Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:30, 29 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Suggestion

This is based on User:SandyGeorgia's well exercised principles at FAC.

If you see someone behaving well with newbies, shower them with praise and barnstars.

If you see someone behaving poorly with newbies, give them a nudge in the right direction and when they respond positively...

shower them with praise and barnstars.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the controversy?

Why is ther controversy over this? It seems like an obvious good idea. Is it just people getting defensive when they are caught abusing newbies? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to take the easy way out on this, but it's hard to cover all the even most basic details quickly. In short, questionable sock activity from experienced users arguably against policy happened from admins performing questionably unethical tasks to arguably trap editors into what they thought were "tough calls" on new articles to see if they would get a speedy delete tag. At times, in an ethical goof, the users experimented by participating in article discussions and edits from the sock and their normal account, with it just being immoral to suggest even passively to, say, a sole other editor there. One significant issue was that editors were "outed" and actions taken to mark what they felt were A7 CSD articles and had their names plastered all over the project page in a hideous and shameful manner. Let's just say it didn't go over well. If you have an hour to kill you could read all the chat on the project page and this talk page as there are a lot of very solid points and proposals for improvements to the system. As is usual, lengthy discussion pretty much killed about a half dozen entirely reasonable improvements to CSD tagging and NPP in general. ...Ok, that's the short version. If you dig though it there is some substantial anger with standing admins, a lot of people being stubborn, and for some twisted reason a continuation of the project after a massive response to stop. It was about a full month of wasted time for some editors and many said they would never patrol again.

...Oh, and there was never any actual discussion about the articles meeting any criteria or some tags offered with rationale, so we had to go on the assumption the articles would fine and dandy, so many editors had names published openly for what would arguably be a CSD for many, and that could be be removed in re-patrol or at admin decision regardless. If you're here pondering this project being mentioned in a RfB currently, there you go. I dislike it all since no resolutions actually came about it past "be more careful", but specifically tried to say "arguably" and other weasel words to demonstrate that arguments could be made on either side for many parts of the debate. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Datheisen's summary is a bit one-sidedly negative, and in some ways characterises the entire effort using the mistakes made by a few. Best bet is to actually read the project page and talkpage, and draw your own conclusion. All the arguments for and against the project are there. Nathan 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Second guessing Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion

I am rather troubled by a few veteran, high profile editors support for this project wanning because of some extremly vocal, (some less than civil) group which has criticized this project.

To my knowledge, none of these editors who put up the faux-editors pages for deletion have apologized. None seem to see their bitey attitude as wrong. Instead they have ruthlessly attacked the messenger. I was wrong, see below.

Misplaced Pages has been in decline since 2006. A lot of editors, scholars, and journalists have speculated why. Experiments like this should be welcomed by the community. As one administrator recently put it: "For once, someone decided to get some hard data on something instead of guessing whether there was a problem or not. Sure, it's easy to criticize the implementation. But I haven't exactly noticed the critics going out and getting data themselves."

Misplaced Pages needs understanding, compassionate editors to be the face of wikipedia to new users and the world. If these distainful editors treat new editors they way they act here, Misplaced Pages is stonger in the long run if they don't patrol new pages anymore.

NEWT editors should continue to be proud of the work they accomplished here, no amount of sniping and uncivil remaarks lessen these valuable findings. Always keep in mind that we are speaking for the voiceless. Those new editors who excitedly come to wikipedia to contribute and are told in so many ways that "your contributions are worthless". These editors don't have the tool knowledge or network of support that we do after years of experience.

NEWT proved that there is a problem, and the critics behavior here stubbornly denying a problem even exists, only reinforces that conclusion. Ikip 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, NEWT proved nothing. It showed what we already know already. Newbies are treated differently, generally. Why? Because they are new. Likewise, we treat veteran editors differently, because they've been around a while. Intentionally disrupting Misplaced Pages to try and prove this point, through the misuse of sockpuppets creating purposely poor articles (including marginal BLPs) is all that was achieved (in addition to pissing off those who work hard on new page patrol dealing with real new editors). Majorly talk 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe anyone is seriously denying there is a problem with the way newbies are treated. But this was the worst way to go about it. Just as bad as, say, trying to prove the RFA process is broken by creating a sock with the sole intention of getting adminship to show it can be done. Majorly talk 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Real new users behave differently than experienced users playing dumb. Real new articles are different than intentionally bad articles. This experiment could only tell us how patrollers react to experienced users creating intentionally bad articles; it could not tell us anything about new users' experiences. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Moreover, nothing was done here that couldnt have been accomplished better by observing actual new users or digging through the archives. Bonewah (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Sure, it's easy to criticize the implementation. But I haven't exactly noticed the critics going out and getting data themselves."

And as I wrote above:

"Was anyone naive/idealistic enough to think this experiment would change anyone's behavior? That editors would be shocked at the way we treat newbies? Based on the fierce resistance I have seen to any constructive criticism in the past four years, I could have predicted this negative reaction before this study started. Most veteran editors already know, and many seem to accept biting newbies at the least as a necessary evil. There will always be a group of editors who vigorously support the current system, no matter what evidence of harm is provided."

RE: Intentionally disrupting Misplaced Pages to try and prove this point, through the misuse of sockpuppets creating purposely poor articles (including marginal BLPs) is all that was achieved (in addition to pissing off those who work hard on new page patrol dealing with real new editors).

Majorly, your statment is simply a rehash of what editors have said repeatedly, I have seen few if any editors who support this project use policy the same way. So lets use accroyms the same way they have been repeatedly done here, this time directed at those who refuse to find any value in this endeavor:

Supporting WP:BITEy behavior is WP:Disruptive and discourging the creation of new articles is contrary to the very foundations of Misplaced Pages. Mischaracterizing editors behavior and intentions is not only possibly uncivil but an assumption of bad faith. In a crisis of growth new ideas and approaches should be welcomed, and WP:BOLD behavior should be encouraged to help build and sustain wikipedia.

Ikip 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped that stopping this project would prevent the debate escalating and distracting us all from the pedia. But I guess it will take a while before oppose per wp:NEWT seems as odd as oppose per Esperanza would today. As for nothing being learned by this, I think we learned a lot, including some things that would have been hard to spot otherwise. If I hadn't created User:Dahsun I wouldn't have known how the welcome screen appears, but you can't then page back to it when you think it might be useful. And yes I knew that some articles got incorrectly tagged at speedy deletion, but I was genuinely shocked when the first NEWT article was tagged and then deleted whilst the author's talkpage was still red - I don't think that should happen to a new account creating an article here and I don't buy the idea that the admin and tagger were somehow treating that account differently than they would a genuine newbie. But on the plus side I have to disagree with Ikip - several editors who had mistakes brought to their attention reacted quite positively. ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

my apologies, I thought that was the case, but with so much written, I could not find those examples. Ikip 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I found it really upsetting to learn that working with new users, something I've done for years, was something you considered so problematic that it was necessary to send out secret agents to foil my wickedness. In fact, I ended up leaving Misplaced Pages for about a month because I found it absolutely impossible to even hit my 'patrol' button without feeling way more anxiety and anger than I need in a hobby. I only came back because this project seemed to be dead. Now that I see its talk page come back to life, I feel anxious and angry again. If all these pages of people explaining why this project did more harm than good couldn't convince you; if a month later you still think it was a good idea, and that those of us who opposed it did so because we are bad editors who support a grievous harm, then I doubt anything I type here will convince you. But right now, as I type, I'm wondering whether you are still quietly creating fake accounts and artificially bad articles. Maybe you are, I think... maybe the next time I react to a new article, you'll be carefully scrutinizing my every word. Maybe you already have; maybe I've already wasted time talking to one of your fake new users. Maybe you were the apparently willfully ignorant one who made me think, 'no one can be this obtuse.' Or maybe you were the one who got so angry with me. Now that I know you're still in favor of this, I have no way of knowing whether you're still doing it. And that creeps me out so badly that I can't look at the 'patrol' button again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I never participated. I became aware of this after this project was closed.

Veteran editors have talked a lot about being victims, which rings rather hallow to me. No one was blocked here, no ones contributions were deleted, you weren't tagged several times on your talk page, etc. Many editors like yourself have said they quit page patrol over a brief mention of their edit (not even their name) on this page. This overraction to mild, harmless criticism, just shows how ill suited many editors are to greeting new contributors.

There has been very little discussion from these same editors about the way editors have treated new editors.

The article you tagged FisherQueen, which one was it? Can you see maybe how other editors may disagree with how you tagged it or are those who disagree with you all "willfully ignorant"? Have you thought about how your work on new page patrol affects wikipedia growth, positively or negatively?

This is a collaberative effort, ALL of our edits are subject to questioning, removal and deletion, all of our edits can be scrutinized. How many new editors contributions have you deleted or tagged for deletion which acknowledges this? You judge other editors actions and edits and edits all the time, we all do. New page patrolers are not exempt from this. Ikip 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You say that No one was blocked here, no ones contributions were deleted, you weren't tagged several times on your talk page, etc, and yet you were very insistent at the outset that someone should have apologized for something. What do you hope to accomplish here, Ikip? What is the point of re-hashing all this? If you are really so concerned with greeting new contributors, then may I suggest you go do that. Bonewah (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I think your experience is reflective of the worst possible outcome of this project. But I'm not sure I can share your conclusion that the entire experiment was a terrible mistake as a result. In my mind, mistakes were made on the part of WP:NEWT participants (of which I was not one) - particularly in not being utterly clear about avoiding "blaming" anyone for perceived errors. On the other hand, not all participants (who governed their own actions, not even revealing them to the rest of the project until after the dust settled) created absolutely terrible articles. Many of the articles they did create were similar in a lot of ways to what actual new users generate, and in a significant proportion of cases they were patrolled in a way that was less than ideal. The "secret shopper" basis of this effort is, in many ways, both sound and commonly employed in many industries. It's clear that its implementation here caused some to see it as more of a sting operation aimed at pointing fingers, which is a shame. But that effect was unintentional and not equally caused by all, something I don't think many critics have acknowledged.

It's unfortunate that the final judgment of this project in the mind of many tars all participants equally, and that anyone who declines to absolutely condemn the entire project has their intelligence and morality questioned. We should be able, as reasonable adults with the benefit of the encyclopedia as a shared goal, to look at this somewhat dispassionately and agree to acknowledge problems without either assigning blame or taking offense. I know that all participants of WP:NEWT have acknowledged some problems with its implementation, but I'm afraid that the sense of being unfairly targeted has led others to refuse to concede that it did point up some significant issues that ought to be addressed. Nathan 22:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re to FisherQueen. This project has been marked as historical and I would be very surprised if anyone was currently creating more articles for it, or had done so since the 23rd November. The current upsurge of interest is I believe entirely related to the number of opposes for WP:NEWT participation in the current RFB. ϢereSpielChequers 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that NEWT members understand how disrespectful they were to established wikipedia editors by the way the experiment was implemented. I did not see this at first. I created an account, but did not submit any new articles (just a couple of redirects). I did not create articles because I got confused going back and forth between accounts trying to submit an article. I hate the way new editors are treated by NPPers on wikipedia. I often edit as an IP, but my treatment as an IP, no matter how bad, is minor league nastiness compared treatment as a newly registered user.

While discussing NEWT with other editors I came to see one of its biggest drawbacks: the experiment was an attempt to measure the behavior of one group of editors, by starting with an assumption of bad faith, then luring in established wikipedia editors.

It is frustrating, but so usual to wikipedia, that editors cannot see how deceptive behavior is hurtful to individual users and detrimental to the project of building a community encyclopedia. If any member of the community is considered an expendable target of deception, the community as a whole is degraded. I apologize to FisherQueen and to all of my fellow wikipedia editors, old, new, registered, and IP, for participating in the project at any level. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think NEWT critics understand how disrespectful they have been to established wikipedia editors in criticizing this project.

1. Currently there is an editor calling everyone involved in this project a "liar" repeatedly. This is a contuation of the personal attacks and uncivil remarks that NEWT members have had to tolerate from editors who are supposed to be the face of Misplaced Pages for new editors. You yourself call editors involved in this project "deceptive" a personal attack showing incivility and bad faith.
2. Most postings, including yours ironically accuses NEWT members of bad faith. It is ironic, because these editors are breaching the first sentence of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith: "it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." There has been very little, if no, assumption of good faith about this project by critics.
3. Critics continue to accused NEWT members of violating sockpuppet policy, when these editors know that legitimate alternate accounts are allowed and used regularly for a variety of projects on Misplaced Pages. Again, another assumption of bad faith ironically by those trumpeting bad faith the loudest.
4. Worst of all, the treatment of new editors is ignored and the focus is put upon NEWT members. Throughout this page, editors bring up their real life treatment as new editors. These experiences are not focused on by the very editors who patrol new pages and are the face of Misplaced Pages to new editors and the world. Instead, they call editors contributions all manner of vile words, and continue to uncivilly attack these experienced editors.
5. If these critics are aware of the problem, as Majorly states, then what do you suggest the solution to be?

Ikip 10:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think I've used the word 'liar.
2. I think that NEWT is an inherent assumption of bad faith, and so I cannot say other than that.
3. I do not agree that this is a legitimate use of sockpuppet accounts.
4. I do think that the experiences of new editors are important. What I do about that is patrol new user edits, welcoming and guiding constructive new users, warning and blocking vandals and spammers. I think I have done far more to provide positive experiences for new users than the sum total of all of NEWT's games. NEWT has not, after all, interacted with any new users, but only with people who volunteer to patrol. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ikip quotes me and responds under my post, but the post does not appear on target for responding to, addressing or questioning my post, so I don't have a reply. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

FQ, he is talking about a !voter in SoWhy's RfB. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)