Contest3

This edit contest runs ran for seven days: The dates are: Monday Nov. 12th, Noon -- Nov. 19th, Noon EST

## Contents

* 1 Challenges
* 2 Forfeit of Contest
* 3 Judges
* 4 The Teams
* 4.1 Those Interested
* 4.1.1 Notices
* 5 Point System
* 5.1 New entry
* 5.2 Existing entry
* 5.3 Breaking News
* 5.4 Bonus Points
* 5.5 Notes

## Challenges[edit]

Anyone can post challenges here to the unofficial points in the contest:

* Challenge to 1256 in points for new entries by SSchultz. A sampling of those new entries suggests the disqualification. For example, they include a silly Ham_Steak entry, with a whopping 6 points assigned to that. I suggest that all 1256 of these points be disqualified as an appropriate penalty to deter the harmful practice of over-crediting during a contest.--Aschlafly 09:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)

If you're going to challenge my entries, then I challenge all points from edits made to those entries after the fact. Greg Larson, for example, earned a significant number of point from categorizing my entries. If you're claiming the entries are invalid, then no one should get points from them and they should just be deleted from the site. SSchultz 15:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

In the issue of fairness, if the work done by SSchultz is removed as are the alterations made by Greg Larson to those articles, then the edits that I made to those articles should be removed as well and my points adjusted accordingly. Thanks Learn together 02:39, 23 November 2007 (EST)

* Judges, please give advance notice of a close in challenges because there may be more. Thank you.--Aschlafly 09:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)

* I've noticed that the inquiries to the team captains dealt with concerns with irregularities from the other team. In that case, I'm not sure we are looking at this the right way. I was pleased to enter the contest to help out my captain while at the same time improving the overall Conservapedia website. But when the gun sounded to end the contest and I finished tabulating my totals, I now revert to being part of the larger Conservapedia team which includes all members from the other team as well. If there are any irregularities or areas for improvement from the contest, I would like to think it involves all of the participants as a unit giving overall insight, and that the temporary dividing lines that we put ourselves into last week are no longer an issue. That being said, here are my overall thoughts about the contest:

* I noticed some undeadended entries for articles of size where a single word on the top line was highlighted, and that was it. I believe in order to match the spirit of undeadending articles, that a pass through the article to apply other appropriate links should have been performed.

* If a quality new entry is worth 10 points, it seems to me that open ended articles that have no point limits should have some type of reasonable cap that fits within the overall structure of the contest and the value of that edit.

* If one team is being depopulated through no fault of their own, perhaps in an effort to keep the contest fair and close, the last user on the other team should be switched over to make the numbers more comparable.

* These are my thoughts. Thank you Learn together 02:39, 23 November 2007 (EST)

* Honestly, I'm not sure while this review of the results are being done. The Supply Siders out scored the Timberwolves by over 3000 points, and the only thing in dispute seems to be my edits. Even if you subtract the points for my edits, the Supply siders would still win by a very healthy margin. Moreover, point audits have never been done in prior contests. Why not simply declare the winner on the front page as has been the process in the past. SSchultz 20:16, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't think the challenges are over. The gap of 3000 points is not terribly large. I'm about to add another challenge for over 2000 points, and there may be further challenges both to protect the integrity of the contest, certify appropriate point totals, and enhance the level of play for the future. Don't take it personally!--Aschlafly 21:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

* Challenge to User:BrianCo for his massive 2433 points merely for linking within American Government Lectures. While those points are probably legitimate in a strictly literal reading of the rules, I question whether the judges want to credit such a one-sided approach, without comparable substantive contributions to other entries. User:BrianCo is a great contributor and this challenge does not suggest any foul play or anything unfair, but the spirit of the contest and this imbalance in point totals may call for an adjustment or reconsideration of that approach for future contests. Well done, BrianCo, but perhaps a bit too well done! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

More than changing points the experience should conduct to better rules for the future. A good article should get 20 points, uploading normal images 4 and quality ones 6. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:48, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Superb suggestions, Joaquin!--Aschlafly 21:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Again, if User:BrianCo 's edits aren't valid, then neither should any points for linking within the American Government lectures by any contributor. BrianCo acted within the bounds of the rules and scored himself accurately for the linking. Andy, your team lost the contest plain and simple. You had members who made no contributions whatsoever, and it's unfortunate that you're trying to take points away from people who earned them honestly just to win at any cost. SSchultz 13:59, 24 November 2007 (EST)

* Point total suggestion: in addition to Joaquin's suggestion, I propose that a quality edit to the Main page be worth 10 points, an ordinary edit be worth 6 points, and a minor edit (such as statistics or a correction) be worth 3 points.--Aschlafly 22:25, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Assuming your talking about for the next contest - then the only thing I would object to is the main page edit. Making a main page edit worth 10 points gives way too much of an advantage to sysops, in my opinion - perhaps 6 points instead?.--IDuan 22:41, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I agree with Andy's point suggestions for the Main page. As for giving the advantage to sysops, the contest is a team effort; therefore, since each team has sysops, neither team has an advantage. By increasing the points, we can also allow more points for contributions from non-sysops. --Crocoite 23:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Well if you can find out how to guarantee the same number of sysops on each team, thereby having equality between teams as you mentioned, then I'm all for you, but unless we can assure equality within teams then I think 10 is a bit too high - I agree that the point value needs to be raised - but I would suggest to 6.--IDuan 23:37, 23 November 2007 (EST)

* I guess since Andy is challenging points as he is, then Team 2 should be challenging Greg Larson for taking off categories from another user, SSchultz, and then taking points again for adding those same articles back into the categories. That is well over 1000 points, as LearnTogether mentioned above. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 04:56, 24 November 2007 (EST)

TK, although I posted my views on your talk page I would like to expand them here. I think that challenges to other team's contributions is souring the spirit of the contest. If I remember correctly, after previous contests the verdict was that "Conservapedia was the overall winner", not one particular team. After all, unless I have missed something, there is no obvious benefit to one team or the other being declared the winner - did someone put up a cash prize? In defence of my own contributions, I was only able to connect intermittently during the contest and had do my editing offline. I noticed that Sharon and Bethany (Team Timberwolves) had also accrued large scores through linking American Government Lectures and merely followed their example as it was something I could do in a simple text editor without an internet connection.

Any perceived unfairness is probably due poor framing of the rules in the first place, and to my mind the competition was rushed into. Joaquin is perfectly correct in his suggestions and while I raised the issue on our team page about him claiming points for uploading an image and then more points for using it in an article (I merely wanted to clarify the issue so that I could adjust my own score if necessary) I agreed with his complaint that it was unfair that his efforts should be better rewarded. Quality articles that require some research, references, categorisation, finding and uploading an image - deserve many more points than something copied and pasted from a public domain source. To my mind minor edits were given a disproprtionate reward, something that I admit I made use of to compensate for my situation.

I think the whole point of future competitions should be reviewed. Why are they being held; to improve the quality of articles or to increase the total number? There is an inherent conflict in these aims which should be resolved. The rules for this competition were outlined beforehand and so long as edits comply with them then they should be allowed to stand. Public recriminations about other competitors' work does Conservapedia no favors - it appears childish, small-minded and leaves the same bad-taste that quibbling over professional sports now engenders. It also opens us up to ridicule. At my school, the traditional values of sport were upheld, that the playing of the game with respect for your opponents was what mattered, not the winning. If you lost and had played well then you could still hold your head up and be proud of your contribution. These were the values that a British, traditional conservative, Christian school of 450 years standing tried to instill into its pupils, ones that I still hold dear even if they are not universally appreciated. I hope that we can close this issue and move on. If points are deducted from my score then so be it. I will respect the verdict of the judges. I played the game according to the rules and will not make any counter claims against other players, even if it means that my team are disadvantaged by it. BrianCo 05:25, 24 November 2007 (EST)

BrianCo, please don't take a challenge personally. It reminds me of when my son was first cited by the referee for committee "fouls" in basketball. It made my son very upset. But the "fouls" are part of the game of basketball, challenges and objections are part of the practice of law, and I think post-contest challenges enhance our contests. These challenges facilitate scrutiny of the rules and improves the spirit the game. In the first contest, the judges did disqualify some points and penalize one team. In the second contest, none of that post-contest analysis occurred and I think that was unfortunate. People will compete in these contests closer to their spirit in the future if there is a vigorous post-contest analysis. Challenges help promote that. Thanks and Godspeed, and please feel free to shine light on my team's work in kind.--Aschlafly 22:05, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Except that in basketball the opposing coach doesn't get to campaign to get the other team's players charged with fouls. That decision is made by an independent referee in real time. There were no independent referees during the contest, and it will be quite difficult for them to judge now after the fact since some contributors did not mark there contributions individually, such as Bethany who's edit summary for Day 1 is simply "Links to Lectures:324 pt." Additionally, let's say I was playing basketball with you and I traveled, it doesn't mean that you get to penalize me for every point I scored in the game that far. There is no game in the world where the outcome is changed weeks after the contest is concluded based on complaints by the participants. SSchultz 23:48, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Right, but the decision here is also made by an independent judges, and certainly in basketball the coaches do have a big influence in complaining to the refs and alerting them to improper conduct. I vividly recall watching a college game where the coach yelled the ref and pointed him to a foul against his star player, and the ref, upon being alerted, promptly called the foul. There, as here, it is the ref who makes the call. The same is true in litigation. While preferably these calls are made during the contest, the second best alternative is a system where good calls are made after the contest but before a winner is declared, as in boxing.--Aschlafly 23:58, 24 November 2007 (EST)

* With reluctance, I feel compelled to challenge TK's 280 points which are apparently based on assigning (or merely changing?) one obscure category in a hundred or so entries. I may be mistaken but don't immediately see the value in that re-categorization, even though under a hyper-literal reading of the rules it may be entitled to points. In the quality spirit of the contest, I think these points require a challenge.

* Also, while TK obviously did a splendid job picking his team, I wonder if there should be additional scrutiny and possibly a penalty for how a captain manages his players during a contest. I ended up having to divert precious time and effort from my team towards policing a player on TK's team, and while I'm not seeking points for that effort, I do think judges should consider assessing captains based on unsportsmanlike conduct by their players. I think the analogy in basketball may be the "technical foul" award against a captain or entire team. As I said in my comments to BrianCo above, I hope there is good sportsmanship in reaction to these challenges and that nothing here is taken personally. I do think that challenges and some accountability enhances the contests and will lead to even greater achievements next time!--Aschlafly 23:43, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In furtherance to my challenge to TK as captain, I suggest the independent judges consider assessing a penalty when any captain allows his players to run up the score using methods that are later found to be questionable. Running up the score is generally disfavored in any contest, and in an ideal contest I think a captain should have a duty to channel his talent towards productive activity when way ahead. It's a bit like a football team taking a cheap shot, or running a trick play, when they are already ahead 40-0. It's unsportsmanlike, I feel, and worth reviewing. But I defer completely to our independent judges in the hope of improving future contests, and hope that good sportsmanship is on the receiving end of all challenges.--Aschlafly 23:58, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I feel that you have misinterpreted my statement. I do not feel aggrieved or picked upon because my contributions have been challenged; and I have no objection to post-game analysis. There are certainly areas which could be improved in future contests and I hope my previous comments are taken into account. While gamesmanship may sometimes be questionable, it should be handled during the contest and not after the fact if the game was played to the letter of the law. Some people criticized the English rugby team when they won the world cup for scoring too many points from goals kicked by Johnny Wilkinson but the scoring system has a set numbers of points for a goal or a touch-down. In soccer, technically gifted teams are often frustrated by poor opposition who play defensively and either seek a draw or hope to snatch a sneak win. A team is entitled to play to its strengths. If someone has made an arithmetical error in their score then by all means challenge the calculation but trying to change the result after the final whistle smacks of Al Gore-ism. So far, all we have had is a big row over a family game of Monopoly which is getting increasingly ugly. This is not my style. My time in hospital gave me many hours to reflect on the purpose of life and how we treat those around us. Life is too short to nitpick over a friendly game and I would like my score to be stricken from the record. BrianCo 07:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

BrianCo, you make many good points. I certainly agree that, in an ideal situation, it is better have challenges and point corrections during a contest rather than afterwards. But sometimes, as here, that is impractical or doesn't happen. Does that mean that post-contest challenges are unhelpful? I don't think so. I think post-contest challenges improve the contests and are worthwhile. Rules and records are at stake for the future. So is the quality of future contests. It's also important to be sportsmanlike when on the receiving end of challenges, both in sports and in life, as you have been.

I'm sure some disagree with me. Barry Bonds set a new home run record without breaking any rules of baseball. I think that record should be taken away from him in a "post-contest" challenge. Apparently the baseball owners disagree, but I think they are making a mistake. Italy won the world cup by calling France's star player a "terrorist", compelling him to strike back and be ejected from the game. This was not confirmed until days after the contest. I think a post-contest challenge would have enhanced the integrity of the World Cup, though I'm not saying Italy's victory should be taken away. I'm not saying your team's apparent victory should be taken away either!

The bottom line is this: do post-contest challenges enhance the quality here, and help the competitiveness of future contests? I think the answer is "yes". It is up to the judges, not to you or me, how to handle your points and that of your teammates. Thanks again for participating, and may the best team be declared the winner! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I fully agree that post-contest reviews should be used to improve future contests. That is the way of progress. Finding out what didn't quite work last time and making changes for the future is what made the U.S.A. the great nation it is today. BrianCo 14:42, 25 November 2007 (EST)

## Forfeit of Contest[edit]

* I take it very personally, since I was among two or three others who begged you to provide stricter, clearer rules, and was rebuffed by you. I also cannot find anywhere, among our several contests, any mention that "Team Captain" is anything other than honorific. If it were a real position, with responsibilities, it would have been spelled out. What is clear, more than every, is that Andy should not ever again be team leader. He wears too many hats, and does not dispense his rulings in a fair manner, having made up new rule, new interpretations after the contest began. In what contest or sport is this allowed? The answer is, nowhere. Even though Andy on both his talk page and via email asked me to be in charge of deciding upon Categories, and even though the one I created was better umbrella category than the several we had for Government terminology, I hereby forfeit all points I took, as Andy, in his spirit of good sportsmanship, is obviously a far better judge of what is fair or decent. If it helps, I hereby invoke these powers of "Captain" that I didn't know I had, hereby also forfeit the contest also and declare Andy's team the winner. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 00:48, 25 November 2007 (EST)

TK, the very essence of a wiki is the feedback, often critical, that it facilitates for one's work. If we don't like criticism of our own work, then we should consider going into gardening or becoming monks in a monastery! But that may not totally insulate us, and I'm sure appropriate criticism occurs in those environments also.

As conservatives, we welcome accountability and we should accept it in a sportsmanlike manner. That applies to me, and to all of us. And, yes, there are contests where the outcome is subject to post-contest challenges. This occurs in the Olympics, for example. You'd have a hard time finding a contest where each player awards his own points and then objects to post-contest review by an independent referee or judge! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:14, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Isn't the dispense of rulings in an unfair manner, making up new rules and new interpretations off the cuff how Conservapedia works? Pots, kettles and black comes to mind.SimonGordon 14:06, 25 November 2007 (EST)

It's called accountability, SimonGordon. It happens to each of us after we die, for example, and don't pretend there is anything unfair about it.--Aschlafly 20:49, 25 November 2007 (EST)

* No, I wasn't attempting, nor had it in mind to truncate any review whatsoever. Following your lead of good sportsmanship, and your firmly held view I had somehow failed in my duties as Captain, I found little choice but to forfeit. In the Olympics (since you cite them as an example), there are thousands of rules, all enumerated in advance and covering a myriad of scenarios. Not so here. However your point about accountability is well made, and also brings to mind the conservatives tradition of self-reliance as well. As for feedback, I think we have all been following your post-contest comments closely, and taking our cues from them as they are invaluable! Feeling myself to be a complete failure in my ability to surmise what my Captain duties were, I personally found no other suitable sanction than to penalize myself by giving up my own points called into question, while we await the adjudication of the judges. As a conservative, I firmly hold to not wanting some advantage over my fellow team members, or members of the opposing team that is ever thought to be unfair. This exercise (of the contest) isn't about personal or team advantage, but the enrichment of Conservapedia. Given the many, many quality articles and edits (in spite of the questioning of some of them) once again this project is the winner! As Barry Goldwater so clearly said: "And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." \--şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:24, 25 November 2007 (EST)

## Judges[edit]

Sign up as a judge here to review the work, tally the results, and recommend changes (if any) for the next contest:

* HelpJazz
* Geo

## The Teams[edit]

Timberwolves | Supply Siders

|

Captain  | Andy | Captain  | TK
Members  | Members

1. Sharon
2. Greg
3. Bethany
4. Luke
5. Deborah
6. TheGuy
7. MexMax
8. Jessica
9. Member 9
10. Member 10

1. Iduan
2. DanH
3. Ed Poor
4. Mathers
5. Crocoite
6. SSchultz
7. Joaquín Martínez
8. Learn_together
9. Brian
10. Feebasfactor

(The top 7 scorers on either team will qualify towards its point total.)

### Those Interested[edit]

1. User:Aschlafly(captain team 1) - I'm in. I thought I was a captain, but I guess that has changed! Maybe each team should pick their captain.

As of now - you are! Just wanted to make sure you were able to be in.--IDuan 19:45, 8 November 2007 (EST)

1. ~~User:Iduan~~
2. ~~User:DanH~~
3. ~~User:GregLarson~~
4. ~~User:Dewey~~
5. ~~User:SharonS~~
6. ~~User:Lukecorlando~~
7. ~~User:BethanyS~~
8. ~~User:Ed Poor~~ \- provided my team captain helps me to keep track of my score (I'm a prolific contributor, but I hate taking credit for my work)You'll do as your told, and keep your own score, Poor! :P
9. ~~User:Crocoite~~ \- provided the points scoring is amended to include Breaking News items and edits to associated articles. See my comments on the talk page.
10. ~~User:Mathers~~ Can I get in on this? I missed the last one.
11. ~~User:DeborahB.~~
12. ~~User:SSchultz~~ \- I believe I can contribute a lot, and a contest would be a lot of fun.
13. ~~User:TheGuy~~ \- if it's not too late, I will hopefully have a bit of time on my hands in the coming weeks
14. ~~MexMax~~ \- I've just signed up, but I have wiki experience, and I've been watching the site for a while (just too busy to contribute 'til now). May I join? Oh, I'll be happy to keep track of my own points.
15. ~~User:BrianCo~~ \- May not always be online but can work offline. Regret having missed the earlier ones.
16. ~~User:Learn_together~~ \- Have fun everyone! ;-)

#### Notices[edit]

Ok - so since Learn Together has yet to respond - and given his absence for quite some time now - I've asked TK if he wants to be a captain - and he has accepted.--IDuan22:44, 8 November 2007 (EST)

## Point System[edit]

### New entry[edit]

Quality new entry: 10 points

* Definition:A Quality New Entry includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, several links to other entries, some in-depth content and designations of category.
* Exception: Entertainment-related* Quality New Entries will receive only 5 points.

Ordinary New Entry: 6 points

* Definition: An Ordinary New Entry is a new entry which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality New Entry, but is of higher quality than a Short New Entry.
* Exception: Entertainment-related* Ordinary New Entries will receive only 3 points.

Short New Entry: 4 points

* Definition: A Short New Entry contains only a few sentences and may or may not have a reference.
* Exception: Entertainment-related Short New Entries will receive only 2 points.

### Existing entry[edit]

Quality edit of an existing entry: 4 points

* Definition: A Quality Edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact, or adding a quality image to an article without any.
* Exception: Entertainment-related* Quality Edits will receive only 2 points.

Minor Edit of an existing entry: 2 points

* Definition: A Minor Edit is an edit which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality Edit. These edits might include small formatting changes, spelling and grammatical changes and/or the addition of a category.

### Breaking News[edit]

Breaking News Item: 3 points

* Definition: A Breaking news item is placed on the Main page with wiki links to Conservapedia articles and a link to the external reference article.
* Exception: A non-administrator who submits an article to an administrator and the article is placed on the Main page will receive 1 point and the administrator will receive 2 points for adding the article and links. It is at the administrator's discretion whether to place the article on the Main page. Editing an associated article (wikilinked) will score points under the regular points system.

### Bonus Points[edit]

* An additional bonus of 3 points is awarded for adding a new entry on the "most-wanted" list, Special:Wantedpages
* An additional bonus of 1 point is awarded for adding a link to an entry on the Special:Deadendpages, and thereby removing that entry from that list
* An edit to an existing entry may qualify as a New Entry if the edit is substantial enough.
* Adding a unique working link within a lecture: 2 points

* Adding an additional (non-unique) working links for the same term within the same American Government Lecture: 1 point

* Adding a relevant photo to Breaking News will receive a 2 points bonus.
* Adding two new terms to American Government Terms: 1 point
* Blocking a vandal/sock/troll or reverting their vandalism: 2 points. Cannot be doubled in case of those with blocking abilities.

### Notes[edit]

An entry is "entertainment-related" if it relates to a subject not taught as core curriculum in a typical high school or college. This includes articles on sports, popular music, movies, and other entertaining but not necessarily educational subjects.

* Exception: Full credit will be given for notable or important historical subjects, and for political entries.
* Exception: Full credit will be given for reasonable subjects which are educational but not necessarily taught in a typical school.