Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:20, 20 September 2011

More helpful header wanted

As I see it, a group here and a group on mediawiki.org are both talking about solving the same set of issues, related to article creation and what we know about the editors trying to create the article (including their autoconf status). I'm not sure why this gap exists (except that everyone prefers their own favorite wiki for brainstorming :) but you could make the header here much more informative.

It would be good to unify the discussions about how to move forward. And I don't see a reason to 'shut down' discussion of practical policy and message-crafting matters, as you began to here. There are ways that part of what was agreed upon here on en:wp could be started without strictly changing userrights. For starters, if you show a different set of MediaWiki messages to autoconf editors and you can dramatically change where they go (on viewing a redlink, or completing a search for a missing topic) and what they think constitutes "creating a new article".

And if we have a way to do real-time surveys of editors after they've contributed, or as they are leaving, we could get feedback on the different reactions to various methods in a week, not six months. Which isn't a bad direction to head in, if we want to do much more data-driven testing as this proposal suggests. – SJ + 09:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It would not be appropriate to rename this page - it was already a major, well published cental RfC.

Hi Kudpung, I did not suggest a rename -- only a more informative header template. It could for instance point readers to all places where there is currently active discussion taking place. – SJ +

Unless you took time to follow or catch up on the history of this issue, you will not have understood that it was either the WMF and/or a developer who has unilaterally decided not to accept the clear consensus that was reached for Autoconfirmed article creation, and its trial. It would be worth investing the three or so hours to do so - you will then be in a good position to decide objectively which side of the argument you stand and where you will lend your support..

Kudpung, by the way -- your work on NPP is great and helpful part of the current page creation process on this wiki. So thanks for that - obviously your views on how to improve matters bear consideration. One interesting aspect of the discussion so far is that a number of people at key points in the process have assumed that those they were speaking to hadn't done their homework (partaking in NPP, reading discussions to date, doing background statistics, developing a nuanced set of ideas surrounding the RFC to support participation by newbies). I see a lot of people who have done a great deal of work, who aren't recognizing one another's efforts.

I did follow the mw, en:wp, and bugzilla discussions - my comments reflect my understanding of the current situation, which is slightly different from yours. I see no unilateral decision, just two different multilateral groups, having slightly misaligned discussions around the same topic in two different places. And while I may be missing something obvious, I do not see argument, just people talking past one another. The awkward part of having discussions by two disjoint groups in separate places is precisely that it is not possible to crystallize differences into a productive argument. – SJ + 12:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, the WMF have closed further dialogue - at least on the open discussion at Bugzilla - and started their own different proposals for solutions loosely based on the original proposals, but apparently neither based on fact nor supported by statistics.

Discussion on bugs remains open indefinitely -- independent of the "open"/"resolved" status of the bug. The disadvantage of bugzilla discussions is that they are less easy for most editors to contribute to than a wiki discussion, hence the request to move to wiki pages. – SJ + 12:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

These are the relevant discussions:

• Consensus for new user group
• Consensus for new user group trial
• Bug request
• Alternative WMF project
• Talk: Alternative WMF project
• New Page Patrol project
• Instructions for New Page Patrollers
• Research: New Page Patrollers
• Talk:Research: New Page Patrollers
• The speed of speedy deletions
• Talk:The speed of speedy deletions

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages. If you believe the header needs to be reworded, then reword it. We don't own this page. —SW—  15:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Soft security concepts

A soft security method might work here -- trying to implement what is envisioned in this trial, but after the fact rather than before, via scripts or bots.

There's no need to tell any new user "you can't create an article" -- but the default place that the article goes on creation could be different. – SJ + 09:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The developers appear to be under instructions from a member of the WMF to revert such changes too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to support this idea? I don't know why anyone would revert what admins here choose to do to mediawiki-namespace text to improve the on-wiki process. – SJ + 12:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who believes the "improvement" is not an improvement would do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

mw:Article creation workflow may be of interest. →Στc. 20:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Σ, that's what we've been talking about here all along ;)

@SJ & WhatamIdoing: I would personally not risk any wheel warring with the salaried staff over UI code changes that I could do through my admin access to simulate a similar system based on scripts and bots . The clear message from Erik Moeller and Brandon, appears to be that the WMF can (and will) override anything they don't like on this issue, without needing to support their reasons with facts or proper research - I always assumed that the individual Wikipedias were able to govern themselves by consensus on such policy issues, but maybe I have been wrong. However, the reason why there are two discussions in different places on this is because the WMF appears to want any solution to our NPP problem to be one of their own making, through discussion as part of their mw:Article creation workflow project. If I thought it would help, I would participate in it, but through their action and comments at Bugzilla I have lost confidence in their GF and decision making. Broad based WikiMedia discussions of that kind take months, if not years - if ever at all - to find their focus and crystalise into workable propositions that can be implemented. Either that, or the WMF will simply decide among themselves what the solutions are to be and implement them by fiat. I nevertheless still firmly believe that Snottywong and Blade with their autoconfirmed rule, with its three ways to aid new mature creators fast-track serious new articles, have come up with the most logical and pragmatic solution, and it's the only one I can support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

mw:Article creation workflow appears to be focused on making the article creation process easier and more successful for new editors. It does not seem to touch on the problems that ACTRIAL is designed to deal with; I'm not sure why people keep linking to it in discussions about ACTRIAL. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WMF's response is essentially that they believe restricting article creation will have too many negative side effects which will cause new user retention to plummet. We tried to explain to them numerous times that a brief trial would prove or disprove their theory (and it is a theory, backed up by no hard evidence). Their response was that in their experience, even brief trials of controversial ideas like this resulted in negative effects that lasted well beyond the end of the trial. Take that as you will.

The reason they are linking ACTRIAL to the Article creation workflow idea is because this is their response to our trial. They don't want to implement the trial as proposed, but they recognize the problem and this is their proposed solution. Most (if not all) of us disagree that the proposed changes to the editing interface will resolve any of the problems that ACTRIAL was intended to resolve. Nevertheless, WMF has devoted resources to the problem, and mw:Article creation workflow is where they are being discussed. You might want to express your opinion there if you want the WMF developers and staff to be aware of it.

In any case, they have made it clear that the trial isn't happening, and any attempt to implement the trial on our own (i.e. using a method that doesn't require developer access) will be reverted. If you're interested in trying to steer where they go with their own solution, comment at the mw page. I, for one, am burnt out on the topic and don't wish to discuss it much for the time being. —SW—  20:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly understand why you feel that way. Thanks; ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Six months is probably not within the WMF's definition of "a brief trial". It certainly isn't within mine.

As for whether the WMF should oppose this—well, I don't own Misplaced Pages, and I've never suffered from the illusion that I did. The WMF's job is not to do the bidding of "the community", but to take steps that, in their best judgment, will reach their charitable goal of sharing educational information with the world. I don't have to agree with them, but I do recognize that it's their job to prefer their best judgment to my best judgment. The WMF is not actually accountable to me, or to any other individual volunteer. Consequently, I am not going to demand that they explain, justify, or otherwise try to account for their decisions to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've said more about the process from my perspective here, here and here, and I'll leave it at that, except to say again that I'm sorry that we've not been able to be more responsive and engaged on these issues sooner. :-( But we are now: we're trying very hard to help as serious and engaged partners.

The design drafts that we've posted are intended to look at the various problem areas that are targeted by WP:ACTRIAL from different perspectives: how do we increase the efficiency and quality of new page patrolling; how can we motivate users to more effectively self-sort into "bold" vs. "careful" users (those who want to create a page right away, and deal with the consequences, and those who want to learn to do it correctly); how can we more effectively communicate key policy concepts; how can we reduce biteyness of the experience.

Our overarching hypothesis is that it is possible to maintain a high (and possibly even increasing) standard of openness while also maintaining high standards of quality (without burning out patrollers) and achieving an experience that's at least appropriately friendly (i.e. where folks who are truly engaged receive a high degree of human touch, while those who are dumping poor quality content receive appropriate, polite notices). Moreover, we think that the reason that we haven't achieved this yet is in part due to lack of focused support for the community from WMF -- many people in the community have been saying these things for a long time.

We think that's a hypothesis very much worth exploring, and one which could have very important implications for the long-term health and development of Wikimedia projects.

While the first page we've created focused on the article creation workflow, I'd also like to point to Brandon's new design specifically related to improving the new page patrolling interface, which can be found at mw:New Page Patrol Zoom Interface. And yes, we're going to post more data, and we're hoping you'll add relevant data points as well.

(The reason, BTW, we've created these pages on MediaWiki.org is that these are software specifications that likely will have implications for other Wikimedia wikis, and potentially non-Wikimedia wikis, as well, and we're aiming to bring more people from outside en.wp in the conversation. We realize that there's inherent awkwardness in moving around between wikis -- sorry for the inconvenience. I'll try to keep an eye on this page as well.) --Eloquence* 09:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)