Talk:SummerWiki 2019

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Initial Main Page Talk

I am opening this early but if you're checking recent changes and what they are, you probably noticed that I "started" (well, without being pretentious, I'd say I have done quite a lot already) to prepare the field for an upcomming wiki event similar to JanuWiki2019. If you haven't give a look yet here are some links :

You'll notice that mainly it's missing two major things :

  • A name : I was thinking something as GodWiki's Summer 2019 or SummerWiki 2019 but if someone have a better name I'd take it gladly!
  • Dates : I was thinking about announcing officialy it on early June (yeah, i said i was early already!), then booting it on the 15th of June until 15th of August with the wrapping done between this date and the end of the month.

There is still some works to do like writing all the explanations (and maybe clearing up guidelines and the manual creators), but if we decide on a name, then I'd switch the content from my sandbox to it's own page so all willing to participate as a "reviewers/host/jury/whateverwecallthat" can help prepare a new event.

So don't hesitate to give feedback! Thanks in advances! --WardPhoenix (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking good so far WardPhoenix. SummerWiki 2019 has a nice ring to it, I can't think of anything better at the moment. Datewise, 2 months should be enough time to get a good amount of content created & allow for people to come and go over summer. -- S624 (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Well I'll wait a little to see if we go by that name or not, there is still time for that. Plus, I'd like to rewrite the whole GodWiki GuideBook/Creators Manual/Guidelines before throwing the event (started a talk on the Godwiki Guidebook by the way). Another question: does people have some ideas about Side Jobs? I have put some but apart the linking articles and the jury one, they are kinda plain for the moment. --WardPhoenix (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Summer is the season in which the largest influx of new users seems to arrive, do a theme for the event could be attempting to introduce new users to the wiki and getting users to write their first pages or complete their first edits. Not quite sure yet how this could be implemented, but the wiki could definitely benefit from wider attention. —Holy Spirit of Hell (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Decided to go with SummerWiki 2019 for the title. Page is on and this talk is moved--WardPhoenix (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Any volunteering is welcome!

Whether it's only for preparing the event page, for being part of the reviewing process of the event, being a judge or even a sponsor of the event, anyone is welcome to help! --WardPhoenix (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Happy to judge, happy to sponsor the interlinking side job event, happy to contribute prizes for the main event as desired.
If you would like me to sponsor the interlinking side job, may I put in the description of what it is and the requirements for it? --SourceRunner (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't force the sponsoring on anyone, if you want to sponsor that specific side job, I can hardly refuse! And you can obviously rewrite it as you wish, the line i let was merely a placeholder (and the score calculation was a possible exemple of judgement, it may have better ones). By the way, most of the writing of the event page is mere placeholding that need polishing by anyone wanting to contribute! --WardPhoenix (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Planning to write out the interlink side job soon... the survey of lore is getting slower, now that I'm going through the lists entry-by-entry, but it should be mostly ready for summer, if desired as a resource.
is there any chance I can also sponsor another side job for people who make sure to add whatever lore they write into their articles also gets added to the lore back pages that are likely to come out of this? --SourceRunner (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course you can! The current side job are merely placeholder (yeah "placeholder" is my new favorite word), and even if I was the one who booted up the event, you can obviously be bold and do changes! (And anyone else too!)

On a first side note: I'm still trying to think about what kind of other side jobs we could fit in but I'd prefer to avoid quantity side jobs (as "do X articles and get rewarded") and prefer quality side job ("best article for doing Y are rewarded") to avoid rushed articles. That's why even if I initially planned a reward for stubbed article but I'm still wondering if it will fit in the end.

On a second side note: The Creators Manual and useful Guidelines have been roughly updated. The only things that is needed a serious rewrite is the Rules and I have put a draft in the Talk:Rules. Since rules are kinda important, I didn't dare to be as bold as I might should have and I'd prefer a little feedback on the draft before put them live. --WardPhoenix (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

At this date I'd say the page seems quite ready. I'm gonna try to do a list of what remains to do:
  • One or two links missing (fixed when concerned page is up, I'm not worried about that)
  • Overall SPAG check.
  • Confirmation/Agreeing of Side Jobs tracking/jury/rewards
  • Confirmation/Agreeing of Dates
Don't hesitate to add something missing!
On a side note, I may be a little worried about having very few editors for the reviewing (only SourceRunner confirmed so far I think). --WardPhoenix (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
If no other editors are available, I can do it all. Don't worry about that. After putting together the lore block (which is now ready to go live), I'm not inclined to write for a bit, so can focus on editing.
However, I would venture that we haven't published to the Forum that the event is done planning and we are now in definite need of editors... it might help to bring in confirmations if we did that. --SourceRunner (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Brought up again in the Nautilus GC for editors this time (mentioned a few times for the event proper). Good luck with getting people. I can't commit to anything this time around at the moment but I'll see how things go. -- S624 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I will help out with editing/reviewing as my time allows. I hope also to contribute some new content :D -- Cham Almighty (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I volunteer to help with text editing! I'm not great at the formatting part but I'm good at spelling and grammar :) -- Amechania (talk)

Thx for answers, and for the advertising S624, it's always welcome. And thanks for the jobs you made already so far SourceRunner. Well it's true I haven't made any news since the one on the wiki question thread (which have gone pretty unnoticed) because i wanted to have everything set up before official announcement (Side jobs and dates I mean). So if you're agreeing on the current dates (We can see for the jury of side jobs later i guess), we can validate them and then go to a more official announcement of the event on the forums with a dedicated thread (different from wiki question ones to lure more people in). I can do that post when I got back in my computer after my sleep or do we wait a few more days ? After all the date of the start is at the 15th for now. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

SummerWiki Ending Talk

So, I'm belatedly rejoining the event conversation, having dropped off the planet halfway through JanuWiki, and then slunk back onto the scene in the twilight of SummerWiki. I think it's worth picking this thread back up, with a chance for folks to share observations.
First: SummerWiki was close to a one-man show, with WardPhoenix pulling almost all the weight. I mention this for two reasons: to publicly acknowledge, thank, and congratulate him for it, and to reinforce what I felt were necessary preconditions for JanuWiki: many hands making light work; and the importance of excitement and buy-in from many people early on.
User:WardPhoenix and I have chatted privately about the struggle to get SummerWiki rolling, but I invite him to add his thoughts and feelings about it here :)
I think we can continue to plan for future GodWiki events, and we now have two quite different events to base our planning on. We didn't get the same levels of involvement in SummerWiki as we did for JanuWiki, and that's important in informing our thinking about future events. Please comment or disagree with these observations of mine, and please note, these observations are done with benefit of hindsight and are definitely not intended in a spirit of criticism, but of shared learning:
  1. I think that the length of SummerWiki made it difficult to maintain excitement throughout the event. Having a one-month burst of productivity gave SummerWiki a sense of time-pressure and drama, I think.
  2. I think we were successful through SummerWiki in consistently drawing people across the wall (as I think of it) between the Godwiki and the rest of the game. I think we succeeded in two ways on that:
    • Keeping a bit of a carnival atmosphere going in the forum with updates and super positive messaging and wording
    • Creating a sense of competition among some guilds that led to some clusters of contribution from their members
  3. I think that these things are not as simple as they seem, and they take energy, attention, and time to do (to do right, or to do at all), and that's not trivial. So, having many active supporters and workers (from different guilds, time zones, backgrounds) was really key in the success. I think this contrasts strongly with WardPhoenix's experience with SumerWiki — I'm definitely not minimizing the impact of folks like Cham Almighty and other contributing editors from Help:Requests. But the absence of key driving personalities that made such a huge impact on JanuWiki was, I think, really felt during SummerWiki.
I would love for us to continue planning and executing Godwiki events, and learning these and other lessons will let us do that, I think. But please don't hesitate to contradict or criticise any of this if you disagree... -- Djonni (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd resume my opinion about this in a single sentence. Most Gods and Goddesses don't care much about the Godwiki. Then, if you want more details, I'd say that many advertising was done, here and on Talk:SummerWiki 2019, on forums (Thanks SourceRunner, S624 and Cham Almighty for that), game announcment (thx the dev), in godvoices. And basically almost no one outside of the active Godwiki users went in. So there was basically no excitement to maintain to begin with (and we decided 2 months so people had more time to write and in case of vacations), and those who say who'll help probably got caught up with life. So I'll conclude by saying that Summer wasn't the best time and that people doesn't want to contribute in general. It might sound salty, but after hours working on the event, for less than 15 articles done, I think I can be a little dissapointed with the community in general^^. It was probably also my fault for not being either in a major guild, or being a long-known player of the game. --WardPhoenix (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Um... I'm not sure if I'm overstepping any boundaries by talking here even though I'm really new compared to everyone here, but I really wanted to put my two cents in about the event. I actually disagree with User:WardPhoenix blaming himself for the event's failure. To be honest, I ended up doing the event almost entirely because he seemed rather passionate about putting this thing together! I'm not exactly the bravest person out there when it comes to interacting with others (especially the Internet), but seeing someone whole-heartedly doing his best to lead a creative event made me decide to give this whole Godwiki thing a shot - so basically, no, I have doubts that this 'lack of key personalities' thing had much to do with how SummerWiki went. Now, the other thing that User:Djonni pointed out (namely the time restraint}... Yeah, I think that was the biggest issue. Most people want to kick back and do something relaxing over the summer - anything with deadlines are the exact opposite of that. And that's my opinion on the whole thing. I'm starting to overshoot my own comfort zone at this point, so I'm just going to go and stop while I'm ahead. I really hope that I helped in any way, and sorry if I overstepped by talking on here. -- Arcanedreamer (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You totally have the right, as everyone here does, to participate in any talking of the GodWiki and it's really welcome to have any kind of constructive feedback or contribution (especially as we aren't many, as you noticed), so never hesitate to give your opinion or to contribute!. I'm also kind of new compared to someone as Djonni since I only really "joined" the GodWiki community with the JanuWiki 2019 event he started. I thank you for your kind words, if my commitment atleast manage to bring you there, it's a small but nice victory I'd say! I am agreeing with the time restriction as well, but I am repeating myself with my previous message. Atleast, now we know that doing an event in the summer is not a good idea, so we got that going for us which is nice. --WardPhoenix (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes! You are definitely welcome here Arcanedreamer, your voice and opinion is welcome and wanted! And I feel the same as WardPhoenix — if JanuWiki brought him to the wiki, and SummerWiki brought you, then both events were a success! There are other users that the events have brought into being more active to the wiki too, though we all go up and down in our participation over time, which is perfectly fine.
We have these conversations publicly for exactly this reason, the more voices the better. I think we all, and others as well, would love to see more fun events in future, so there's no such thing as too many contributors.
I've been a bit too busy for much wiki reading/editing this last week, but will add more soon. -- Djonni (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment VERY belatedly on this. Although I agreed to sign up as a reviewer (content editor) for SummerWiki, I was primarily stoked about the prospect of authoring fresh content. As SummerWiki went on, it became evident that although there were multiple names on the reviewer list, for quite some time I seemed to be the only person reviewing new articles. This became particularly frustrating when I could find no one to review my completed work on a core (admittedly lengthy) article about beasties. I was in a Catch-22: the article couldn't be marked as completed unless someone else reviewed it, but because I was the only active reviewer, by definition that couldn't happen! When I pointed this out, I was told to DM people on the writing volunteers list to ask them individually to review my piece. I did so, but didn't get any help that way. Finally, towards the end of SummerWiki someone new came on board and did a quick review (so it could finally be marked as completed), but by this time my motivation to participate further was dampened, to put it mildly. (Incidentally, I didn't think the particularly needed review - I edit for a living! - but this seems to be a fixed and immutable part of our procedure.)

It seems to me that part of the problem involved the term "Writing Volunteers". Some participants may assume that role means they will be authoring new content, not reviewing other people's. I think that title should be changed to "Review Volunteers" (or similar) to make the role clearer. If by some chance the title of Writing Volunteers involves conflation of new content AND review, the two roles should be explicitly separated.

Also, of course real life happens and volunteers can't carry out their roles, but they/we really need to update one's status (or remove one's name altogether) when that happens. Otherwise it can look like a lot of people are on board when comparatively few are actually active. We do need a critical mass of participants to make these events work, and to avoid overloading people like WardPhoenix. -- Cham Almighty (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you make a really good point there Cham Almighty. And I'll put my hand up to say I was someone who dropped out of editing JanuWiki, then rejoined the party for SummerWiki too late to make much impact or help out usefully.
Maintaining motivation and momentum, and finding ways to reinforce and support each other's motivation, is really important. I think it's one of the things that carried JanuWiki 2019 through the month successfully, was that we had enough people active at any time that nobody felt like they were working alone. I'm hoping to have the same for JanuWiki 2020 — if we don't have a lot of buy-in and enthusiasm, we might have to reconsider whether we should run the event this year.
On that note, it's probably time for us to do a spring clean of the volunteers listed at Help:Requests, actually, as I know that some or many are not active right now (at least, not on the wiki). I'll do that, leaving a short note on each user talk page inviting folks to re-add themselves as they wish. -- Djonni (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Spring clean done. Cham Almighty, I left you as you were on the list — still listed, but marked with Doing.png Not now... to indicate you're not currently an active editor. Obviously, feel free to adjust that any way you wish, especially if you'd like to be involved with JanuWiki. 😊 -- Djonni (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)