been, kind of like having SELinux enabled in logging mode.Smuckola (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerns/opposition edit

  • I think associating points with people's accounts could worsen the "elitist" culture of Wikipedia, turning it into a sort of popularity contest. It puts new users at an automatic disadvantage, especially if a new user is being harassed by a user who has a lot of points. I do think it would be helpful to be able to +1 or -1 individual edits/comments/etc. I believe that we could reward contributions rather than people. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an excellent point, @Nocowardsoulismine:. Does the harassment problem fall disproportionately on new editors? Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. We won't have accurate numbers on how many newbies have been harassed, if they don't stay long enough to tell us. With harassment as a first impression, limited knowledge of the system, and no support, it's no wonder we have such a small percentage of frequent editors.
It takes a certain amount of perseverance to be a regular editor. I, myself, tend to make small uncontroversial edits in parts of Wikipedia that aren't as frequented, because I don't feel like dealing with the arguments that tend to ensue on discussion pages. I've noticed that Wikipedia is less about consensus, than it is about who can "shout" the loudest.
The line between rude stubbornness and harassment is thin. Anything that gives more users a voice, while leveling the playing field among editors, rather than increasing the inequality among the unspoken "ranks", will help dismantle the culture of harassment. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed the same. I for one enjoy a spirited discussion, but yes the point of the project is that it must come down to facts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am concerned that not being able to edit other users' pages will limit new users from asking for help when they get started. I ended up asking a number of users for help after working on a relatively obscure section of Wikipedia--would I have gotten any reputation there which would allow me to ask for help later? The system is difficult enough to navigate as it is without more barriers for new users. M. A. Broussard (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an important point. A system of voting over a user might have this effect, while voting over a contribution does not have the same effect. It can also be counteracted by having a way to ask general questions, even if they are asked on the users own talk page. To solve that we need a kind of group call, or a knowledge management system that makes it possible to ask for specific knowledge. Aka to ask about #astrophysics or #vikings. — Jeblad 22:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've given this matter some more thought, and I've come to think that the disparity in power between established and new users and between users who focus on learning Wikipedia's internal systems and users interested in other things is part of the problem. This system sounds like fun, but I think it's more likely to make things worse than better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Expand your idea edit

Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.

Expand into a Rapid Grant
Expand into a Project Grant
(launching July 1st)