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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.)