Forums: Index War Room Achievements
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

The two week trial that the achievements were supposed to be run through is now up. So the question now is - Do we keep them?

Vote below.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  01:55, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


  1. Pictogram voting support Support — It gives users something to do. When I feel like I have nothing to edit, I just look throught the achievements and I set goals for myself. From what I've seen, achivements have only but helped this wiki get cleaned up and yes, through minor edits, but that doesn't matter. Sigr5od Talk? Edits01:58, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support Support — I support since the game versions gets trophies (I'm playstation so shut it)/achievements, then this wikia version should get some tropies as well GunsSwordsFlames 02:02, August 15, 2010 (UTC)GunsSwordsFlames
  3. Pictogram voting support Support — I support because it gives the community a good idea of who is being the most helpful and helps the wikia by cleaning up and offering an award for being helpful. Qw3rty! 02:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support Support — Per all. Mypictr 108x157Sgt.Maj. Delta 4-7Moh rosette 02:27, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


  1. Pictogram voting neutral Neutral — Don't care. While it has introduced me to adding categories, I don't care if it stays or goes. Conqueror of all Zombies 02:27, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting neutral Neutral — While Scottie theNerd is correct, I also agree with SkullRod and Conqueror of all Zombies. Happy Boy BasketballHappy Boy T M E 02:42, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting neutral Neutral — Don't really care if they go or stay, but i would like them to stay. NZ Dempsey Dempsey115 21:29, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


  1. Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — Even though SkullRod is right, I have already seen 5+ users that boosted. A few of them...My good friends. In my opinon, These medals look like (Sorry for Cussing) Shit. They take screen shots, Wierd In-game dejavu, And make cheap medals. Bravoalphasix 02:01, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — - While it has encouraged a surge of editing, it hasn't been fully productive. It has really stressed quantity over quality. While we already have problems with users jacking up their edit counts, having a reward system for quantitative edits is demoralising for editors who have been working on the wiki without thought for recognition. Achievements is a flawed concept in that it passively pressures people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Games release achievements to stretch out replay value or otherwise suck people in to boosting their gamerscore. I get sucked into getting Achievements on games, but games are a personal enjoyment. On a wiki, when users see the possible rewards and badges they can get by hitting the Save Page button x times, it's a recipe for unproductive editing that will, ironically, result in even higher achievement scores by users busily reverting bad edits. --Scottie theNerd 02:20, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Scottie TheNerd Sactage DILLAGAF? Editcount Contribs Want a sig? 02:30, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Anything I could say would simply be repeating what's above. CAW4 02:42, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Scottie the Nerd and the fact that I think that the edit count on the top right of user pages looks better than the amount of "Points" users have "Earned" M200rampantlionBeastly20 03:11, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Scottie. Also, I personally do not like them. Cpl. Dunn(Talk) 03:14, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — The achievement system has done little to benefit this wiki. All the system encourages is an increased aggregate of edits, regardless of the quality or content. While the previous system of merely totaling the gross edits a user makes also did this, it did not actively encourage users to make a large quantity of edits in order to receive a "shiny new badge." Users should be drawn to the wiki and be compelled to edit it not for some silly badge or a number of points next to their name, but rather for the desire to continue the cause of maintaining an accurate, up-to-date encyclopedia pertaining to the Call of Duty franchise. The resulting influx of low caliber edits has done little to improve the overall quality of the wiki, and has perhaps even degraded it. Many edits of questionable value have escaped the eyes of our ace editing team, and some of our articles feature incorrect and inaccurate information for inappropriate lengths of time. This goes against our policy of keeping up a standard of conciseness and precision on our featured pieces. This achievement system perpetuates the common misconception that the more edits/points a user has, the greater standing and weight the user will have in the community. This is clearly not the case. Users should be judged not on the amount of points or edits they have, but rather on their interactions with the community. The achievement system creates a culture of falsified importance. While many of the experienced editors here can see past the frivolity of badges and points, many of the newer users are led to believe these awards are important to success on the wiki. I have seen several new users commit the act of "achievement boosting," and have witnessed the consequences with my own eyes. Many of these users do so unknowingly, believing that what they are doing is commonplace on the wiki. New users are continually led to believe in the superficial culture the achievement system encourages, a culture that misrepresents the purpose and goals of the wiki. An undue amount of stress has been put upon our users as well. The inpouring of substandard edits made by users eager to receive more points has put an inordinate burden on our editing staff. These users must sift through the recent changes log and correctly identify and analyze each edit and determine whether or not the edit in question could possibly need to be reverted or revised. This increase in workload for our dedicated team of users is clearly unwarranted. Whether or not the achievement system has truly benefited our wiki is dubious. Any specific evidence either way is anecdotal, as we lack a way to objectively analyze the success of the new system. The release of the latest Black Ops videos have only compounded on our inability to measure the system's success, and any opinion on the matter is purely conjecture. However, for the reasons outlined above along with those presented by User Scottie theNerd, I hereby cast my vote for the abolishment of the achievement system and hesitantly support the reinstitution of the edit count setup. -Nogert 05:07, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — I've had a problem with these achievements since the beginning. They're annoying to me and they definitely encourage, or at least easily allow, edit whoring, boosting, as well as an increase in incredibly minor, pointless edits and even blocks. I agree wholeheartedly with Nogert and Scottie - it has done little to none to benefit the wiki, and it has arguably hurt the wiki. Juan José Rodriguez reportin' for duty. 05:19, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Scottie and Nogert. Achievements will make users edit for the wrong reason: to earn more achievements/points etc.. The purpose of editing is not for points, but to make the wiki better. I joined the wiki because I'm a fan of Call of Duty and I want to help make this site as best as I can, just because I feel like doing so. LITE992 05:31, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — While a good idea, all it has done is cause category whoring. I mean, look at the sudden influx of worthless categories, like :Category:Singleplayer and Category:Modern Warfare Series; none of these appeared before the achievements arrived. Its going to take a while to undo the worthless category shit these achievements have unleashed on us. Darkman 4 05:36, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — The achievment system needs to be abolished once and for all. I have seen COUNTLESS users turn into edit boosters. They say they are not edit boosting, we know otherwise. Users have been blocked for edit boosting and I submit to you that these users probably would not have been blocked if this system was not in place. I have seen hundreds of senseless catagory edits that other users had to revert. That is not an easy task. The Achievment System has done more bad than good to the wiki. It messes up Userpages. I saw somebodies Userpage messed up so badly,where the achievment system covered a lot of information and could not be read. This achievment system was not very well planned out and is nothing but a distraction. From the start of the trial period up to today, there are still users adding catagories to articles that don't need them. The wiki did absolutely fine before the system and it will do fine when it is gone. It's time to abolish this system and carry on soldiers! Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 05:51, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — a) Lots of boosters. b) Achievements kill wiki. Users target is now to get more achievements, not to make wiki better (read LITE992's post 2 posts above). c) Improving quality of articles by making 10-20+ worthy edits to same article may be considered as boosting. d) Achievements break COD:AEAE. Users with more achievements are considered as "better" by some users, but contributors may make good edits, but have no time for making thousands of edits. >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 08:19, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Whilst it has encouraged some positive contributions, it has also fostered a great deal of edit boosting. It's a good idea in concept, but I don't think that some elements of the community are mature enough not to try to abuse the system. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk08:25, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Everything I wanted to say is basically said above... Helljumper "Folks Need Heroes"
  15. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — I would be fine with keeping it, but it encourages booting for the achievements and it doesn't give experienced users recognition for prior edits. Blinzy[45] 08:46, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  16. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per SiPlus and CplDunn. -Stbnewsig StB Flag 15:04, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  17. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per all who opposed   Hax 217    talk-page  18:09, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  18. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Scottie theNerd. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 19:15, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  19. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per all. Ridiculous idea that shouldn't have been implemented to start. Cpl. Wilding 19:57, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  20. Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — It's a bad idea to keep it. It encourages a lot of small edits and/or pages. A wiki is not to be built out of a lot of articles, but the quality of the articles. A wiki is a collaborative database that operates as an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is an informative database that focuses on one (or more) main subject. I feel that this will encourage bad edits (i.e. spamming categories, blanking pages and then reverting them, adding a bunch of images that are irrelevant to the page and then reverting it). However, I do see one point of this, to encourage more editors to register and create an account, but they will probably make a lot of spam edits for a badge just so they can show it off. The leaderboard is a mistake, as a wiki is a community, working together to make the wiki more user and reader-friendly. Leaderboards puts the idea to make users better than each other by putting a rank on them, and will lead to a lot of edit warring as well. Wikia wikis should work together on making their wiki a better place, but I see this as making users only work by themselves. --CodExpert 00:59, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  21. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per CodExpert. Blast Shield Emblem MW2Vinnv226JuggTitle2Blast Shield Emblem MW2 02:10, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  22. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Because it's ugly, annoying, and plain useless in my book. Darthkenobi0(talk) 02:12, August 16, 2010 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment Comment — @GunSwordsFlames' support - not all the Call of Duty games have had achievements, and not all wikis which run this system have games which have achievements. What if someone only had the games which don't have achievements?  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  19:53, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — @Beastly20's oppose - Edits aren't necessarily an indicator of skill/experience, one can easily boost edits just as one can boost achievements.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  19:53, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — @Qw3rty!'s support - But we've seen that it's giving credit to uses who aren't helpful, and as Darkman has stated, they have brought on a tsunami of pointless categories, which have had to be removed, and as Scottie stated, ironically gives the users removing the bad edits more points than those who put them in.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  19:59, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — @Skullrod's Support - " It gives users something to do", like edit boosting to get an achievement. Editors didn't need an incentive to edit before the system was implemented. All the veteran editors did just fine without it. As did the thousands of other registered users and Anons alike. Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 20:40, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Looks like Austir removed them already. Darkman 4 17:43, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.