Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (idea lab) (section)

== award for collaborating well in CTOPs ==

Have an idea to improve the editing environment in CTOPs. Basically, set up something like [[WP:EOTW]] where people get an award for collaborating well with a user they often disagree with, or for successfully leading consensus building efforts in a heated dispute. And editors have to be nominated by someone they often disagree with (read 'opposite POV'). This'd hopefully bridge the gap between 'POV trenches' and result in CTOPs having a handful of highly collaborative regulars, which then affects newbies entering the topic areas (and make true [[WP:PARTISANS|partisan]]s stick out more).

Atm, our only way to encourage collaborative behaviour is through punishing objectionably uncollaborative behaviour (and barnstars, but that's rare), which is not great. From a 'game' perspective (and there's always going to be some editors who treat editing like a game, esp. in CTOPs), the status quo just encourages [[WP:CPUSH]]ing and avoiding petty insults etc., while collecting evidence of their ideological enemies' slip-ups to try to weaponise conduct noticeboards and expel them from the topic area. This creates a lot of bad blood which makes the editing environment even worse. 

Again from a 'game' perspective, this award would add to a user's social capital, and so incentivise people to seek it. Thoughts? [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 14:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

:[[WP:WINNING|This does not seem like the best idea]]. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a video game|There should be zero "game" perspective]]. Editors that treat editing like a game should be sanctioned. Just give barnstars to editors who collaborate well with others, regardless of your POV. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 16:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::ideally, yes, but in practice it's not black or white [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 16:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::At first glance it seems a good idea, but I can see gaming coming from "editors have to be nominated by someone they often disagree with". There are rarely only two "sides" to a dispute, so people would insist that this is clearly defined, and it could lead to manufactured "disagreements". [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 17:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I agree, I hope there'd be some 'panel' not restricted by legalisms determining noms, but I guess people from the peanut gallery can call out bad-faith noms/when there's similar POVs. Open to other thoughts and better ideas about the problem generally [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 18:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::Facilitating, incentivizing, recognition for, and rewarding positive behavior and contributions does not imply editors "treat editing like a game". Stack Exchange users also do not treat that Q&A site like a game just because they can receive reputation and badges. However, I don't know whether "award for collaborating well in CTOPs" is a good idea and have doubts about it, e.g. due to requiring time-intensive manual subjective review etc. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 18:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I'd hope a nomination would include links to discussions which display it (there'd be a high bar), and I guess someone would scan the nominee's editing history (I was thinking AE admins would be a good fit for the 'panel' as a) it'd add prestige and b) they'll have more familiarity with CTOPs and such editors) [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 19:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Editor of the Week was deliberately set up as a low-stakes recognition initiative, to avoid making it something that people would spend a lot of time arguing about. While in principle it's fine to have a high-stakes recognition initiative, personally I'm dubious that this would improve the editing environment in areas where there is a lot of contention. My preference is to encourage low-stakes approaches that spreads out encouragement to lots of people for small acts of collaboration. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I don't know if Stack Exchange is the best example to use. It was deliberately designed by Jeff Atwood to gamify knowledge sharing, harnessing the desire people have to level up in service of building a repository of well-written answers. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 01:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Didn't claim it was the best example; it's a good example and what's your point even. It works well and Stack Exchange users also do not treat that Q&A site like a game just because they can receive reputation and badges.  
::::Btw, maybe another idea for consideration would to do sth effective about contributors who repeatedly insult others and better enable constructive deliberation on contentious topics where for example users do not address people's points, make false claims about what others say (both of which leading to "bludgeoning" accusations and difficulty for others to participate) or rule by the majority of who happens to watch the article or some noticeboard linking to the page where the subjective opinion of the majority crushes any constructive calm respectful deliberation. On a related note, I think an issue will be that users who often actually act unconstructively will get awarded with what's described here just because they also often contribute very constructively in lots of contentious topics. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 13:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::The point is that Stack Exchange deliberately made a game out of sharing knowledge, and users did indeed treat it that way, seeking to level up. That had both positive effects and negative effects. Personally, I wouldn't use it as an argument in support of a similar system on English Wikipedia. That being said, recognition initiatives don't have to work the same way as on Stack Exchange, and trying to build more esprit de corps is a good way to foster cooperation. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|and users did indeed treat it that way, seeking to level up}} Disagree with that unsourced/unsubstantiated statement. Whatever they did it worked and works remarkably well. {{tq|recognition initiatives don't have to work the same way as on Stack Exchange}} indeed. I think for a start we need better feedback & recognition than mere edit counts which do not reflect well the constructivity and contributions of users. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 19:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::It was discussed by Jeff Atwood at the time of creation, and there has been discussion online about how Stack Exchange's incentive structure led to gatekeeping and ownership behaviour. The details are not really important, since I don't think a Stack Exchange-type system is going to attain consensus support on Wikipedia. The key takeaway is that making knowledge sharing into a game can have pitfalls as well as benefits. I think Wikidata has some [https://wikidata-game.toolforge.org/ interesting examples of making contributing info more like a game], without any badges or levels.
:::::::I think editors should be doing more to thank others publicly, to foster collaborative behaviour by demonstrating it. I appreciate, though, that this may not come naturally to a significant proportion of the community. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::As said, that would not make it into a game, at least for the vast majority of users. SE which I did not claim was ideal did not make it into a game either. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 12:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::[[File:Halfstar_Hires.png|right|95x95px]]
::[[File:Starhalf_Hires.png|right|95x95px]]
::Let's not make barnstars be rare.  In particular, I recommend [[Template:The Teamwork Barnstar|The Teamwork Barnstar]] (for groups), the [[Template:The Left Half of the Half Barnstar|Half Barnstar]] (for two editors; two halves shown), and the [[Template:Diplomacy Barnstar|Diplomacy Barnstar]] (for the peace brokers) for these situations. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:Feel free to write an appreciative note on the talk pages of editors who act collaboratively, whether or not they support the same views that you do, and to encourage others to do the same. Personal notes are great, particularly when they list specific actions that are being appreciated, so they really convey your personal thanks. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:I like this idea because it would let us make a cleaner case for who's pushing what POV, making it easier to eventually remove them from the topic area. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 23:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:I disagree with Thebiguglyalien. I don't think it would make a cleaner case for who's pushing what POV. It would only tell you which accounts have won the award. It is not possible to extrapolate much from that. And it is not currently technically possible to remove a person from the topic area. It is only possible to remove an account from the topic area. The non-equivalence between a person and an account means that removal acts as a filter that increases the concentration of people willing to employ deception and dilutes the concentration of editors unwilling to employ deception. This is why socks love to weaponize reporting systems of course because sanctions provide a very significant fitness advantage to people willing to employ deception via disposable accounts. This is where I disagree with SuperPianoMan9167 a bit. There is utility in thinking of Wikipedia as a game with payoff matrices.
:I'm not sure whether the notion of 'collaboration' is the best target. First the caveats...
:* I'm not sure what is meant precisely by 'collaborative behaviour' or how to measure it in a sensible way. Even if we could measure/recognize it (roughly) I'm not sure we have the kind of visibility into the topic area and all of its actors to make sensible evidence-based decisions. People mostly see shiny objects and hear the noise when most of the activity in the topic area just hums along undramatically in the background.
:* I'm not sure that the kind of collaboration (talking?) that is being considered as worthy of merit or virtuous is an important factor in content creation in the topic area in practice since '[[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS|consensus usually occurs implicitly]]'. The vast majority of activity in the topic area is routine editing and does not involve conflict/disruption.
:* I'm not even sure whether a collaborative environment is actually better than a diverse partly adversarial environment at producing policy compliance for something like the PIA topic area where content needs to capture things from all sorts of perspectives and sources. A bit of chaos might be better at doing that over time.
:* I'm not sure whether [[WP:CPUSH]]ing is good or bad given that the alternative to civil POV pushing is just POV pushing. POV pushing is not going to stop, and there is very little anyone can do about it without solving hard problems like the use of deception via disposable accounts. Editors in the topic area have POVs and it impacts every choice they make whether they are aware of it or not. So, for me, the number of active editors, their activity levels and their diversity of views is what matters much more than details about individual editors.  
:Having said all that, if there were an award, maybe it would be better to reward people for using the tools available to resolve conflict and find consensus on contentious issues. I'm thinking of RfC usage, things like that, tools intended to help people focus on policy-based decision making. It is those tools that I think have the best chance of making the topic area function better. Perhaps that was already captured by the 'for successfully leading consensus building efforts in a heated dispute'. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 10:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC) 
::Wikipedia is not [[survival of the fittest]]. It is [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|not a battleground]] between "pro-RS editors" and sockpuppets. It is an encyclopedia.
::[[User:LilianaUwU/Civil POV pushing is POV pushing|Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing]], so it is bad. The alternative to civil POV pushing is [[WP:INSCRUTABLE|not letting your opinions come out in your edits at all]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 18:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I think on here we've accepted the reality that on some topics few people put several hours every day into Wikipedia for free solely because they want to improve the encyclopedia, if we tbanned/blocked everyone with a POV this place would become a ghost town. Also, presenting and analysing evidence for POV pushing takes ''ages''. So long as there's a diversity of POVs and they all collaborate well w one another, article quality turns out good. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 19:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Article quality turns out good... if one happens to hold the POV that "wins" in that particular area. I believe most Wikipedia editors do want to write neutrally by properly summarizing the totality of sources/opinions, and do have the goal of improving the encyclopedia without tilting coverage one way or the other. But there are also many editors who are participating in bad faith by balancing articles and casting !votes in a way that strengthens their POV. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 21:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::by collaborating I mean compromising (assuming NPOV sits in the middle), RfCs [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 23#'Prevailing view' and 'consensus building'|are a joke]] in CTOPs [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 22:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)