Commons:Commons contributions achievements
|
This page is a work in progress page, not an article or policy, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.
Please offer suggestions on the talk page. |
Commons contributions achievements is an early-stage page to develop definitions and criteria for achievements and leaderboards of Wikimedia Commons contributors. If implemented, these could be of general interest and motivate users as well as facilitate more and more constructive contributions.
Leaderboards
[edit]
x number of files in use on Wikipedias
[edit]| Rank | Number | Share of uploads | Number of uses across all WPs | User |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | 455 | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | 700 | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | 400 | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | 1200 | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | 202 | Username |
x number of files in use on Wikimedia projects
[edit]| Rank | Number | Share of uploads | User | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username | |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username | |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username | |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username | Uploaded charts from Our World in Data using tool XYZ, updated OWID charts manually, … |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x original own work uploads in use
[edit]| Rank | Number | Share of uploads | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x illustrations
[edit]| Rank | Number | Share of uploads | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x story points of code issues implemented
[edit]
Story points assess how difficult a task is or was to implement. It could be combined with measures of the priority of the issue (mainly the priority set on phabricator but also e.g. votes in Wishlist proposals or estimated annual hours of volunteers time saved by implementing it). See also Git Top Authors here e.g. sorted by number of added code lines.
| Rank | Number | Times priority | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x highlighted media
[edit]| Rank | Number | Share of highlighted own media nominated by the user | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
Featured pictures, MOTD, quality images, picture of the year, WikiLovesX, and more.
x media requests solved
[edit]See Commons:Audio and video requests. However, there are many gaps without any request on Commons or Wikipedia – for example there are many Wikipedia articles where an image/illustration would be useful but none such exists on WMC. Likewise, people can request things that are not actually useful.
| Rank | Number | ... | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x files categorized (non meta categories)
[edit]| Rank | Number | ... | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x used files uploaded to categories linked to an Wikipedia article with few other media
[edit]Cases are only counted 6 months after creation of the category.
| Rank | Number | ... | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x reverts of vandal and test edits
[edit]| Rank | Number | ... | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x used categories created
[edit]| Rank | Number | Semi-excluding serial categories like by year categories | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x copyedits
[edit]Of file descriptions and so on.
| Rank | Number | Percent where copyedit is combined with other edit type like expansion | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x checked TimedTexts provided
[edit]Users may use machine transcription for these so it is debatable whether machine-transcribed subtitles should be tracked separately and what would be necessary to prevent these stats from facilitating people to mass-create low-quality TimedTexts (e.g. containing lots of mistranscribed words such as people names or for languages where machine transcription does not work well).
| Rank | Number | Percent unchecked | Percent used | User |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username | |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username | |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username | |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username | |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x checked used video redubs provided
[edit]See for example Category:Videos by Terra X by language of dubbed video.
| Rank | Number | .. | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x self-made illustrations in use
[edit]Creating an original work that is in use is usually much more difficult and a larger contribution than uploading used images. Here they would simply be tracked separately.
| Rank | Number | .. | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
x self-taken photos in use
[edit]| Rank | Number | .. | User |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 345 | 10% | Username |
| 2 | 284 | 3% | Username |
| 3 | 222 | 2% | Username |
| 4 | 210 | 1% | Username |
| 5 | 200 | 8% | Username |
Further ideas
[edit]Levels per leaderboard
[edit]There could be levels where each increase of a level above a certain level would need to get some brief review to make sure the contributor didn't make problematic changes just to increase their level.
Difficulty and time required to implement this well
[edit]The criteria above will get refined over time and it could take many years–decade(s) until it reaches a well-working version that also is implemented to a large degree. Work on this may currently mostly occur in the Commons Android app. However, this is not limited to Wikimedia Commons and may possibly be more useful on Wikipedia.
Notifications when files are put into use
[edit]Notifications when a file one has uploaded or created is put into use on a Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project (or the first use of it); see Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Notifications when one's uploaded files get used. One can already see file uses via the Glamorous tool (check "Show details"). On Wikipedia one gets a notification when an article one has started is wikilinked from another Wikipedia page.
Existing metrics and functions
[edit]Many related components already exist but they are not very meaningful or comparable stats and indicators – for example some of the proposed metrics are breaking down edit counts by type to some degree. A large edit count does not mean the user has necessarily contributed much or roughly as much as another user with the same count, for example the user may have only moved files in one category with cat-a-lot (and this may even have been reverted) while each of another user's edits are lengthy laborious additions of useful file descriptions to heavily used files and uploads of self-made files that close key gaps in free media. There also are notifications when a user made their first edit and when their edit counts reach 10 or squares thereof.
Likewise, Thank Yous are given mostly arbitrarily (e.g. not for a user's most constructive edits) and the overall count, as shown in XTools, does not reflect well how much a user has contributed the platform. The same applies to badges on talk pages. In contrast, Commons Contributions Achievements is about automation/contributions-data-analysis-based and reasonable metrics that do reflect the constructivity of a user (to some increasing degree and with some caveats). They are set not fully manually but to some degree automatically.
Platform feedback system
[edit]It could be considered as an improvement or enhancement of the feedback system of the platform so people get more feedback to be more engaged / motivated / entertained when contributing and can just track their stats out of interest.
Anonymous constructive contributions certificates
[edit]Contributing to Wikimedia projects is a major modern volunteering activity. Yet, unlike other volunteer activities people can't prove they have contributed to them and by roughly how much, especially not anonymously which is a key requirement for many editors. If contributions achievements are implemented to some reasonably sophisticated degree, it may become possible to prove one has contributed above some level of constructivity without disclosing one's real name which has all sorts of potential benefits. This could relate to finance (or available time for volunteering) as well as to increasing the number of contributors and public recognition of Wikimedia volunteer activities, see e.g. Voluntary social year, and many other things. This would obviously be even more difficult to implement well and would need lots of discussions and problems mitigation. It could be thought of this way: society currently allocates financial resources (money) to any activities that are profitable, with some reactionary limited efforts to reduce harmful activities like deforestation for profitable beef production – in the digital world there is now the potential to reward truly, transparently, and only activities that are considered overall constructive by some degree of constructivity even if that the recognition is not having any tangible benefits. The degrees of what and how much things are considered constructive can be customizable (so if one considers uploading of used files much more constructive than improving file description the respective weightings could be changed from some default) and/or separate (instead of overall constructivity there are to some degree separated scores per aggregate activity type as in the section above).
Bots populating the above tables
[edit]For some early prototype to start with, some bot(s) could populate some of the tables above (and more can be added). The query or code used for that would need to be linked in the section. If people opt out to have their name shown in leaderboards, there would be a placeholder for the username in the table. Notes can be added for every row by other users, for example containing some info about which things the user contributed in more semantic terms (like "Uploaded charts from Our World in Data using tool XYZ, updated OWID charts manually, …"). The tables would each contain many rows each, not just the top 5 (but that may the number shown without going to a separate page containing the full table), and the component of viewing all of one's or another user's achievements would still be missing. Only analyzing edit summaries using a tool like this would not be sufficient for the stats.
Subject-area stats
[edit]Subject areas can be analyzed for example via uploads and edits to files being within a topical category like Category:Linux but setting up a new subject area can be difficult – for example categories may be very large, or have inappropriately categorized subbranches and the example contains this whole cat.
Problems and ideas on their mitigation
[edit]Even if there are many complex potential problems, people don't act so problematically if these things don't result in anything tangible. Here are some forseeable issues that would represent challenges to implementing this:
Problematic contributions
[edit]People are facilitated to make changes (such as uploading files or adding their files to Wikipedia or adding inappropriate categories) for the sake of increasing their stats/points/badges/levels which can result in more problematic contributions
- The things shown would need to be well-selected (like "Number of images in use on a Wikipedia" instead of "Number of files uploaded") and fine-grained (like "Number of files categorized" instead of "Edit count"). If we implement this intentionally then this can be done. It can't be done well if stats and contributions metadata are just some byproducts. Secondly, this would be noticed (for example by complementary stats of how large the share of self-uploaded files put into use only by the uploader) and considering results of similar features doesn't seem likely to be a big problem, especially when also considering the advantages in the context of Wikimedia projects that have a large lack of active editors and partly declining activity/users. Third, they would be shown separately so if a user intentionally or unintentionally propped up some contribution evaluation like "edit count" then the other ones can be looked at (also by the users themselves) or be considered as context when looking at a user's contributions to this volunteer project.
- Files to which only cats like meta maintenance cats like display resolution cats got added may also be tracked separately
- People adding inappropriate cats for increasing these numbers would get some notification because they get a large share of / multiple reverts among their edits.
- Many files lack categories that this may not be as big of a thing especially if there were more task requests that people could simply complete to increase their stats. No need to do inappropriate edits when you can simply work on some todo list that would increase your stats a lot.
- It seems rare that people try to get their own image used instead of other ones and the larger problem is that even people's own uploads remain unused when lots of articles miss images. One could track files put into use by the uploader (like a counter of how many) and have a rule to not readd an own image yourself when some other Wikipedia editor removed it (somebody else would need to do that and one can make a talk page post).
Problematic weightings/prioritizations
[edit]Things may be unreasonably weighed – for example when it comes to edit counts by moving 1 k files to another category at once using cat-a-lot is not the same as manually reverting 1 k manually detected cases of vandalism&co
- This is already the case with Edit counts which is what people can see for their own contributions, may be motivated by, can compare to other users, and can glance over when looking at other users. If you don't like that and consider edit counts useless that doesn't change this reality and as is is nothing but a Pro to implementing more reasonable and comprehensive feedback/stats.
Disagreement over what is how constructive
[edit]WMC community wouldn't agree on what gives points/badges or is facilitated or by how much
- They don't have to. One could make it dynamic like a table with many columns can be sorted by whatever column(s) you're interested in. When there are different stats/badges/… whatever you think is irrelevant can be ignored. If there are levels per badge or even per user's magnitude of constructive contributions, like those of Wikipedia:Service awards, then the user could personally adjust the weightings or select a premade weightings-combination.
Various special contributions are not adequately recognized
[edit]A lot of constructive contributions are not included and people will be disadvantaged/biased by that or complain (or vice versa if to them unconstructive things are included) – for example talk page posts that contribute constructively to a question by e.g. solving the problem a user had would also need to be considered as positive activity instead of e.g. just activities like uploading.
If closing identified gaps, such as by providing requested media, is recognized and facilitated with dedicated comparable badges, then closing of gaps and ~first provision of missing needed/useful files is left out.
- One could also consider the number of used files in the categories by subject of the file and increase weighting if there are nearly no other media in the respective cats or only unused ones. This would be difficult but wouldn't really be needed as one could do this by greater consideration of whether and how files are being used.
- This is already the case with the already implemented Suggested Edits. More things can be added over time, maybe even in a modular kind of way. Even when missing many things, this could be better than having nearly no such thing except for mainly edit counts. There would be some dedicated page about that and people interested in this subject could address or work on complaints about it there which would not annoy other users. It doesn't seem likely that these gamification points/stats/… would result in any tangible benefits for the users like anonymous monetary return based on the level of recent contribution so people wouldn't really care much about imperfections with it.
- Gaps in the recognition would be closed over time collaboratively and it could take decades until the feedback system reaches a mature stage in that sense.
See also
[edit]- User:Fæ/Userlist – only shows the edit count (see above) and is outdated by years
- Commons:Wiki Allstars – a humorous approach (and would seemingly facilitate lots of air travel)
- Wikipedia:Service awards – Wikipedia badges that are not automatically assigned, don't have stats or leaderboards, and which people must assign themselves and often do so without meeting the criteria
- Themed challenges like m:WikiForHumanRights/Join the Challenge#Scoring system or Wikipedia:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest/Leaderboard – e.g. value writing new articles the same way as translating existing ones and thereby facilitate mostly translations which could better be implemented using machine translation anyway (at scale and articles will be in sync) and is only about the particular theme and does not consider contributions of people in the past or who don't formally participated in the events
- https://github.com/commons-app/commons-app-documentation/blob/master/API/leaderboard.md – Under development
- https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/runs/all?search_term=users – Quarry queries that may be relevant