 Hello, I'm Destocado, Daniel Navarro, and I believe that Wikipedia is already gamified. Let me explain why. What led me to research on gamification is how it could help to enhance community health inside Wikipedia, taking into account that a small group of editors is responsible for the majority of the activity, specifically the ones that joined the movement in 2006. That is why I wanted to use gamification to enhance the editor's lifecycle. Gamification can be defined as slightly different depending on the authors, but basically it means enhancing anything thanks to the engaging and rewarding aspects of games. It is used to increase user contribution, productivity, learning, etc., and the results have been proven in many different areas such as sports, education, and more. However, many authors emphasize that gamification is not a template for success. That is simply by adding points, leaderboards, or badges to your system, it isn't going to turn on the benefits of gamification magically. Thus, a gamification plan needs to be designed in a user-oriented manner, because each case is unique and has different users and different motivations. Moreover, it has to be done responsibly, because it may lead to distractions, addictions, or unwanted behaviors. Before diving into the principle of Wikipedia, we must first understand my approach to gamification that is following the Marseski's Hexad user types. It is based on the popular self-determination theory and the intrinsic motivations of its user type. The most interesting for Wikipedia is the philanthropist, because they are motivated by a purpose and meaning. This group are altruistic and want to give other people and enrich their lives in some way with no expectation of reward. The basic example of this type, of course, is the Wikimedia contributors. On the other hand, we have the disruptors that are seen here as vandalists, and there are people that are motivated by change, and they want to disrupt the system and change it in any way. To help with the ideation process and the design, Marseski provides this table over here, classifying the different mechanics with the Hexad user types, which I used to develop my gamification proposal. On Wikipedia, I found three main gamification elements that you may already be familiar with, bar stars, lists, and user access levels. The bar stars, as you may know, are badges that users give to each other to thank them for their work, as a commemoration of an editathon or a prize, etc. In a sense, they are to show wiki love, but they have true problems, commonly referred to as barstritis A and B. The A occurs when a user brags about their bar star and knows them. That means that they use them and show them everywhere, even though when it is not appropriate. And the bar star it is by B occurs when the users give bar stars for everything. For example, just for getting to know me, I can give you a bar star, just, hey, you know the stockado, so here's a bar star, and that is a problem because it lowers the value of these bar stars. The lists, also known as leaderboards, such as the list of wikipedia by number of edits or by number of articles created, it's very polemic because some editors compete to see who appears higher on the list and this can create some discomfort between other users that could see their work irrelevant because they do small edits or they do huge edits, sorry, big edits, but a low amount of them, and it has a problem because, as I said, it's a wikipedia as a collaborative project and not a competitive one. And the edit count titties is similar to the bar staritis A when a user brags about their number of edits to show some authoritative argument in the discussion. Also, this mechanic is very fragile because any change counts as an edit. So, an edit of one byte counts the same as an edit of 100 bytes and they are by no means the same. About the user levels or user types, they could be considered as levels in, like, an MMORPG, for example, because some of them allow certain amount of power, that is some administrative privileges, but, in fact, they only allow for some bureaucracy. So, in conclusion, in this gamification, in wikipedia, due to the open character of it, from the designer perspective, one has to assume that it's impossible to eliminate destructive behaviors or cheating behaviors like the disruptors and as the first pillar says, we have to assume good faith and be patient. Nonetheless, the designer has to take into account these kinds of users and try to mitigate their negative impact and even use their motivations to the advantage of wikipedia by providing mechanics to funnel their drives and motivations. So, lastly, I will show you my gamification proposal. I designed three activities. The first one is the editing body when you can find the body, your editing body, that is a person that has edited in any given time. The same page that you have in your last 100 contributions. And you can see the pages you have edited in and the amount of pages. So, you can start conversations and create a relationship for socializers. The duel is meant for very competitive contributors, where they can set a metric duration and a goal, for example, three days, a goal of 100 edits in edit counts and also the namespaces, the categories and also you can even bet points of the platform. The third activity is the storytelling. I think it's the most powerful one because it allows to, well, given as a given user name, it gives you six random articles. So, you can write some stories or create some threads by answering the story of other users and creating a very long, very long threads of stories and collaborating with other users and voting or even reporting contributions that are not good enough or they might be disruptive. In the end, as the competition, as I said before, is a double-edged sword, I created the competition free mode. Then the leaderboards in the platform, instead of being a set of the best ones, it just computes the participation. So, instead of being a vertical list, it's a horizontal list when you can see the people who has participated the most but not ranking them in a bad way. And also, I created the quests to funnel the editors' behaviors. For example, if there is an editathon about Iberian Fauna, we can use these quests to motivate these users to create duels about certain categories, for example, this Iberian Fauna. And that would be all. I'm open to two questions. You can find more if you're interested in the documents I created in this link or ask me personally. And let's see if we have any question. It seems for now we don't have any. So, I will be reviewing those mechanics. For example, the dual one, I went very fast. You can bet tokens. You have these tokens in your page. You have your badges. And also, you can have titles. For example, we can see them in the storytelling activity. For example, these are people. Has the title illiterate that is granted him as a badge for completing certain activities or certain amount of contributions. And as I was saying, the dual, you can bet these tokens and select categories or namespaces to filter where it would compute your contributions. And then compute and show whether you are in the competition. So, thank you so much. And I hope you enjoyed my presentation.