Nominate a revision for rep

[DannyTheNinja]

If you've got a wiki article revision that you think did wonders for that article, post a link to the specific revision here. You can also nominate the person that started the article by linking to the first revision in the article.

What's a revision?

A revision is one specific edit done to an article. Think of it as a version number for the article. By nominating one specific contribution to the article you can alert us of one person's significant contribution to the wiki.

How to link to revisions?

Go to the article's history tab and right-click the date and time of the revision you're nominating. Then click "Copy Link Location" (in Firefox) or "Copy Shortcut" in Internet Explorer. The menu command should be similar for other browsers.



This should result in a link that looks like this (note the phrase "oldid" in it):

Wiki Welcome - ADISC Answers Wiki

Then paste the URL here. If we approve of your recommendation we'll give rep to the user that added that revision.

It's OK to nominate your own revision, but don't nominate the same revision twice. To keep this thread clean I will delete posts if a nomination is accepted. If a nomination is rejected, I'll leave a comment in the nomination in purple.

Note: I'm hoping that this system can be only temporary. I realize it's not real great. Hoping that we can figure out a way to rep individual wiki revisions (I might actually try to code something to that end, if Moo is OK with it).

--Danny

[ayanna]

Why should revisions get the rep? If any rep is given for wiki articles it should be for the original article. A revision, unless it is making extreme changes to the original can be done by anyone, but the original ideas are what deserve the attention.

Then again, I'm not sure that wiki articles should be repped at all.

NOTE: The above is personal opinion only.

[Cupcake]

Why would it be nominated if it WASN'T a good revision.

Great idea, Danny.

[weswissa]

Awww... now Mandi's gonna get like 100 billion rep now... cause she's gonna do something and 5million people are going to rep... some just come to the site to rep her...

[Cupcake]

Originally Posted by weswissa

Awww... now Mandi's gonna get like 100 billion rep now... cause she's gonna do something and 5million people are going to rep... some just come to the site to rep her...

I only do minor revisions in the wiki, and hardly any, and non rep-worthy. An article of mine is up, but that's it... so most certainly not.

[Darkfinn]

Originally Posted by weswissa

Awww... now Mandi's gonna get like 100 billion rep now... cause she's gonna do something and 5million people are going to rep... some just come to the site to rep her...

I wish people would stop caring so much about freakin rep.

Besides... Mandi has already proven that she only has rep. b/c she is awesome and has boobs. Perhaps if you had some boobs you could get rep too?

(/sarcasm)

[Fire2box]

I thought just the wiki edits count are fine enough, but the true reason for improving the wikis is so they are better laid out.

Also is there really a way to track who's made what changes to a wiki? I mean the editors not the creators.

[Jeremiah]

I would like to nominate the following revision.

Finding Infantilists - ADISC Answers Wiki

[FullMetal]

Originally Posted by ayanna

Why should revisions get the rep? If any rep is given for wiki articles it should be for the original article. A revision, unless it is making extreme changes to the original can be done by anyone, but the original ideas are what deserve the attention.

Then again, I'm not sure that wiki articles should be repped at all.

NOTE: The above is personal opinion only.

I second and third what Ayanna said.

Why would revisions get reputation? I don't understand... and what if its a really bad revision, will it deserve negative rep?

This seems a bit off to me, sorry. Maybe I am missing something

FullMetal

[Lukie]

I'm with ayanna and FullMetal on this one.

My argument is that is someone is willing to write [start] an article, then they should put in a good effort the first time. That's not to say they should spend a lot of time on making it perfect, it is a Wiki after all and subsequent edits will always be present, but rather just be more elaborate in their writing and show that they've got a keenness to improve the Wiki.

With that said, I feel rep for Wiki-stuffs should only be given for

1. The first copy of an article (ie. Making a new page),
2. Major revisions,
3. Demonstrating a willingness to improve the Wiki.

Firstly, I'd impose that "rep for revisions" (and including new articles) should be restricted by a minimum limit for that creation/revision. Anyone can hop on and write a few lines of text about a topic and leave someone else to clean it up and fill in the gaps. But as I said above, if you're genuine about improving something, why wouldn't you make the effort and be more detailed in your efforts? Basically, by a "limit" I mean something that will stop people from creating new articles/revisions for rep (honestly, who wants to waste a lot of time by writing something they don't care about?), but will motivate enough for people to go the extra effort. From what I'm observing, most of the best articles that have been created and/or revisions have had a minimum 3000-5000 "bytes" of data. It's not a mind-blowing amount of information, but enough to deter anyone who isn't serious about writing.

As for demonstrating a willingness to improve the wiki, I feel that if someone is putting in the time to make the Wiki better, then they are entitled to a reward for it. In an idealistic world, people would work for free, give away things for free, hell... everything would be free. Money wouldn't be an issue, therefore not many people would have the motivation to go and study to become a surgeon, or an engineer, etc... We just simply wouldn't advance as a society. Analogous to that, why would people want to continually spent their time on something without anything in return? I guess what I'm saying is: rewards provide motivation. I really have no doubt that if rep were to be given for continued efforts in editing the wiki, then people will continue that behaviour. But if such were there case, then I'd suggest that they follow the guideline in the above paragraph...

But perhaps be a bit more lenient in revisions though, reduce that number to 1000 bytes or so. And also base it on how many of these sorts of revisions they actually do.