WereSpielChequers (talk | contribs) →Stereotypes: reply |
Resident Mario (talk | contribs) + |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/commentspage}} |
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/commentspage}} |
||
<!-----------------------------------------------------------------------> |
<!-----------------------------------------------------------------------> |
||
'''Writer's note''': I've talked to Scottywong, WereSpielChequers, and Kudpung about the survey, and they all have a dim view of its results. There are [[meta:Research talk:New Page Patrol survey|concerns]] that the WMF cherry-picked candidates and removed "more than half of the likely legitimate contributions, based on a optional field," and there's also understandable discontent over the reversal of community consensus for a Foundation goal (although, as I pointed out [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-26/Opinion essay|a few months ago]], that may be necessary). Just an FYI for readers. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">[[User:Resident Mario|Res]]</font></b><font color="#444">[[User_talk:Resident_Mario#top|Mar]]</font></span> 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Stereotypes== |
==Stereotypes== |
||
I suspect some would count me among the critics of the Newpage patrol process, but this research didn't alter my view of the process. Most patrollers are accurate and clueful and the incorrect tags are disproportionately done by new, inexperienced patrollers. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
I suspect some would count me among the critics of the Newpage patrol process, but this research didn't alter my view of the process. Most patrollers are accurate and clueful and the incorrect tags are disproportionately done by new, inexperienced patrollers. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:18, 20 February 2012
Discuss this story
Writer's note: I've talked to Scottywong, WereSpielChequers, and Kudpung about the survey, and they all have a dim view of its results. There are concerns that the WMF cherry-picked candidates and removed "more than half of the likely legitimate contributions, based on a optional field," and there's also understandable discontent over the reversal of community consensus for a Foundation goal (although, as I pointed out a few months ago, that may be necessary). Just an FYI for readers. ResMar 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Stereotypes
I suspect some would count me among the critics of the Newpage patrol process, but this research didn't alter my view of the process. Most patrollers are accurate and clueful and the incorrect tags are disproportionately done by new, inexperienced patrollers. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's interesting in and of itself, because the inexperienced patrollers handle a tiny minority of the workload ;P. 89 percent of patrols are done by the top 25 percent of patrollers in terms of workload (cue mandatory jokes about "we are the 99 percent"). Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Be careful not to confuse being currently inexperienced with ever being inexperienced. I'm aware of some patrollers who've turned out pretty good but whose early patrolling included a fair few mistakes. Of course a pattern of the errors being disproportionately by new inexperienced patrollers doesn't mean that all incorrect tags are done by new and inexperienced taggers; we learned with wp:NEWT that there were errors being made by experienced patrollers and admins. But I'm pretty sure that errors are not evenly spread amongst patrollers. What I'm not sure about is the balance between taggers who start out making mistakes and later improve, and the ones who get discouraged and stop patrolling, but I'm pretty sure that we have an opportunity to intervene earlier and that more training will mean fewer bitten patrollers as well as fewer bitten article creators. One of my concerns back in 2009 was the number of taggers who didn't realise that their work was considered a problem until they ran at RFA. With RFA almost ground to a halt that is now less obvious as we no longer even have that backstop to find the more over enthusiastic taggers.
- If like me you believe that the large majority of patrols are correct then there is no discrepancy in thinking that the majority of the patrolling is probably done by very accurate, very experienced patrollers. Perhaps rather than an NPP useright we need some sort of whitelist system so that we can keep an eye on inexperienced taggers.
- There is also the issue that the error rate may look very different if you are measuring it as a proportion of the articles created by editors who are not autopatrolled as opposed to measuring it as a proportion of articles tagged for speedy deletion. My view, though I'm pretty sure Kudpung would disagree, is that the error rate in tagging articles for deletion is much higher than in tagging uncontentious articles as patrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Bots in April
I don't remember the big group of bot page creations in April. What were they? Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)