Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New page creation

Following discussion on WT:POINT, I've re-created a page for "gaming the system". The small section in WP:POINT doesn't really cover gaming properly, and (see that talk page) there is some question whether it should. Not all "gaming" is "disruption to prove a point" and the two have very different modes of action in a lot of cases.

It's been around 2 years since this page was last examined in its own right (see below). I think a proper page that covers the term "gaming the system" and what exactly that signifies, will help to confirm the types of activities which are a problem, not all of which fit neatly under "disruption to prove a point".


For the record, the original page was created in June 2005 as a "definition stub", tagged as proposed policy, and rapidly merged into WP:POINT 3 weeks later. The talk page contents were:


Uh, this is not official policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this what the wonderfully vague (and I say that without any sarcasm) disruption clause of the blocking policy is for? --W(t) 03:15, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

I would agree. I don't feel that there is a need for this policy. I have heard others talk about "gaming the system" in different ways: one example I can give you is asking several editors who share your POV to comment and edit an article. So long as they are not editing "by proxy" (making your edits through their account) this is perfectly acceptable and I remember that the ArbCom said as much in one of the many cases I reviewed back when I was an admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a good idea, but I believe it also falls under WP:POINT. How about merging there? Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 12:38 (UTC)


Yet another means for bullies to arrogate more powers to themselves. There's a 3RR. It generally works and everyone who is here in good faith is happy with it. Yes, it's a pain in the butt when someone reverts three times and says, go on, do the fourth. (I've done it myself to my eternal shame.) But blocking someone for it is ridiculous. Just go get another editor to support you, revert alongside you and voila, the system-gamer is thwarted by the system. They'll tire of it long before you do. -- Grace Note —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.242.187 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2005


With gaming the system still being a regular referrent in RFC, ANI and other dispute/conduct related pages, and a full description of gaming being inappropriate for WP:POINT, this page allows the issue of gaming to be explained and covered in more depth as a notable kind of bad-faith editing, and is linked to WP:POINT for formal policy references.

Hopefully it is popular consensus that the types of behavior described in the rewrite, are in fact against communal standards of behavior, and that whilst individual editors may deem them all forms of disruption, or all forms of making a point, or all forms of warring, in fact they all meet the definition of gaming the system in both its popular and its dispute process sense; and therefore a page expanding on WP:GAME and covering that sense more fully than WP:POINT can do, is probably helpful.

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I approve, and just happened to be looking for it :) --Quiddity 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I approve, having just been editing a site where all these things occur. Mind you, 5 of them have now been found to be socks, but it creates a very hostile and unpleasant atmosphere, makes the talkpages very long, dense, tedious and incomprehensible, and frightens off new editors. Each little individual act of gaming is difficult to present at ANI or the like and 'gaming' on ANI's then makes readers think '6 of 1, half a dozen of the other'. Only somebody prepared to wade through pages of it can see whats going on. This policy is needed. Fainites barley 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(Technically not a policy, but a behavioral guideline) FT2 (Talk | email) 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How did this become a guideline?

How did this page become a guideline? First it was a short stub (June 24, 2005 link), then noted as just a proposal (June 27, 2005 link), followed by a re-direct July 13, 2005 link), which. . .just suddenly became a guideline (July 2007 link). I don't see any discussion of the wording or just generally a consensus, which guidelines have to reflect. Wondering, R. Baley 08:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (Added) And specifically this, where is the consensus for (this diff)? R. Baley 09:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaming has had long established consensus as a Thing That Is Not Okay, for many years. It's been routinely cited as part of WP:POINT for a long, long time, and has strong "buy-in". The problem was, that behaviors recognized and apparently very widely considered "gaming" by experienced editors were not listed there... because they might have been gaming, but they weren't "disrupting to prove a point" (which was the topic of that page). So the section was moved to its own page, which it really needed anyway (with edit wars often being gamed).
As a widely agreed consensus with long standing policy status, the principle of "No gaming the system" was elevated to guideline, mostly since 1/ POINT itself has guideline and not policy status too, 2/ a behavioral standard is usually guideline not policy, 3/ the community was clearly endorsing of the principles as a behavioral expectation/guideline.
Consensus often is achieved by silence. Over several months the page has been reviewed. Editors and administrators have had opportunity in plenty to comment, and the sole edits have been to move the GAME link to this page (an endorsement) [1], enhance the page by bringing in related text from elsewhere [2], or to note it's valuable [3] [4].
Guideline status is a reflection of the community's view on the content. Several months on, there seems no (or little) significant dissent that these behaviors are 1/ indeed "gaming", and 2/ consistently not okay as such, as a behavior. And helpful to state as much with examples.
FT2 (Talk | email) 05:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occasional exception to strictly forbidden

Sorry, but this is giving me a headache. Can someone explain to me how the nutshell says that gaming is "strictly forbidden" but the behavioral guideline states "occasional exception". It kinda makes my head spin. Thanks. Bstone 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the same applies to all other guidelines - WP:POINT for example. Disruption to prove a point, and gaming, are both forbidden. But the guideline description header template essentially is suggesting that application of guidelines in general, requires a degree of judgement. Any use? FT2 (Talk | email) 06:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disrupting consensus

There is a discussion started about addressing those who would take entrenched positions and act in ways to block consensus. This could be done through "gaming the system". Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#Blocking consensus. Input and opinions welcomed. Vassyana (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to Complain about WP:GAME without getting into trouble??

This page really has to explain this because if you say someone is playing WP:GAME they can charge WP:personal attacks and get you in some sort of trouble, I'd assume. Can one only do in most general way if one thinks it's going on? Or in arbitration? I think a short explanation of how to use this complaint properly as a charge would help. Carol Moore 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

  • In general, your best hope is in support from other people, those who would agree that "gaming" is in progress. Very often, if several people can shine light into dark areas, the evil will vanish. It's uncanny, but just like it says in the Bible, typically works. The word "diabolo" meaning devil has origins in the term libeler, as a person who attacks the reputation. Note how the troublemakers will try to impune the character of their opponents, in the manner of The Libeler. The problem is not in policies violated, but the totally contentious attitude of troublemakers. Also beware the Internet trolls who love to win a good trivial "fight" often because they are losing at work or home. Perhaps join a WikiProject which values civility, and beware some groups that are actually "inter-wiki-city gangs" of like-minded troublemakers or rewriting articles for other websites. I view the Wikipedia policies as signs of smoke that reveal when you're playing with fire. Don't forget the reality of wiki-psychos censoring some information, or the incident where Microsoft paid people to spin computer articles: no amount of policy-quoting would deter such people from their agenda of concealing true issues, whether psycho-obsessive or paid results. Look past the sword and look to the heart to see the intent: anyone can get a bigger weapon or quote a stronger policy, but what does that really win? Above all, keep a sense of humor about the Wackopedia and the interesting characters you'll meet along the way. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example 7 is convoluted and weird

The example numbered 7 is convoluted and weird. I think I know what it's going for, but it is just ambiguous enough to make it problematic. There certainly are cases where someone is right to remove a source because it's not peer-reviewed. There are other cases where it is not appropriate. It is not clear from the example that this is an instance of the latter. Maybe saying something like:

Remove a source from an article about a famous rock album with the rationale: "this source is not reliable because it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal".

That would be inappropriate because reliable sources for rock albums are not peer-reviewed journals. It's a question of particular context. There are, however, articles on arcane aspects of music theory which may in fact require peer-reviewed journal citations, for example, and may rightly excise fringe ideas that are not properly sourced.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about "contentious statement or word[cite][cite][cite][cite][cite][cite][cite]"?

I see this case a lot during informal mediation, where one editor wants something to remain, and backs it up with 7 citations straight in a row. I call it cite-stacking (you may too, but you risk me feeling crappy and unoriginal by saying so :-p). Or is this more of a POINT?

Specifically, I see it happening where a statement/word (don't get me started) passes V and sort of passes NPOV (sure doesn't pass WP:UNDUE), but consensus is kinda up in the air (and probably made worse by it). Xavexgoem (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirections

18-April-2008: The article has a redirection from WP:GAME, and I am adding "WP:GAMING" to also redirect to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New example: Revert for minor error

18-April-2008: I am adding an example for the common problem of reverting an entire revision due to minor errors, such as spelling or grammar, with a claim that the revision has errors. The spirit of Wikipedia is to tolerate defects in articles and make incremental improvements, as an attempt to salvage the existing contributions and expand them to be "encyclo-" (encompassing) for broader coverage. Reverting an entire revision due to a few minor or spelling errors is excessive. When an article is found to have a misspelled word, the article is not blanked as the solution. The appropriate response would be to fix minor errors, or at least tag sections for cleanup or citation-needed {cn}, rather than wholesale reverting of contributions. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expand article examples but beware troublesome people

18-April-2008: Although the guideline on gaming helps explain what would be fair behavior in Wikipedia, it also alerts readers to fringe elements on the website. I personally warn: "Where there's smoke, there's fire in mindsets" - beware that violence begets violence: recognition of gaming doesn't mean that such gaming could be discussed, rationally, with those involved. Telling a mugger, "You're a mugger" won't stop a robbery. Perhaps just keep a mental note of the gaming that occurs, but be very diplomatic in discussing the issue, while limiting confrontation. Wikipedia offers little protection or privacy for the individual: beware that angering a person might cause that person to stalk your contributions and start hacking many other articles you've been writing. In many ways, Wikipedia is a virtual hornet's nest of potential problems, and many people find confrontation devolves into edit-wars and other wasted time, with the likely result of quitting in utter disgust. When gaming is detected, it might be much easier to band with other people, who share united notions of what is needed, and then return (perhaps much later) to address the issues and fix those articles. The guideline should be expanded with more detailed examples of what often happens on Wikipedia, but remember that reliance on the "letter of the law" is often the basis of gaming, rather than the solution to resolving issues of disagreement. Consider expanding the guideline about gaming as also just warnings of what can occur, rather than rules to cite. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding section levels of intent

18-April-2008: I added a general section clarifying the various levels of intent involved with aspects of gaming the system. The point is to downplay the tendency to vilify people who might be using gaming tactics without a deep-seated attitude of malicious intent. Specifically (on 18-Apr-2008), I added the following:

"Although users might engage in the practices described above, that activity should not be considered proof of malicious intent. The actual level of intent should also be considered separately, as to whether the action was pre-meditated, or spur-of-the-moment, or merely copying an older tactic that seemed effective for other editors in the past. The term "gaming the system" is not meant to vilify those involved, with the word "gaming" also referring to playful activity in the manner of a game of sport. The goal is to focus on Wikipedia activities as a serious effort to improve articles, not an arena for playing games and sparring with opponents as a form of amusement. Judging intent might include discussions with others, rather than escalate the situation as an issue for direct confrontation. The situation might warrant special mediation (see: Wikipedia:Mediation) or perhaps even, in extreme cases, private arbitration (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration). The risks of continued involvement should be carefully considered, especially if the intent seems overly severe or obsessive/compulsive behavior."   (from article section "Various levels of intent" )

I have added that paragraph to emphasize the range, from simple unaware copying of tactics that worked for other editors, to a potentially escalated situation of confrontation, as a risk perhaps better handled, in extreme cases, by private arbitration (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration). The whole concept of "gaming the system" involves a wide range of motives, so I felt that clarification and warning was needed due to the enormous broad scope of all the situations that are covered by the guideline. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example: Double-teaming on 3RR

18-April-2008: I am adding another example of gaming where multiple people enter into an edit-war, sharing the revert count, to trap another person into reverting 4 times, violating WP:3RR and being banned 24 hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)