Talk:JanuWiki 2019

From GodWiki
Revision as of 16:46, 24 February 2019 by Beausoleil (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the JanuWiki 2019 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
  • Opinionated research if possible
  • Neutral point of view when appropriate
  • Humour
  • Verifiability
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Do not bite the newcomers
  • Respond in a mature manner
  • Be welcoming
  • Maintain civility at all times

This page has an archive

Old and/or inactive discussions have been moved to the /Archive subpage.

The original proposal and discussion from Talk:Main Page can be found at Talk:JanuWiki 2019/Archive.

The original discussions of Side Job rewards from this page can be found at Talk:JanuWiki 2019/Archive.

JanuWiki 2019 Current Status

Survey.pngCanvassing done
Just a quick note that I just did some discussion canvassing via talk page message to all 12 13 event participants (based on their having earned event points for content, or participated in reviews), other than the three of us already involved in this discussion. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • After-action/post-mortem discussion may commence at anyone's discretion.

First of all, thank you, everyone, for every effort you've made to bring JanuWiki to a successful close. I don't think it would have worked without all of us.
Before I forget in all of the happiness of jobs well done, I wanted to bring up a few concerns about this time through JanuWiki:
1. There were no Side Jobs or rewards acknowledging the work of the people who created the templates and the article starters. That's a severe lack we need to remedy next time.
2. Is there anything we need to worry about in some of the copyright infringements for imagery from this time? It's... not entirely ethical, and it might open Godville to some form of legal censure.
Otherwise, wow!! This was awesome!--SourceRunner (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I was checking in periodically to see how it was going, and it was one crazy ride.
You guys are awesome for setting up the content drive and then following through to the end! Good job! -- Wanamingo (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Likewise, Wanamingo. Several of us saw you working on perfecting articles behind the scenes. Good job, to you, too, and thanks for your work! --SourceRunner (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a team work, let's try doing even better next time!

  • 1 : Can't argue against that.
  • 2: This is a thing we can hardly do something about i'd say. We can't track every existing picture on the wiki to know if they have a copyright or not (it is supposed to be something the uploader should care about, even if it's not easy). I guess that if there is an issue for a picture, the picture will just be deleted from the GodWiki one way or another.

In term of short-term concern I have

  • 3: JanuWiki nav-box : should we delete it from every concerned post or leave it as a memento?
  • 4: Archiving the event page. Maybe we should have a "GodWiki events" page and/or category from which we could archive the events one way or another, also opening the opportunity to have a talk page for potential events.

There is a lot of things to see for upcomming events, but i don't thinks it's more long-term concerns (less "urgent") to have a healthy environnement for the future.

  • 5: Having all main templates (Artifact/monster/Equipment/Town and maybe Skills/Taverns/Places) up-to date and applied on already existing concerned articles (already started)
  • 6: Categorise every page (put in my to-do list don't worry)
  • 7: Fixing the issue of the potential errors of lists, as it may have some issues with dupes/spellings (see my talk page), necessary to apply my point n°8 below.

And for the future events themselves:

  • 8: Maybe avoiding a list of articles like that was made. People tends to not looks at others potentials articles other than those in the list. Maybe we should instead put "There the list of stubs/Picture missing/articles missing/etc, and keep the themes for the sides jobs.
  • 9: More advertising! Even a offer of 250 charges didn't made the Harvest Moon members move, probably because it went under the radar.
  • 10: Separate writing time and reviewing time, so reviewers don't have to sacrifice their own articles to reviews others'.

That's all I can think about for now.--WardPhoenix (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding #3, it would be nice to leave the box as a memento. Maybe collapsed, so that it doesn't distract from navigation boxes at the bottoms of some articles, but still present. It's a cool piece of GodWiki history to have around. "Hey, this article was created during the 2019 JanuWiki. Wasn't that the first content drive?"
Regarding #4... me a pessimist, but I'm inclined for there to actually have been multiple events before there is a page meant to hold a record of multiple events. We have a couple of relic threads in the forums that were supposed to hold lots of iterations of a certain event but never did, and they always strike me as a little sad.
Regarding #9, more advertisement makes sense, or maybe continuing advertisement. I did not advertise in threads more than once because my guild's whole ethos is "don't make drama, don't draw drama," so possibly harassing other guilds is not something I do. (As for Harvest Moon, that one I did only with great reluctance because it had a high potential of drawing trolls rather than results. HP4M was a major blessing badass, stepping up to head off the harvest guard for me with the offer to sponsor a side job.) But maybe if we had multiple shifts of advertisers and a specific round of threads to hit multiple times, it would work better.
  • 11: What do you guys think of a little medal graphic to put at the end of articles that won in side jobs? Something tiny, like the "not now" clock graphics.
Continuing to noodle this stuff over. --SourceRunner (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is already producing a lot of great feedback, hopefully we can get more of the event participants to join in. I'll try to do a little canvassing via talk-page message, to encourage them to join the discussion. Let's see,in order...

#1: Sort of by definition that kind of stuff has to happen outside the bounds of the event itself, so it could be a little tricky to define logistically. The event stuff was mostly created (intentionally) to be reusable for future events, so even that was approached as behind-the-scenes / non-specific work. And for {{Navbox JanuWiki 2019}}, the only truly event-specific template, as well as logistics pages like JanuWiki 2019 itself, keeping those updated became a group effort, and everyone pitched in.

I do feel like something should be done to acknowledge Djonni, specifically, for conceiving and organizing the entire thing. (Despite modest protestations to the contrary, it really was completely 100% him. My contributions consisted of a couple of Eureka! moments [the pre-fill boilerplate, the article-creation links that used them], and a lot of poking holes in his stuff — in the interest of making it even more awesomer, of course.) But he's not here, so whatever we might do feels kind of flat... like throwing a party without the guest of honor. I suppose we could still just do something anyway, and hope he resurfaces to see it at some point.

#2: That's an issue I've thought about numerous times, but I don't think there are really any issues there specific to the (or a) content event. Those issues are ones that affect all GodWiki content no matter when it's created.

In general, I feel WardPhoenix has it right: there's little we can do about it — it's entirely in the hands of the Godville admins. (Which I guess makes sense, as they'd also be the only ones held liable for any issues.) For the most part, they seem to explicitly avoid addressing the issue. All content-licensing options were removed from the License selector in Special:Upload, so we couldn't register which content is covered by a valid reuse license even if we wanted to. (I have wanted to, several times in the past!) Creators Manual#Images, Rules, none of them make any mention of copyright/licensing, in fact it feels like they studiously avoid addressing the topic.
The only place this ever does get addressed is in the Godville TOS, which says:

Some elements of works of literature, cinema, folklore and other sources might be used in the Game. The usage of characters, plots, names of geographical objects, artifacts, including fictional ones, and other content is entirely and only for the purpose of parody, and is not in any way intended to cause harm to objects protected by copyright, or to incite racial, religious, gender or any other form of discrimination. If you believe that your copyrighted work has been copied without your authorization and is available on or in this game in a way that may constitute copyright infringement, you may provide a notice of your claim by sending us an email to the following address:

So that's kind of that. They're relying on a parody / fair-use defense against any claims of infringement, and they offer to remove content if asked. #WordOfGod on that topic, I guess.

#3: I think it's fine to leave it for now. Long-term I'm not so sure, but even if we do decide to remove it editing the template to output nothing is easier than editing 50-, 60-something pages to do it.

I did just go in and change the default state to collapsed (which can still be overridden on an individual basis with {{Navbox JanuWiki 2019|state=expanded}}), and I removed all of the decorative "clutter" from the title line. If there are no objections, I'll plan to go in again and remove all of the Complete article, 📷 Picture required, etc. housekeeping stuff as well.
Longer-term, I alway argue these questions from the same position: It's important to keep in mind the purpose of a navbox, which Wikipedia clearly lays out in WP:NAV: A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." Now, during the event, these articles were very much related, and it made sense to connect them all via the navbox. But, longer-term, are Ancient cork and Meowntain Cat really related simply by virtue of both being products of the event? Seems dubious to me.
It might make more sense to create a Category for "Content created for JanuWiki 2019" or whatever, and place all of the relevant articles into that. (Which the navbox template could be made to do automatically, either instead of or in addition to displaying the navbox itself.) Adding additional categories to an article doesn't eat up any real space on the page, not the way a Navbox does — to say nothing of the additional HTML footprint the navbox creates on each page, which is massive even in the default-collapsed state.
Jumping forward to include #11, there's also the possibility of incorporating the "memento" concept into that sort of thing. If we're talking about the addition of any kind of visual indicator for JanuWiki articles that received particular honors, the two could be combined, with a "JanuWiki memento" marker added to all of the pages, and those additional awards displayed by/in that marker. (It could also link somewhere useful, perhaps even the current Navbox @ its Template page in expanded state.)

#4: This is actually something Djonni and I considered at each step of the event planning, and all of our decisions took permanence/disposition into account. You decide whether you think we made the right calls on all of that, but there has always been a plan for everything going forward.

The JanuWiki 2019 page should stay right where it is, as it is. Nothing needs to be done with it at all. It exists as the lasting record of that particular event. (Ditto its Talk and Talk:/Archive pages.) Future events would similarly have pages created around which they'd be organized. The event Navbox was also meant to remain dedicated to that particular event.
The preload texts used for article creation were all created as subpages of the event page — JanuWiki 2019/Monster preload, JanuWiki 2019/Equipment preload, etc. This was done with the assumption that their contents would likely be specific to the event structure. It's certainly possible that preload texts could be made more generic, but since we currently haven't come up with any ideas for how we could use them except during targeted creation events, it's kind of neither here nor there. Anyway, they'd remain with the event, and if new ones are needed for future events, they'd be created, possibly reusing some of the existing ones, possibly starting from scratch.
Other event resources were intended right from the start to be reusable: {{Godwiki event banner}}, {{Godwiki event counter}}, {{Godwiki event construction}}, {{Godwiki event review}} — all of those templates were named generically, with the expectation that they'd be continually updated with content specific to each future content event, or for whatever other purpose we find them useful for. They contain nothing that needs to be preserved for the future, beyond the fact that all previous states remain available via their edit history.
When I proposed this post-mortem discussion, one of the things I suggested was that, after we've discussed everything, the results of these discussions ­- things we agree went well, or badly; that we wish we'd known to do, or do differently; etc. — all of that gets written up and placed somewhere for posterity, and for the edification of anyone planning/prepping future events. Possibly even a Guideline: GodWiki Events addition to the Creators Manual.
That way, the consensus advice/information is passed along concisely to anyone looking to benefit from our experience. And the full discussion that led to those decisions remains available (here). Because at times it can be invaluable to look beyond what was decided, and see how it was decided. Or to see the points that were brought up but ultimately rejected, and why. (Very often, because our theoretical future-person is contemplating something that has already been tried and failed in the past, so they just need to see what went wrong to be dissuaded from repeating the mistake.)
Beyond that, I'm with SourceRunner. There's no point in an events category for our whole one event. Even if that category could theoretically include the new guidelines page, a couple of the templates, or whatever. When events is at least a plural, then we can start talking about categorizing the multiple event pages together. Any future event should get its own event page(s) where everything is organized, just like the JanuWiki 2019 page. Nothing would be changed there as a result of categorization or anything else.
Plus, if we create a Category:JanuWiki 2019 for the involved articles, then it would make sense for the event-specific content to also go into that category. Down the road when there have been additional events, each individual event category can be made a subcategory of some larger, all-encompassing events category.

#5, #6, #7: I agree those are good things, but I'm not sure they have any bearing on future events per se. At least, not events like this event, which was primarily focused on creating new content. There could certainly be other types of events in the future, organized differently — content expansion events, cleanup events, etc. It all depends on the nature of the beast. But for creation events, existing content is sort of intentionally secondary.

#8: The list of specific titles is a necessity of the preload boilerplate. We don't have a generic way to do that for any random article title, "Create" links have to be created for specific individual page titles. (Along with being assigned the correct preload content, to match the subject type — different boilerplate for Monster articles vs. Equipment articles vs. Quest articles, etc. There's no way to determine just from the title of a nonexistent page what type of article that should be; Djonni manually associated each of the articles he picked for the event with the correct preload text for it, when putting together that list.

Now, if the preload text wasn't useful and we decide to do away with it, or if we want to organize an event around something other than new-article creation, then the list is no longer a requirement and we can discuss whether it makes sense. (I kind of think it's a good idea to give people a fixed set of options that's not so overwhelming. Because, there are currently 6514 entries on the Special:WantedPages list, so how does someone even approach that? Especially someone who's a novice at creating GodWiki content?
One of the goals of this first event was to try and draw new people into the content-creation process. Unfortunately it wasn't really very successful in that goal, but I think if there's going to be any chance of success... well, I think a "just point them at this massive list and say 'go to town'" approach would be doomed to failure, let's leave it at that. The picks give focus to the event. Who cares exactly what articles are created, as long as articles are created? Unless we think there are people out there who looked at the event list, didn't find any of the selections appealing, and decided not to participate on that basis, I don't think having a finite event-targets list is really a problem. The titles that weren't made part of this event can be included in the next one, or the one after...

#9: Personally my take on #9 is that no part of an event should rely on being able to motivate the membership of one specific guild. I mean, I assume — I hope, anyway — that the Side Job was advertised in the Harvest Moon Guild Council, and in their forum topic, and probably other places they communicate as well, right? Be pretty stupid if it wasn't, but that's all beyond our control anyway. And to whatever extent it was done, the membership of the guild was apparently disinterested.

There are few enough people contributing to the wiki period, that we should be allowing rewards to be restricted to only members of a certain guild. That's a divisive and exclusionary element that compromises the event, IMHO. If a guild wants to donate a special prize that's open to everyone — say, for creating some piece of content that's particularly meaningful to their guild, like an article on their totem monster or whatever — then that's great. But I feel prizes restricted to members of a particular guild have no place in the general event. If a guild wants to do that, they can handle it themselves in the guild's forum topic or whatever.

#10: The whole review thing... how do we feel that really went, in general? I wasn't particularly thrilled with it, which is why I pulled myself out of the pool right at the beginning. I just didn't sit right with me, though I can't completely articulate why.

Maybe if the event had included lots of brand-new GodWiki contributors, like it was originally hoped would happen, then a review process might've been more of a necessity. But as it played out, with experienced people creating articles of their own, the in-depth reviews felt kind of unnecessary. And as WardPhoenix notes, they ended up consuming a lot of people's time, which ultimately came at the expense of the content creation process. It also seemed to me like there was this weird power imbalance created, that unnecessarily (and uncomfortably) elevated the reviewers over the authors. (Even though basically everyone was both reviewer and author, so they occupied both sides of that equation, it still felt out of whack to me.) I don't know, that could also just be my imagination / misperception.
Some sort of "post-creation" round is necessary in an event like this, for "scoring" purposes, but maybe that's all it should be: When an article's finished, the second-party "reviewer" is responsible for doing the housekeeping of updating the status of that article in the various places where it's tracked (event page, navbox), and for tallying whatever points were earned and whatever Side Jobs the article qualifies for. I mean, every article on the wiki is always open to editing and improvement by everyone who reads it (if they have a GodWiki account), regardless.
I think one advantage of the review process was that it created a process whereby people would check out each other's efforts. Because we can say that we definitely want to look at the articles created by other people for the event, but do we actually make the time to do that? So, I absolutely recognize the value of it from that perspective. But, given how time-consuming and disruptive it was to the creation side of the process, how worthwhile was that tradeoff?

...I think this is more than enough from me for now, I have my own points to add but I'll come back to those. Apologies for the offensive length of this babbling. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Answering to your answer as my N°8. I don't say to use special page wanted, but if we give, for exemple, the list of monsters, the potential writer will know he/she is about to start a monster entry. But I can see your point.
Right, well, same deal there really. There are 2116 links in the Monsters table at List of Monsters. 1231 of those are redlinks. That still seems pretty overwhelming to me, even leaving aside the preload thing.
As far as the preloads go, this time around they were kind of 11th-hour, but for a future event I should be able to put together a set of templates like {{monster preload link|article title}} and etc. to generate those create-with-preload-text links, instead of having to build them by hand. That would theoretically make it a lot easier to target more articles more easily when selecting content targets for an event. Perhaps also, if people were interested, we could take nominations ahead of time for which articles should be included in the event. That could work, if people are really interested in specific picks. -- FeRDNYC (talk)
As for you N°9: my point was more than even a reward didn't make people come (the harvest moon was just a mere exemple, sorry if it wasn't clear). I mean, even a game announcement (thanks the Devs) didn't make many people to come. That's kinda sad in a way. --WardPhoenix (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, but my comments about the Harvest-Moon-only Side Job still stand.
In terms of general apathy / lack of participation, and the reasons for it, I think it's hard to draw any conclusions when we don't have a lot of information to go on. It's possible that more advertising would've made a difference, but it might not have mattered at all. After all, as you said, even a notice on the blog didn't bring in participants. In fact, it brought in literally nobody — not a single person showed up to participate in the event after the blog announcement, even though SURELY lots of people saw that. If the problem was just one of getting the word out better, then somebody would've showed up when we did finally get the word out.
So I think we should look at other possible reasons for the low turnout. Things like:
  1. Poor incentives?

    I don't need charges. Do you guys need charges? I typically have around 70 built up. Occasionally there will be a flurry of use that drops it all the way down to "only" 40-something, but then all I have to do is wait and it's back up to ~70. I simply have no use for additional charges, and no matter how many you offer me to do something, it creates 0 additional motivation to actually do it. That appears to be true for at least all the members of Harvest Moon, as well.

    I'm not saying we should offer more than charges, or that we have to bribe people to work on the wiki. I'm just saying, we may be fooling ourselves that charge-based prizes will motivate anyone to compete.

  2. Poor organization?

    Did we do enough to explain how the event worked, how wiki editing works, what participants needed to do, etc? I'm not sure what more we could've done, but maybe we didn't do enough. Or, maybe we did too much. Was the JanuWiki 2019 page overwhelming? Did the preload boilerplate turn people off? These are all questions that only people who didn't participate can answer, but the answers might help us.

  3. Poor selection of content?

    I said earlier that the finite list of articles picked for the event didn't seem like a problem, unless people showed up to check out the event, looked at the list of available articles they could work on, and turned away because they didn't find anything that interested them on that list. Well... did that happen?

  4. Poor support?

    Several people who did initially show up to the event ended up either withdrawing their participation or dropping out without completing their efforts. (Heck, that even includes the person who organized the whole thing in the first place.) We should probably try to find out why that happened. Some will no doubt be for personal reasons, which are beyond our control. But others may have reasons very directly related to the event itself, in terms of how it was organized or handled.

    That list is, if I've got this right:

    • FeRDNYC (talkcontribs) bailed from review assignments on day 1. I've hopefully at least somewhat explained my reasons, earlier in this discussion.
    • Nabilou (talkcontribs) requested to be taken off review assignments after the first week or so, citing work commitments.
    • Cham Almighty (talkcontribs) took a brief hiatus from reviewing January 10-13, returned, but then was unavailable for the last 2 weeks of the month. In the forum thread she explained that she was traveling due to a death in the family, so "personal reasons". She returned for the wind-down period.
    • Djonni (talkcontribs)'s GodWiki participation ceased entirely on January 14, reasons unknown.
    • The following users all started articles for the event, but abandoned them unfinished and in at least one case unstarted, leaving only the boilerplate content in place of an article:Other than S624 who informed the group of the article abandonment via Help:Requests and cited work commitments as an explanation, I don't believe we know why any of these authors abandoned their unfinished articles.
    None of these situations had anything to do with advertising or awareness of the event, obviously. In every case there was something that caused the person to stop participating after they'd already started. Why is that? Was it too much effort? Was the documentation unclear? Did we suck all the fun out of it with our overlong explanations and boilerplate structure? Was there too little information, so they couldn't figure out what we were asking them to do?
It'd be nice if we could conclude that people didn't participate simply because they didn't know enough about the event. That doesn't appear to be sufficient explanation, though, when you look at all of the data. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the main issue for the lack of people are actually two :

  • Lack of enough means of advertisement. I don't think the majority of Gods and Goddesses check the forums and probably even less check the godwiki and it's likely not everyone reads the game news. The reasons may varies ("Don't give a damn/Don't want to read") but that's the case. Meaning the only remaining way to have advertisement is the guilds council (hard to do something about it) and even more unlikely useful: godvoices. For the latter I had the surprise to see someone messaging me after i said a GodWiki related entry (better than nothing I guess). Another way to advertise it, will be to have a more general advertising of the GodWiki.
  • Writing is not for everyone. Let's be honest, writing (in general) is not an easy task, even more when it's not in your native language. Not a lot of people are willing to "waste" hours/days/weeks to write a story than few people are going to read anyway.
Even though we are not asking writers to be Shakespeare, some people will tend to judge themselves unable to write a proper article for various reasons, leading them not participating in the event. And for those who may be confident enough, the lack of time or will may block potential writers.
Writing, again, is not that easy. It took me more than a week to write the Godbuster and yet, I am not fully satisfied with the result (yeah i am too much of a perfectionist sometimes), but more importantly, I was totally drained after writing it, which is why I hadn't any entry after that one and switched to brainless standardization instead. Right now that I'm trying to write my own chronicles for my heroine, I realise again how hard it is to write a story (an article being a one-shoy short-story), especially when it's not your native language : and I think that's the case for a lot of players.
Plus if you happen to not find an article that hook you up, it's even harder to write something good about it. (I mean, i only wrote Adminotaur because I instantly had the general idea of the article on my mind as soon as i saw the monster).
As for those who started but didn't finished, they likely forgot/didn't have time/got bored/tired/gave up/obi-wan kenoby (delete as appropriate)
  • On a side note, we had some "ninja" yet efficient non-JanuWiki-related entry recently : Cash Cow/Chocolate Moose/Moosenger of Death as exemples, so the event still may have hooked some people in, which is nice. (maybe i can count my self in, since i had only two major GodWiki entry before JanuWiki]]

--WardPhoenix (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

First, I want to thank everyone who got this organized and ran the event. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and also learned a lot (more on that later). Perhaps it is unhelpful, but I do not have strong opinions on some of your enumerated topics. I am happy to share those opinions I do have, so here it goes.

  • I agree with the sentiment that it would be very difficult to enforce the picture thing, and the "satire/parody" exemption makes sense. Also, let's face it, far fewer people will read the godwiki (as opposed to wikipedia), so we are not too likely to run into legal jeopardy (spoken like not-a-lawyer).
  • I give a lot of credit to the editors, and it does seem fair that they would get time to edit without feeling like they did not get a fair chance at writing articles as well. So, a separated editing time after the writing is over would be a potential improvement for those doing the editing. Of course, if the editors were not interested in writing, then this is probably a non-issue.
  • I do read the blog when new news comes out, but I am pretty sure I learned about JanuWiki from the wiki main page itself. I do the puzzles every day, and I often (read: always) have to consult the wiki's Omnibus List, so would see the JanuWiki announcement every day. That is what got me interested.
  • Now, as far as low participation, I would guess that there are two factors (well, two main factors). First is simple know-how. I had never before written an wiki article here or anywhere else, so getting started on the first article did take a bit of convincing myself to jump in and figure out how it works. Not everyone will be inclined to do so. The templates helped -- a lot. Still, I ended up looking up existing articles and clicking on the edit tab just to see how certain things are done (how to add a picture, basic formatting stuff, et cetera). I would bet that our ratio of writers to readers is similar to wikipedia's. The second inhibiting factor may be that a lot of the article subjects (monsters, artifacts, skills, and such) are basically just names that are puns or jokes. This requires some extra creativity on the part of the article writer (again, to compare to wikipedia: on there, you are not having to invent the information as well as writing it up). I know that I selected the subjects from the articles I wrote based on what subjects gave me a workable idea. There were plenty in the list that made me think "What the heck would I even say this is?" I think that's just the nature of the beast here -- the ideas are generated and voted on for their cleverness/comedic value much of the time, and not because they are a workable concept. The person who comes up with the idea for the new monster or artifact is not worrying about whether the idea translates well into an article in the wiki (nor are the voters, the ER voters, or the Final Judges). I liked the challenge of being creative, but I can see how that might be a disincentive for some. WardPhoenix (talkcontribs) makes a good point about non-native English speakers as well.
  • Incentives -- I'll write for nothing, so getting charges is a welcome bonus. Probably not enough of an incentive to overcome the disincentives for some of people. But, yes, as a non-ark-owning Godvillian, I am very open to receiving free charges.
  • In a future wiki event, I would volunteer to be an editor, but I think I would like some guidelines or training of some kind before I took that on.

Well, that's my two cents' worth. I will check back in to see if the discussion is continuing. Again, thanks for the opportunity to contribute.

--Beausoleil (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)