Game Play
Overview
The goal of the SetupBooster project is to compress the essential
principles of how to contribute to its Markdown-based wiki into a series
of tutorial activities that are structured like a game. This idea is an
attempt to address the problem with wikis and similar sites that build
up a large body of "basic" policies over time: no one reads them until
an administrator tells them they have broken one. While learning about
policy is never going to be a very enjoyable activity, incorporating
it into a rewards system provides an incentive for users. Limiting
article creation to those who have completed the tutorial game or are
administrators would increase the time commitment required from
anyone who wants to fill the site with spam content.
Part 1: Tutorial Game
The tutorial game is divided into six subject categories of questions
and activities. The current list of planned activities is documented
on the Game Content page. Completion
of each question or activity earns points. Each question or activity
requires the user to demonstrate comprehension of wiki policy or to
use a simulation of a wiki user interface component to carry out a
task. In the final version of this system, the user should be able to
learn the basics of how the site works through the act of playing the
tutorial game. The act of completing the tutorial game would earn a total
of 175 points (including a badge given for completing the game).
Part 2: Gamified Wiki
Points Breakdown
The points system for the wiki is designed to promote the creation
of new articles and collaboration in writing articles; both are
assigned relatively high point values. Being reported is intended
to be a light punishment at the moment; automatic user bans are not planned
for the system, with this instead being at the discretion of
administrators.
- +10 per new article published
- +5 for being added as an editor to another article
- +3 for adding an editor to an article
- +3 each time the user's article gets a rating of 4 or higher
- +2 each time the user's article gets a rating of 3
- -3 each time the user's article gets a rating of 2 or lower
- -3 each time the user is reported to administrators and the complaint stands
The rest of the points will come from article ratings, as described in the
following section.
Star Ratings Breakdown
Ratings will be limited to once per user per article per day.
All articles start with a rating of 3 stars (average). The highest-rated
articles will be listed on the site's front page in the final version.
Though what makes an article "good" can be very subjective,
the following standard is suggested:
- 1 Star
☆★★★★
- The article provides no or almost no accurate information.
- The article provides no or almost no relevant information.
- Completing the instructions causes unexpected file loss,
data corruption, or other problems not attributable
to other causes, and the article did not warn of this possibility.
(If this happens, it's recommended that the affected user
leave a comment that describes the problem.)
- 2 Stars
☆☆★★★
- The article is accurate but contains significant gaps in its instructions.
- The article provides some irrelevant information that detracts from readability
or makes it hard to understand.
- Completing the instructions causes non-harmful side effects
which are not documented. (If this happens, it's recommended
that the affected user leave a comment that describes the comment that
describes the problem.)
- 3 Stars
☆☆☆★★
- The article is missing some minor details but its instructions are otherwise complete.
- The article is understandable and organized.
- The article's instructions do not cause undocumented side effects,
and the documented side effects are not harmful.
- 4 Stars
☆☆☆☆★
- The article provides very precise instructions.
- The article contains clearly defined sections with a
beginning, middle, and end.
- Side effects, if any, are documented and not harmful.
The necessity of the steps which cause them is justified.
- Documentation is of at least equal quality with comparable
official documentation of the same feature (if it exists).
- 5 Stars
☆☆☆☆☆
- Like a four-star article, but in some indefinable way, better.
- This documentation is of better quality than comparable official
documentation of the same feature, or it documents a feature
which official documentation does not mention. (Note that
using truly undocumented features can backfire, as such
features may be unstable or slated for removal without
warning in future versions.)