→NPP: a cross-Wiki critical issue: answer to some of the comments |
→NPP: a cross-Wiki critical issue: +resp to Kudpung |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
:The issue I would like to discuss at Wikmania covers every conceivable manner for preventing the creation of clearly inappropriate new pages, while avoiding biting and discouraging those who innocently do not understand that Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia. |
:The issue I would like to discuss at Wikmania covers every conceivable manner for preventing the creation of clearly inappropriate new pages, while avoiding biting and discouraging those who innocently do not understand that Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia. |
||
:One of those solutions is, inevitably and foremost on our wishlist, as {{U|Esquivalience}} correctly recognises, is the introduction of an audited user right to patrol new pages. We have such things for the less critical recent changes reviewers, and thresholds of required competency for vandalism patrollers and AfC reviewers, so the logical step towards getting the Page Curation softwae used properly, is to ensure that it is not used by new and/pr highly inexperienced editors. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
:One of those solutions is, inevitably and foremost on our wishlist, as {{U|Esquivalience}} correctly recognises, is the introduction of an audited user right to patrol new pages. We have such things for the less critical recent changes reviewers, and thresholds of required competency for vandalism patrollers and AfC reviewers, so the logical step towards getting the Page Curation softwae used properly, is to ensure that it is not used by new and/pr highly inexperienced editors. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
::A ping popped me here, so I thought I'd drop by and maybe answer some questions about Page Curation and the workflows. Hi guys! |
|||
::First, my title was "Senior Designer". I'm flattered, but "Director" I was not. And the command structure (at the time of the development of Page Curation) was: Sue Gardner -> Erik Moeller -> Howie Fung -> Myself. |
|||
::Second, I should say that Page Curation is one of the projects I am most proud of in my time at the Foundation, and I actually use it as an example in classes when I teach about design. |
|||
::That said, there were some problems with the way Page Curation diverged from my vision and became a reality. Most were minor and fixed quickly, but the biggest and most problematic one is that the templates and deletion rules were hard-coded into the software, rather than being something that could be customized on a per-wiki basis. At the time this decision was made (to remove the customization), I was off the project and couldn't fight for it. |
|||
::The reason Article Creation Workflow never happened is something that is both sad and petty at the same time. There was a design and template system that ''most'' of us agreed was the path; however, when it came time to set down production, there was disagreements, which caused us to have to rework everything. This happened ''several'' times in a row and we ended up back-burnering the project because no one could agree (welcome to Wikipedia!). Eventually, teams got shuffled, priorities changed, and that's that. The "benign smile" that Kudpung mentions: that was me trying to create a response that was truthful and vague: I love the project and its idea, I wanted it to happen (I care a great deal about this part of the way Wikipedia works), but I knew that it was never going to happen. I also knew that I couldn't promise or deny anything, and I knew that it would be frowned upon if I decided to work on it or push for it on my own. |
|||
::(For the record, the abovementioned "disagreements" did not happen with anyone in my command chain; we all thought it was a priority) |
|||
::Hope that clears anything up, and I'm willing to talk further.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] ([[User talk:Jorm|talk]]) 06:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:48, 27 March 2016
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
/patrolled pages for discussion on development of the special patrol page (inactive). |
This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Do not bite the newcomers
I just saw evidence that an experience editor placed a Prod tag on an article started by a newbie a minute after the article was started. Unfortunately this type of biting occurs quite frequently — can anything be done about it? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
- @Ottawahitech:In hindsight, I should have waited. In fact, the user had a source in an external link in the initial edit, so the blpprod was actually inappropriate. Thanks for raising your concerns. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 03:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I generally believe it is a good idea to put a clock on unsourced BLP's by using BLPPROD. How long to wait before placing it is a judgement call - if it looks to be a promotional puff piece meh, tag it when you see it. If, on the other hand, it looks to be a good faith viable start I suggest you leave it up in a browser tab for an hour or so and then tag it if still unsourced. If the editor has been working on it over that time go to their talk page and give them a friendly explanation to go with the auto-notice. If the page is a one edit wonder again meh, it is probably promo by a paid SOCK - tag. Always watch for removal, particularly if it looks like promo/paid work - work with good faith newbies and explain our sourcing requirements to them and how to legitimately remove the BLPPROD. Unsourced BLP's are probably the worst thing, short of straight up BLP violations, to let slip through NPP. JbhTalk 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also less hesitant to wait with BLPPROD. Often, the user creates the page then logs off never to return. I find it less BITEy than a CSD, which I'll wait for unless it's a very obvious violation. As for the browser tab thing, that would work if I didn't generally have over 100 tabs open anyway. Nonetheless, quick tagging is routine at NPP amongst many taggers. Can anything be done about it? I Not really I can think of. Ask editors to be a bit more lenient on their talk page. I've had to personally deal with a few over-eager CSD taggers by following them, changing rationale and declining others. I understand the frustration it can cause. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 03:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes but is the loss of the newbie more or less likely after we have tagged their article for deletion? My assumption is that deletion tagging drives people away, but I'm not sure how robust the proof of that is. I remember seeing evidence that the 25% of editors who start by creating new articles are rather less than 25% of the new editors who stay here, but I'm not sure yet if we have research that looks at newbies who are neither spammers nor vandals. ϢereSpielChequers 07:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I believe one of my first edits here years ago was creating a new page for a non-significant school, which was incorrectly tagged for A7 (which doesn't allow educational institutions) within minutes of me writing the article. Then it got PROD' which I declined, they ignored the fact I could decline it and readded it. And then eventually AFD dealt with it. I'm still here. Of course my anecdote proves nothing, and it's probably likely in many cases that the users would be driven away. I don't think it changes the fact that new BLPs require sources and {{unsourced}} just doesn't get the message through. I even tried finding references to that article after I tagged it to no avail. The original page looked (somewhat) promotional but there was a claim of significance preventing A7. I was half expecting someone to come along and add references.
- Yes but is the loss of the newbie more or less likely after we have tagged their article for deletion? My assumption is that deletion tagging drives people away, but I'm not sure how robust the proof of that is. I remember seeing evidence that the 25% of editors who start by creating new articles are rather less than 25% of the new editors who stay here, but I'm not sure yet if we have research that looks at newbies who are neither spammers nor vandals. ϢereSpielChequers 07:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also less hesitant to wait with BLPPROD. Often, the user creates the page then logs off never to return. I find it less BITEy than a CSD, which I'll wait for unless it's a very obvious violation. As for the browser tab thing, that would work if I didn't generally have over 100 tabs open anyway. Nonetheless, quick tagging is routine at NPP amongst many taggers. Can anything be done about it? I Not really I can think of. Ask editors to be a bit more lenient on their talk page. I've had to personally deal with a few over-eager CSD taggers by following them, changing rationale and declining others. I understand the frustration it can cause. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 03:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I generally believe it is a good idea to put a clock on unsourced BLP's by using BLPPROD. How long to wait before placing it is a judgement call - if it looks to be a promotional puff piece meh, tag it when you see it. If, on the other hand, it looks to be a good faith viable start I suggest you leave it up in a browser tab for an hour or so and then tag it if still unsourced. If the editor has been working on it over that time go to their talk page and give them a friendly explanation to go with the auto-notice. If the page is a one edit wonder again meh, it is probably promo by a paid SOCK - tag. Always watch for removal, particularly if it looks like promo/paid work - work with good faith newbies and explain our sourcing requirements to them and how to legitimately remove the BLPPROD. Unsourced BLP's are probably the worst thing, short of straight up BLP violations, to let slip through NPP. JbhTalk 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose my quick tagging was half guided by the fact I've seen many pages get rapidly BLPPROD' - even by mops - who aren't questioned on it, especially on pages such as this one (I would have much preferred the editor leave a note on my talk page before putting it here, without that new 'mentioned' thing, I wouldn't have even known this was here) But in the future, I'll bookmark the page and come back later to avoid any doubt. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 08:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Would like to be a New Page Patroller
Is there some toolset I need to request (like at RFA for administrators) to be able to do that? I am becoming more active on the project, and like working with people who are just starting out on Wikipedia. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hallward's Ghost: No, there is no special toolset that you need to request to be able to do New page patrol. There is a page curation tool, but it appears automatically when you click on an article in the New Pages Feed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll get started! Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hallward's Ghost: Please read Wikipedia:New pages patrol carefully and start out conservatively. NPP requires great care and familiarity with Wikipedia's content policies and our Policy on Biographies of Living Persons(Please read and understand it) When you tag an article please leave the editor a note about why you are tagging it or something that politely asks them to come back and fix the problem if they can. Also, if the problem is only a matter of a few minutes to fix consider fixing it rather than tagging it.
If you are unfamiliar with some of the automated tools like RefFill, the Copyvio detection tool and HotCat you may want to check them out. (They are under Page-->Tools in my interface but I am not sure if they are standard) Thank you for your willingness to help out. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me by placing
{{ping|Jbhunley}}
on any talk page and signing the edit with~~~~
. JbhTalk 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)- Will do. Another question I had was how I could gain the ability to approve (or decline) pending changes. I've been noticing that tag showing up in my watchlist more and more. @Jbhunley: Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Pending changes reviewer is a user right that can be granted by any administrator. See Wikipedia:Reviewing for a description of the process. You can ask for the right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. JbhTalk 22:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Will do. Thanks for the tips and links. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Pending changes reviewer is a user right that can be granted by any administrator. See Wikipedia:Reviewing for a description of the process. You can ask for the right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. JbhTalk 22:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Will do. Another question I had was how I could gain the ability to approve (or decline) pending changes. I've been noticing that tag showing up in my watchlist more and more. @Jbhunley: Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hallward's Ghost: Please read Wikipedia:New pages patrol carefully and start out conservatively. NPP requires great care and familiarity with Wikipedia's content policies and our Policy on Biographies of Living Persons(Please read and understand it) When you tag an article please leave the editor a note about why you are tagging it or something that politely asks them to come back and fix the problem if they can. Also, if the problem is only a matter of a few minutes to fix consider fixing it rather than tagging it.
- Thanks, I'll get started! Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- While we welcome enthusiasm for maintenance work with open arms, I do not believe 233 maispace edits is sufficient to have gained substantial knowledge of our notability guidelines and deletion policies. Although a gateway to NPP does not (yet) exist, the far less important project at AfC requres a minimum of 500 mainspace edits plus a demonstrable history of good judgement. NPP is an essential daily process, has a steep learning curve, and is not really the ideal area to empirically associate oneself with the quality control of new submissions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley:@Kudpung:Just to be clear, I made constructive IP edits (probably 1000, at least) before ever creating an account. I never kept track of these, or what IP I was editing from, so I can't prove that to you. I only mention that by way of noting that, while I'm no expert (and don't claim to be--I have a LOT to learn), I'm also not quite the guppy my contributions as Hallward's Ghost makes me seem. However, if the regular New Page Patrollers are still uncomfortable with me pitching in, even on uncontroversial new pages, then I will stay away from this area. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- There's more to experience than edit count. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are no 'regular' NPPers. Unlike AfC, there exists at NPP not the slightest regularity nor interaction between those who do it - and there won't be until an official gateway to it gives it some sense of being a collaborative project. Anyone who feels they want to do some patrolling just gets on with it. If they get a lot of it wrong though, they'll soon hear about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the explanation. If I choose to start working in this area, I'll take my time and be careful in what I do. I wonder why there's no "official gateway" to it? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Linking to humourous anti-guide about treating editing like a game
At the head of this policy page, there's a guidance statement about taking patrolling seriously. It specifically mentions not treating the exercise as a game. Since an entirely related and appropriate anti-policy essay exists on that precise subject, I figure a link to it might be helpful.
Especially considering that policy and guideline pages are only useful for those who need to read them, and those reading them are like to need the guidance, it seems ideal to link to related guidance whenever and wherever possible. If that guidance takes a humorous approach, so be it. However we can help editors learn how best to conduct themselves should be the route we take.
Please discuss. I will consider a lack of reasoned discussion about this decision as an indication that no one minds me reverting the reversion. fredgandt 00:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, WP:PTG is not a "guidance", it is a humorous page. I don't think it is a good idea to cite a humorous page at the very beginning of this instruction page. Patrolling should be taken very seriously, and such a link may suggest to new users that this is all humor. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously I disagree, so only further explanation of why can follow: It is guidance insofar that (as stated at the top of its page) it shows by way of humour how not to behave. You may have noted that it is liberally linked to many important guides/policies which are some of the fundamental principles upon which this project hangs? It is satire; used to provide more than an easily dismissed list of instructions; rather, it's a highly relevant allegorical scenario leading the reader to fully understand the relevance. This is entirely the point of humorous essays; it is why they exist.
- Linking it here, doesn't detract from the seriousness of the message, just as linking to it here doesn't affect the seriousness of my argument. It is merely further related reading on an important subject.
- If you know of a serious guideline/policy page that covers the subject that editing Wikipedia is not a competition or (specifically) game, then perhaps linking to that instead might be a satisfactory compromise? I am, as always, simply trying to improve the UX of this Wiki, and would be glad of any appropriate further reading. fredgandt 09:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- No thanks. WP:Play the game may have some merit to someone somewhere, but it is not useful in relation to new pages patrol. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I am if nothing else, a team player. The third party I hoped for has joined, and unless there's a fourth, fifth or more, I guess that's that. Thanks for playing ;-) fredgandt 09:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Why are newbies attracted to NPP
I have just removed an ad for NPP from the top of Wikipedia:Your first article which is pointed to by the standard message posted on user talk-pages of new editors whose first article is wp:CSDed. Are there more ads like it around? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
- Perhaps a modification to the first sentence is in order, such as "New pages patrol is a process by which experienced editors check newly created articles for obvious problems." Jim.henderson (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good point, we draw the attention of new editors to New Pages Patrol and then complain when they become involved without the necessary experience. NPP is linked in the
{{Article creation}}
box on Your first article and What is an article?. It is also linked on other pages intended mainly for new users:- A primer for newcomers
- Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia/Finding your way around ("checking newly created pages")
- Teahouse/Suggestions
- Teahouse/WikiProjects
- None of these pages suggest that NPP is a task for the more experienced editor: Noyster (talk), 19:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Ottawahitech: I wouldn't consider that hatnote at "ad for new page patrol"; it seems more to be a standard disambiguation hatnote to me. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I know it is standard - this is the reason I raised it here. Maybe some standards should be re-examined in light of the potential harm they can cause. BTW thanks for pinging me user:ONUnicorn. For some strange reason I did not get a notification just happened to revisit here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
There are over a hundred events that are going to be held in the coming week (largely on Saturday, March 5th) to encourage new editors to write articles on subjects that haven't been covered yet on Wikipedia (see this article for details).
I know that the New Pages Patrol can be a little zealous but I hope when these articles start coming in, you would consider tagging them as stub articles rather than nominating incomplete articles for deletion. I think the articles that are going to be created ARE subjects that Wikipedia should have an article about, they will just be articles that are being created by new editors so I don't expect them to be in perfect shape. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Liz: thanks for the heads up! Of course, we never should be nominating salvageable content for deletion. Out of curiosity, is any sort of organization system (such as hidden categories or talk page project banners) planned to be used to help identify these articles? VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- That would be a helpful feature to add. I'm going to ping some of the organizers who will have more information about this: @Failedprojects:, @Siankevans:, @Pharos:, @Bluerasberry: and @Theredproject:. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Another thought: looking at the article Liz linked above, I would imagine the contributions from the events will be biography-heavy. It probably is worth emphasizing to the participants the need for BLPs to include at least one reference and for new articles about people to include a credible claim of significance. If articles that meet those criteria are still getting tagged for deletion (particularly speedy deletion), it probably is appropriate to coach the patroller, or escalate either here or at WP:NPPN. VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @Liz: for posting this here. Yes, please tag them as stubs, and/or move them into draft space if people make the mistake of starting the page directly, rather than creating a well cited first few paragraphs in their sandbox, before adding to article space. @VQuakr:, we have clreated solid training materials that our nodes use. These all emphasize Wikipedia:Five pillars with a particular emphasis on BLP notability. Most nodes will be following our training modules, which means that every participant will start with 1+ hour of training, before beginning. Furthermore, we strongly encourage people to start by improving existing articles. Creating hidden categories on each page is a bit of a challenge, both because the event is rhizomatic and we can only offer suggestions to the nodes, and also because volume of pages is going to be quite large: Last year with 75 nodes, we created 400 new pages, and improved 500 others. We expect that number to grow this year. That said, I do believe that @Rhododendrites: went through and tagged some? all? of the articles created, as you can see here: Talk:Caroline_Woolard -- Rhododentrites, will you be joining us again? We have asked all nodes to collect the pages they have created/improved on their event pages, and on Sunday we will begin to centralize these here: Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Outcomes2016. --Theredproject (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Theredproject: Yes, I will be attending the MoMA event as a participant and the Interference Archive event as one of the organizers.
- Last year I retroactively made Template:ArtAndFeminism2015 article and, in a fit of procrastination, added it to all of the pages linked from the various meetup pages. Someone has already gone ahead and created the 2016 iteration at Template:ArtAndFeminism2016 article and a few people have added it to some pages. The template adds articles to Category:Articles created or improved during ArtAndFeminism 2016. But it would, of course, be up to participants, organizers, or others to manually add it to each page. Unfortunately I don't know of a good way to automate that, and especially given the expected larger number of articles, I don't foresee having time to tag them myself (beyond those at the IA event).
- This is sort of an aside (feel free to respond elsewhere), but have you considered ways of using the Outreach Dashboard? It won't automatically tag the articles, but if we have Dashboard pages for each event and organizers add usernames of participants, it will automatically create a list of articles people worked on that day (along with pageviews, etc.). I noticed there's an A+F cohort, but last I checked the IA event was the only one with an event page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Theredproject: awesome, I figured as such but it was worth verifying. Exciting! VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Pharos: can we add this category to all of the preload draft links? (!!!)--Theredproject (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @Liz: for posting this here. Yes, please tag them as stubs, and/or move them into draft space if people make the mistake of starting the page directly, rather than creating a well cited first few paragraphs in their sandbox, before adding to article space. @VQuakr:, we have clreated solid training materials that our nodes use. These all emphasize Wikipedia:Five pillars with a particular emphasis on BLP notability. Most nodes will be following our training modules, which means that every participant will start with 1+ hour of training, before beginning. Furthermore, we strongly encourage people to start by improving existing articles. Creating hidden categories on each page is a bit of a challenge, both because the event is rhizomatic and we can only offer suggestions to the nodes, and also because volume of pages is going to be quite large: Last year with 75 nodes, we created 400 new pages, and improved 500 others. We expect that number to grow this year. That said, I do believe that @Rhododendrites: went through and tagged some? all? of the articles created, as you can see here: Talk:Caroline_Woolard -- Rhododentrites, will you be joining us again? We have asked all nodes to collect the pages they have created/improved on their event pages, and on Sunday we will begin to centralize these here: Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Outcomes2016. --Theredproject (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Liz: any feedback? I hope the event went swimmingly! VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Should we have a more generic template for edit-athons with an argument to point to the session page? Jim.henderson (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:New unreviewed article has been nominated for WP:Templates for discussion on March 10 by someone. As this template is a new page indicator, I thought I'd let you know. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominated for the wrong reasons, and users voting to keep it for the wrong reasons. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Proposed tool to help you all
Please see here - this is being proposed under the WMF Inspire campaign. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability vs Relevance
Discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
NPP: a cross-Wiki critical issue
I'l be at Wikimania in Esino Lario and I'm hoping to faciltate a discussion at that concerns all of us who are involved with NPP and its consequences for article creators. Anyone who will be going to Wikimania this year or who has any points that they would like raised at the meeting, please feel free to post your ideas here. The abstract of the discussion is at New Wikipdia articles: Controlling the quality and relevance. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a really interesting discussion! I'm sorry I won't be there. I have not been as active in NPP (or Wikipedia in general, frankly) lately, but I'll give it some thought and post any discussion points that come to mind. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Go Phightins! 14:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification about this. I've had various real life issues that are currently keeping me from editing as much as I'd like. But I'll try to find some time to take a look at the abstract and share some thoughts. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Has it occurred to anyone reading this that we might have fewer notability issues on new articles if we simply explained what we required in terms of notability to people before they started writing an article? Has it occurred to anyone that telling people what they need to know before they put in work might be seen as a sign of respect? --joe deckertalk 15:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could change the first bullet of the new article edit notice (for new editors) so that it looks like this: Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article. We could also have a check box that requires new users to confirm that they have actually read WP:YFA before they are able to edit a new article.- MrX 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- A possible idea is a dedicated "patroller right" limited to editors who show competency in basic Wikipedia editing and policies/guidelines as well as ones related to new pages patrol. Esquivalience t 22:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- If I had any great ideas, I'd throw them out. I know that many are rabidly opposed to this kind of thing, but this is an area where paid Mediawiki employees could help a great deal, with the clear understanding that they are servicing English Pedia and not Mediawiki. I have a strange feeling that this kind of idea is dead on arrival. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- BradonHarris, former Senior Chief Director of Engineering (and probably the 3rd most important staff after the CEO and Erik) was working at my/our behest, as part of the group of solutios that included Page Curation, on a project he code named Article Creation Flow which would not only have addressed exactly the suggest made by Joe Decker above, but also have been a replacement for the little used Article Wizard. For reasons best known to Brandon - and I was met simply with a vague, benign smile when I mentioned it to him the last time we met,which unknown to me was just 4 months before he left the WMF - the project was cradtily swept under the carpet and hidden behind many layers of moves and redirects. It would have solved many of the on-going, years-old issues that we have to cope with at NPP, and would also have made the WP:AfC project neatly redundant.
- The issue I would like to discuss at Wikmania covers every conceivable manner for preventing the creation of clearly inappropriate new pages, while avoiding biting and discouraging those who innocently do not understand that Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia.
- One of those solutions is, inevitably and foremost on our wishlist, as Esquivalience correctly recognises, is the introduction of an audited user right to patrol new pages. We have such things for the less critical recent changes reviewers, and thresholds of required competency for vandalism patrollers and AfC reviewers, so the logical step towards getting the Page Curation softwae used properly, is to ensure that it is not used by new and/pr highly inexperienced editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- A ping popped me here, so I thought I'd drop by and maybe answer some questions about Page Curation and the workflows. Hi guys!
- First, my title was "Senior Designer". I'm flattered, but "Director" I was not. And the command structure (at the time of the development of Page Curation) was: Sue Gardner -> Erik Moeller -> Howie Fung -> Myself.
- Second, I should say that Page Curation is one of the projects I am most proud of in my time at the Foundation, and I actually use it as an example in classes when I teach about design.
- That said, there were some problems with the way Page Curation diverged from my vision and became a reality. Most were minor and fixed quickly, but the biggest and most problematic one is that the templates and deletion rules were hard-coded into the software, rather than being something that could be customized on a per-wiki basis. At the time this decision was made (to remove the customization), I was off the project and couldn't fight for it.
- The reason Article Creation Workflow never happened is something that is both sad and petty at the same time. There was a design and template system that most of us agreed was the path; however, when it came time to set down production, there was disagreements, which caused us to have to rework everything. This happened several times in a row and we ended up back-burnering the project because no one could agree (welcome to Wikipedia!). Eventually, teams got shuffled, priorities changed, and that's that. The "benign smile" that Kudpung mentions: that was me trying to create a response that was truthful and vague: I love the project and its idea, I wanted it to happen (I care a great deal about this part of the way Wikipedia works), but I knew that it was never going to happen. I also knew that I couldn't promise or deny anything, and I knew that it would be frowned upon if I decided to work on it or push for it on my own.
- (For the record, the abovementioned "disagreements" did not happen with anyone in my command chain; we all thought it was a priority)
- Hope that clears anything up, and I'm willing to talk further.--Jorm (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)