Talk:Microgrants/Oxford Law Competition

I really like this idea, but I would recommend holding the contest on Wikipedia itself. You would need to provide a lot of support to the contestants, but it means they actually gain experience of editing Wikipedia. If they edit using a slimmed down interface on a walled-garden site, they will then have to make the big jump to Wikipedia after the contest when you won't be able to support them as well (or, more likely, they won't end up editing Wikipedia at all). Also, there is a risk with sandbox articles that you'll end up with something unsuitable for Wikipedia at the end of it. If it's on Wikipedia from the start, other editors can steer it in the right direction if it needs it. Another advantage to having it on Wikipedia is that you can use the existing article assessment system as part of the judging process (it's always good to align your judging with what Wikipedia wants, and that's the easiest way to do it). --Tango 00:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This was something I (we) gave considerable thought to, so I can flesh out a few of the reasons why a walled-garden site is worth the hassle (I think you do a good job of giving the contra position):

• Running the contest on Wikipedia exposes editors to vandalism, not least from teams from other colleges.
• Running the contest on Wikipedia means that teams would potentially work on the same articles, yielding a variety of problems judging-wise.
• Wikipedia itself has no notion of "teams" to which participants could identify, and thus misses an integral motivating factor of an intercollegiate contest. Ditto "Oxford" branding, and/or the logo of participating societies which make editors feel "at home" int eh editing world.
• As will be admitted, the learning curve for Wikipedia at the moment is very, very steep (certainly compared to a beta Visual Editor). Providing an interim stage yields a "slowly, slowly catchy monkey" approach to introducing new editors into the editing environment without scaring them. Even getting to them to the point of editing (i.e. the starting line) usually requires significantly more manpower and time from both mentors and teams than they're likely to have during term time. At the same time, it's a little pointless to get them to learn wikitext in June when it's going to obsolete for casual writers by August.
• I simply don't trust the edit review process on-wiki to helpfully guide participants in the correct direction rather than getting them trapped in a revert-warning cycle.
• Challenges regarding softblocks, hardblocks, etc, would need to be overcome (a minor point, I know).
• I can't see a reason to be beholden to onwiki judging processes, particularly given the need for time-sensitive reviewing, and general judging criteria inkeeping with an enticing writing prospect.

(I may have missed other points.) Overall, I just feel that a direct-Wikipedia approach would yield a greatly reduced number of participants by making it harder for them to get started. IMHO, the Wikimedia movement would be far better off easing 30-50 new editors in over a longer period of time, rather than throwing them in at the deep end. Regards, Jarry1250 14:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)