Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings/old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion.

This is the old set of ideas which were voted against. Exists as an interesting thought. Please do not edit as this is basicaly an archive. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not

    • Please read this before you vote, most of your votes complain about stuff that is not the case
  • This is not suggesting a hierarcal system. Definately not millitary.
  • It will be used only by users who want to use it.
  • Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
  • The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
  • It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.
  • Just like Barnstars, the ranks will not give anyone any speciality. Aside from contribution recognition.
  • Please tell us what part of the project you like/dislike so we can improve it. Any suggestion is welcome.

[edit] Vote (1/32/0/1)

  • Place longer comments below in disussion at the very end of the page.
    • Apperantly overwhelming number of people oppose the project as it is. This means project has lits of work to do, please contribute. Thanks.
    • Apparently overwhelming numbers of people oppose the idea of any kind of ranking system at all, which point this project's proponents have so far overlooked. This means that any work on this project is a waste of time.

[edit] People who are for

  • --Cool Cat My Talk 00:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Zscout370 01:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • --Howabout1 01:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote!

[edit] People who are against

  • Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense Special:Log/delete or Category:Wikipedia rejected policies — Davenbelle 06:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Stereotek 08:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not even BJAODN. Editcountitis is bad enough already. —Korath (Talk) 08:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • --Andy M. 22:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not Starfleet. Completely opposed. Slac speak up! 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this kind of hierarchy is pointless and will merely lead to abuses (revert; "Hey, I liked that version"; "Shut up, I have a better ranking"). (update: even if it doesn't, I suspect the benefits to WP would be quite small, and not worth the risk). Meelar (talk) 02:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • android↔talk 02:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • But not strongly. Obviously this would have to be a voluntary system, and if it were it would be a nice way to identify the little tin gods and the martinets in advance, so one could be sure to avoid them. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said before, I appreciate the work Cool Cat put into this, but I am against ranking in all forms except Jimbo as Supreme Overlord/Benevolent Dictator/God-King/etc. etc. --Deathphoenix 02:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fadix 03:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of well-meant effort from CoolCat, but I just don't think Wikipedia needs a formal system like this. Barnstars work because they're informal.
--TenOfAllTrades | Talk (WikiMorse Operator, 3rd Class) 03:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Beaten! I was just about to do that one. ☺ Uncle G 10:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that, while well-intended, this project will become a personal attack magnet. I do agree with rewarding people for productivity (e.g. barnstars) but not with ranking everyone on a global scale. Radiant_* 10:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • We already have a ranking system, which is as far as we should go down this road. Uncle G 10:53, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • There should be absolutely as little ranking as possible --Bucephalus 16:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The thing about Barnstars is they simply say that you've done a good job, which is good. However, this would be a way to say, "I've done better than you." And that's just not conducive to the community spirit. --InShaneee 19:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with all of the above, with a special "hmmmm" for Charles's point. FreplySpang (talk) 20:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let's write articles, not establish pecking orders. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Wikipedia is not a competition. Martg76 20:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Barnstars are stupid enough. john k 21:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Divisive. Not newbie friendly. Open to abuse. Djbrianuk 22:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly opposed. This idea is inherently elitist and anti-wiki. Wikipedia is not a paramilitary organisation. -- FP 09:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary hierarchy for an egalitatrian community. -- Viajero 17:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Equality-elgatarian-notshowingoff-fu. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Inter\Echo 16:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't want to have to put a "ranking-free zone" sticker on my userpage. -- Seth Ilys 16:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. very un-wiki. BlankVerse ∅ 17:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The effort that has been put into this proposed project, along with the effort that would be required to implement it, would be better invested in editing articles. -Willmcw 20:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would cause elitism. Not even administrators have a "sysop flag" on their user pages — often you only notice they are administrators when they need to use the rollback button, or when you look at the block/protect logs. --cesarb 02:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We should draw and quarter this thing. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No thank you. We are not an Internet forum, the only things addressable by a ranking (prolificness, quality) are already there to see or publish, should people so choose, and without smacking of "I'm better than you." Demi T/C 02:37, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • Vote Here!

[edit] People who are ok with the idea but not likely to use the ranking

  • Vote!

[edit] People who couldn't care less

  • Carnildo 22:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote!

[edit] Comments 1

I propose this as a new set of "barnstars" for ranking (above table). Images may be wikified but I present the concept. I am debating the special status of admins as some admins pointed out they wanted to be considered as a part of the general population. I think this points people out how much hardwork some people spend to contribute and I think that should be recognised. List of people are only there as an example. I am leaving the naming of the ranks to the "what should it be called" section. Of course it arises the question, who detemines who is a veteran. And thats open to debate. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I am all for it. It is something nice we can stick on our user pages. From looking at the chart, I will be a Veterans 2nd Class. Zscout370 04:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • According to this I'm still a Veterans 4th Class. Like the idea, I could use it for the Wookieepedia with Imperial rankings. Then I'd get a higher class. :) However, I swear I've seen this somewhere else.... -- Riffsyphon1024 05:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure... barnstars are one thing, awarding people that do a great job at something, or otherwise go above and beyond, but this is something different. On Wiki, we're supposed to be more or less equal... these rankings work against that. Plus, who decides who gets "promoted" and who doesn't? Can I "demote" somebody? What if I think somebody should be one rank, and somebody else disagrees? In the end, this system, though well-intentioned, has the potential to do exactly the opposite of what it's meant to do. – ClockworkSoul 05:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Barnstars be medals. How many disagreements do we have regarding awarded barnstars? The ranking can be made automaticaly. Its easy to tell who has how many barnstars. This could apear next to the users name on users page ie User:Coolcat (my rank), a preference option can turn the rank off for people who dont want it. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • There's actually a significant number of people who feel that barnstars are just "popularity markers" and are therefore "anti-wiki". Plus, are you suggesting that this be built into the wiki software (automatic rankings and preferences)? – ClockworkSoul 13:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It is a suggestion. I threw the concept in, any idea to make it work is welcome. For example an external bot can determine how much contribution people are making and award based on that. If the user is contribting based on an algorythm, award, else next. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not suggesting if I rank higer than you you be forced to listen to me. I am suggesting if I did more hard work than you that be known. Also if one is declared a van dal by admins that be known to, like a criminal record. We can change what the ranking is based on, I am extremely flexible :) --Cool Cat My Talk 17:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, and also this could be a copyvio, since we are ripping off Star Trek. Zscout370 05:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The copyright does not apply. Its a circular pip. No one can have copyrights to such a general concept. We could replace pips with something more wikilike, perhaps a golden barnstar and a black barn star used instead of pips, although I think pips are better. I am mostly concerned with the rank rather than its simbolism. :) --Cool Cat My Talk 05:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of thought and effort went into this, so thank you, Cool Cat. However, I have to say that I'm not really for something like this. Other Wikis can make great use of a ranking system like this (and a great many forums do), but I think this goes against a lot of the "equality" of Wikipedia. Anonymous users can edit. Administrators (technically) are the same as editors with a mop and bucket. Mediators are often just normal users who like to guide ohters towards a common goal. Arbitrators, outside of the WP:RFAr page, are just normal administrators. And how would this go for dispute resolution? Would a higher ranking person have more say than a lower ranking person? Vandals, sockpuppets, and trolls are usually identified quickly, and other users can tell just by looking at the user page (or talk page) to identify the accounr as such. Personally, I'm fascinated with ranking systems of various military forces (fact or fiction), but I don't think it's such a good idea for Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix 14:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In dispute resolution the awads and contribution is often ignored, instead evidence supporting/disputing the dispute is asked. This is to promote how much hard work a person is working for the project and acknowlege it. Mind that I did not use terms like Luetenant Administrator for a reason. This will increace the value of barnstars. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's another thing. We usually encourage people to issue Barnstars liberally (assuming the intended recipient doesn't have a Barnstar-free zone notice on their user page. It's supposed to be a fun, informal way of saying thanks and recognising people. Making an official rank dependent on the number of Barnstars people have received makes the Barnstars a much more formal affair, and maybe even the possibility that people are rewarding Barnstars to each other simply to increase their rank. --Deathphoenix 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, In that case we can base ranking on something else. Itstead of telling me why it cant work tell me how it can work. :) --Cool Cat My Talk 03:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It only works if people are interested in making it work. In the Barnstars, I only see a select few do it, and it is mostly us. I think the same thing will happen with the ranking system. Of course, we could change the colors and pips to make it more Wiki and less Trekie. Zscout370 03:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The ranking system is equivalent to Barnstars. Right now, we have anons, newbies, editors, advocates, mediators, arbitrators, beaurecrats, and Jimbo. :-) A lot of these roles overlap, and there is no one rank associated with any of these (except for Jimbo, of course). I think that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The only other ranking can work is if you make everyone a single pip, and Jimbo four pips. ;-) --Deathphoenix 04:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, in that case: one pip for everyone, two for admins, three for beaureacrats, and four for Uncle Jimbo. You can add special bars for advocates, mediators, etc. Also, a bot doing this is not a bad idea either. Zscout370 04:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with any ranking (except Jimbo, of course ;-) ). We're all supposed to be equal, even admins et al. If they get into a dispute with an editor, they're treated the same as anyone else. They may be trusted members, but if their behaviour is questionable, they're treated the same. If you impose a ranking system, that all gets shot. --Deathphoenix 06:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of the blue, there are 21 accepted Barnstars, I sugested 19 ranks so we have 23-24 Tpes of people. 21 people with diferent level of barnstars, veterans, ie people who at least created a few articles, people who are complete newbies and people who are hated, like vandals. One pip per barnstar of course instead of displaying 21 pips we have various conventions we can use. Like the Admiral format. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you might be taking this a little overboard, Coolcat. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I am trying to make it work. Ranks should distinguish contributors, I am open to suggestions on how to make it work. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • CoolCat, why not try posting this idea to Wikipedia:Village_pump? That way, it will get a wider audience and you'll get some more constructive feedback. – ClockworkSoul 02:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Done, Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't particularly like calling some people "lower class newbies" as "lower" has a negative connotation. The same goes for the other end of the spectrum: "elite". There's too many subjective stuff to consider that I doubt it's possible to automate this, but after the kinks I mentioned are ironed out I don't see how some sort of ranking system by number of contributions can't be implemented. It makes it easier to see how experienced someone is when you don't know them. Mgm|(talk) 08:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Naval term uses Lower and upper class. Dont be too concerned with the nameing rightnow its a place holder. We need to determine how to determine ranks. Any objections? --Cool Cat My Talk 12:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April Fool's!
You said you didn't want to hear it's a bad idea. Calling it an April Fool's joke is the next best thing I can think of.
PS. Everyone knows Jimbo is a God-King, not just a founder. You need a new rank for that. JRM 11:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
Done:

This whole wikirank thing is so dumb and unwiki. I still can't believe you mean it to be taken seriously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trekcruft for user pages; Davenbelle 06:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tony, because he looks like an Elite Admin to me. Forget ranks. When do we get lightsabers/phasers/whatever? Blocking is so sterile.
Seriously, though, this is pointless. "I do not want to hear about why this is a bad idea, I want to know how we can make it work like Barn stars." You cannot. Barnstars are awarded as personal expressions of gratitude and admiration, and that's it. To suggest this is in any way similar to a ranking is absurd. If you want an objective ranking of how much people are contributing, that says about as much as objective rankings can (that is: not much), try Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. You're free to maintain alternative "rankings", of course, just don't expect many people to go along with it. JRM 01:18, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • I hope this is not meant seriously. In the unlikely event that this is adopted, I will resign from Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like it. I don't think it will be adopted widespread, but it sounds like something useful for those who want it. And I hope Jmable won't resign if it does work. As for how it will work, I think we could make a committee to look at anyone who says the want to be ranked, and then have a bunch of voulenteers watch already ranked people to see if they need to have their rank changed. Obviously this coulden't work with all of Wikipedia, but for maybe a few thousand. I'd be willing to do both and be ranked. I hope this works. Howabout1 16:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just like with the Barnstars, this will not really be wide spread. I see many and many Wikipedians on here, but few with Barnstars. Even with the many barnstars being created, I see few awarded. Zscout370 16:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi I felt like adding more comments. I think everyone who wants to do this should form a real plan after getting five or six more people, then we can grow from there. Though I might be speaking too soon on how much support we can get here. Howabout1 20:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope this was an April 1 joke. If you want elaborate ranking systems, Everything2 is always there for you. jdb ❋ (talk) 20:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Forget everything I said about this, I changed my mind.Howabout1 04:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, for those of you who are interested in the conversation among the "Barnstar people" about the ranking system you can read it here. --Deathphoenix 13:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Due to the overeaction in the comments by some people, I have the need to explain myself. I am not trying to create a military like system here. I just am trying to find a system that works along with the ideology of Wikipedia:Barnstars. I came up with how we could do it. I used Starfleet ranking as its very easy to follow. I am open for positive suggestions, like how the ranking should go. As tony suggested to me earlier on, giving admins a speciality on the sole fact that they are admins could be a bad idea as people like Tony and many other admins feel they are just like everyone else, which is very nice of them. I just want people who contributes most to be recognised. I do not see myself any superior to a newbie when I am higer in rank however any body familiar will easily tell that I contributed to a certain degree... --Cool Cat My Talk 22:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd rather keep the barnstars...ranking has a negative connotation, almost like an obligation to advance. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After reading all that's been posted here so far, I must say that Cool Cat really put some thought into it. But I too must say that I oppose the prospect of having rankings on Wikipedia. Those ranks could not be voluntary, or they wouldn't work for some of the proposed objectives, such as (and maybe mainly) working as a means of identifying vandals. And if it's built into the system, it becomes something entirely different from Barnstars, with a potential to actually drive some people away from the project, or maybe adding to it an element of competitiveness amidst some users interested in "climbing the ranks". Frankly, I don't know which one would be worst. A barnstar, aside from being informal, is something that the recipient can choose to put on display (thus letting people know that he got it) or simply delete it. There's no control (and there shouldn't be) on it. How could we have any ranking based on barnstars then? We would have to change the very nature of these awards, which I also oppose. Also, some of the proposed ranks overlap, and in a ranking system, no one can hold more than one at once. And people may be driven away by this because it could generate a feeling that one's every move on the project is now being "taken into account" towards generating a ranking system that will define one's position in the community. That sounds a tad oppressive, and many will not like it. I think we have barnstars, which suffice as a method or recognizing people's dedication to the project, and as it's been said, other aspects (good or bad) of people's history in the website can be identified without much difficulty, so there's no need to start "branding" people's user pages with rankings to identify them. Fixing all of those problems without virtually destroying the original concept is just beyond me. Imho, this proposition should be abandoned. Regards, Redux 03:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Excellent comments, Redux. My sentiments exactly. In addition, I want to acknowledge and thank Cool Cat for all the thought and work that went into this system, regardless of my own feelings about it. --Deathphoenix 16:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • And no matter what we could do with the ranking system, there will always be people trying to 'beat the system' by adding barnstars left and right and trying to screw up data. CoolCat, I know you were trying to be helpful, and we thank you for doing so, but I just think this is a good idea (just at the wrong place and time). Zscout370 17:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm I guess you are right, how about baseng it to the number of edits? Wikipedia can tell me how many edits Ive made. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Can a bot even be set up to pull that off? If so, then go right ahead, since that will be the hardest to cheat (maybe). Zscout370 23:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, users can beaf up maybe 200 edits but I am sure noone has the patience to have tens of thousands of edits :). Should this be a project page? Explicitly explaing that ranks do not give people any speciality but instead shows their contrabution? I also only want to rank people who want to be ranked. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Take a look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits: some members have over 40,000 edits. Unfortunately, that page isn't updated very often. – ClockworkSoul 01:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Agreed. Plus, we can always look at the contribs at each user's page, and that gets updated every time someone updates. I agree with CoolCat that it should be a project page of its own, since this is getting very complicated to keep on the Barnstar pages. I would also mention that it is a good thing that whoever wants to op-out can, just like with the Barnstars. Plus, we (the people who contribute to the Barnstar pages) can be the Guinee Pigs/Test Dummies for this and see what people think. Zscout370 20:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Note: a small table like this will do. It is on my user page, so people can easily leave comments on the next page. Zscout370 21:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Why not fork this off into a WikiProject Rankings, and post it onto Wikipedia:WikiProject? You may get a small number of adherants to this idea, but I suspect that you will also get a large percentage of people that are opposed to it. – ClockworkSoul 22:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But what purpose would a ranking system serve if only those who want to get ranked are included? If anyone has any reason to be... not proud of the work they've done on the project, or if they're just petty and don't want to participate if it means that they'll be at the bottom of the ranks, they will just op-out. We run the risk of ending up with an "army of generals", or at least made up of people that want to be generals. It will not serve to identify bad apples, and the people who participate (certainly not all of them, but at least some) might come to believe that they are some sort of elite, which is something we highly discourage on Wikipedia (can you imagine people thinking that they can pull rank on others because they've got a ranking insignia on their user pages? That's very, very likely to happen, at least in some instances). At the very least, it would be stimulating the formation of thigh circles, which is almost the same (and just as bad). On a more practical side, if the idea is getting this built into the system, the people that will need convincing are the developers over at the MediaWiki. We here would be just a test audience for the idea. And if you ask me, this will never stick over there, it's just too controversial. And people over there (and here) have shown more than once a [almost] complete unwillingness to restrict freedom and/or increase control/identification of users on the project (exactly to avoid driving people away or accidentally encouraging the formation of thigh groups of users). Regards, Redux 23:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I stick the rank on my user page, and I made a link to this page to see the debate. Nothing worked as of yet, and I did move this page to the Project Page Clockwork suggested. I just hope more people will realize what is going on before we put this into action. I do not mind testing things like this out, since five months from now and this does not fly, we just stick it into the archives and just move on. Zscout370 23:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Lordy lordy lordy. As a (checks list) Veteran admin and (looks up list) Rear Admiral, can I remind you that number of edits isn't everything by a long long way. The thing about barnstars is that they're presented by peers based on perceived worthy contributions, irrespective of playing any form of numbers game. And surely one set of awards is enough - Wikipedia is supposed to be an egalitarian ideal. Do we really want to be like a typical TPLAC awarding ourselves gongs so that we can appear superior? Grutness|hello? 09:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A system based simply on edit counts would be at best misleading: bots rank highest while a persistent vandal would rank higher than a newbie who has added half a dozen excellent contributions. Would someone have to check through every user (i.e. many thousands - not counting unregisterd users known only by IP) and "demote" vandals? Or would we go for a "Votes for users who deserve a barnstar" page? (Another vote page?) I think that ranking users in any way is completely unneccessary. It could and probably would be used as justification in edit wars ("Removed POV edit by AUser. AnotherUser" "I have higher rank than AnotherUser so my edit's better. AUser") It's also impersonal for Wikipedians as a community - isn't the warm and fuzzy feeling from awarding barnstars enough? SteveW | Talk 18:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Look. I understand there are ways to exploit my suggestions, there are ways to exploit barnstars. I am trying something like Barnstars. Names I came up with are place holders. If one is awarded a regular barn star that means they made significant contribution, right? None are granted adminship because of the number of barn stars they have earned. Now if you have 8 barnstars, I am likely to be impressed. I just want something more accurate than barnstars and keeping barnstars at an "Elite Award" level, like medals. Not everyone has medals, everyone has ranks in your average millitary. In wikipedia, not even admins get a "I know best" attitude. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But that's the whole problem - there's no way to be "more accurate" than barnstars. They are, and are meant to be, subjective appraisals. The idea that "If I make X number of edits or make friends with X number of users I'll be automatically be entitled to a barnstar/promotion/whatever" is a very bad one. It automatically implies that we value some traits in users (number of edits, number of vandals blocked, whatever) and have less respect for the users who don't exhibit those traits. The basis of the wiki concept is that the lowliest anon can make absolutely any change they like to any article (others are equally absolutely free to determine how they will react to this). All volunteer projects must try their utmost to stress the value of even the tiniest positive contribution if they are going to work. We don't want users who come onto the wiki aspiring to rank, we want users who are enthusiastic in creating a fantastic encyclopedia. We encourage them when they do that of course, but we should at all costs avoid the idea that "if you do this you get the reward of an X". Users should see striving to improve Wikipedia as its own reward. Slac speak up! 09:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that some folks want this to appear on the BJAODN. May I ask why, since I do not think this is a joke, but just a proposial in a policy. Thanks. Zscout370 12:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because, as Tony said above, this is dumb and unwiki. — Davenbelle 13:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense — Davenbelle 06:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not even BJAODN. Editcountitis is bad enough already. —Korath (Talk) 08:15, Apr 9 2005 (UTC)
  • Actualy this is not a joke. Some people hate me and oppose anything I suggest, at least that has been my impression with them. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Whatever is the case, I strongly appose that this project is moved to the BJAODN. Zscout370 02:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments 2

2 comments. I much prefer User:Func's ranking system, because it's A: unofficial, B: funny, C: deliberately so, and D: has much better rank names, like "Gunnery Muse". I also suggest that everyone make up some ranks using a random selection of these little dots and place them on their userpages: that would be a very effective way of taking the wind out of this silly proposal's sails. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was supporting this idea, but I notice how many people appose it. Instead of fighting yall, I am just going to cross out my vote and just give up on this idea. I am getting too much un-needed Wikistress from this. Zscout370 11:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People here are grown up men and women, we are not in a competition. The last thing we need is people lobbying to other users and among friends to get more awards and be classified first. I mean, for hell sake, it is an encyclopedia, think of the project that is Wikipedia a little bit, and think of this proposition and what it involves, it`s childish and has no purpouses in the advancement of Wikipedia. There are many other things to work on, like the Wikipedians unboard manual with sections like "How to write a neutral article."Fadix 03:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


There are countless projects that could be discussed to directly improve Wikipedia, this project is not one of them, and I believe that the only thing in what regard the content of the articles, that it may do is to somehow corrupt the system.Fadix 03:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


When I participate or write an article, it is to share knowledge and not to compete with other users.Fadix 03:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I know that Coolcat might think that I am doing this because I hate him, I don`t care, there is novway I could accept such a stupid idea. Fadix 03:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've moved my suggestions under my namespace as some people placed their suggestions under my proposal. Those proposals have been moved. I personaly do NOT like the proposal 3 and 4. One is silly other isnt any better. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by some users are childish vandalism at best. I havent removed them as it is a suggestion how stupid is open for debate. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

following moved from the main page

User:Coolcat has refactored this page and has the comments and sigs all mixed up now ;-( — Sgt. Davenbelle 10:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
It's a wiki, you can fix it. I have for you, this time. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You should check again ;-( — Sgt. Davenbelle 12:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
So fix it. I have other articles to worry about. You know what you typed I dont. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See you there! — Sgt. Davenbelle 13:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Sure delete all my POV on Ranks and Insignia of NATO. Please hate me, I enjoy it. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cc, this isn't personal. "Hate the Sin, Never the Sinner." — Sgt. Davenbelle 13:34, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Right, and what percentage of your edits are reverting my "POV"s when they are facts? Seriously, I fail to see why I have to be mistreated by people like you. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the comments and signatures in question, since they were no longer necessary, so I saw little point in keeping this slapfight on the main page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)