Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/2011 archive

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: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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
 * This is Wikipedia. If you believe the header needs to be reworded, then reword it.  We don't own this page.  &mdash;SW&mdash; comment 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. → Σ  τ  c . 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)
 * 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 &#124; 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 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.  &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 20:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can certainly understand why you feel that way. Thanks; ErikHaugen (talk &#124; 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 Wikipedia, 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 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)
 * The tooling can only help so much; to me, most of the work of patrolling is thought, reading, research, etc. The lack of tooling doesn't slow me down a significant amount. So, while the Zoom interface might be helpful and appreciated, I doubt it will do anything to address the concerns that ACTRIAL would address. I think other existing tools have already taken care of the low-hanging fruit here. To really take another significant bite out of NPP workload, I don't know of anything short of ACTRIAL that is going to work. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there are a whole bunch of ways in which we can make the process work better. Some of them as uncontentious and major as showing the [mark as patrolled] tab to experienced editors who come across new pages other than via special Newpages. As one of the substantial minority who opposed the trial I've avoided taking part in discussions as to how we can successfully trial something that I was deeply opposed. But if we now have commitment from the Foundation that resources are available to improve things then I think we should take advantage of that - who knows we may wind up with something that pretty much everyone thinks is an improvement.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The WMF team that  has taken over this NPP issue  most  definitely does  not appear to be  looking  at  the problem areas targeted by  WP:ACTRIAL. What  they   are doing  is looking  at  making  new page creation  a more enjoyable experience for potential serious contributors of new articles. What  they  are trying  to  do  for NPP is to  create a tool  that  will  only  be as good as the workers in  whose hands thery  put  it. WP:ACTRIAL addresses a serious problem of the total ineficiency of a system that  generally  attracts only  the most   inexperienced of all Wikipedia users, because it  gives them a power  that requires no  user right, no  experience whatsoever, and no  demonstration  of maturity and knowledge of policy. The authors of WP:ACTRIAL have provided substantial  research  and data that  corroborates these facts, while the WMF has provided no  proof whatsoever for their reasons for refusing  even a trial. Furthermore, any  vague evidence-based arguments were centred around a completely   erroneous flyer published by  the WMF  for the Haifa Wikimania that  suggested that  30% of en.Wiki's best  contributors began their Wiki  careers as vandals.


 * Where is, or was there any proof of 'burn out' of NPPers? That  notion  was also  invented at  a WikiMedia discussion. The only  people who  suffered 'burn out'  were those who  were desperately  trying  to stay  on  top  of the disasterous patrolling  by  the patrollers, and provide the research  and stats for WP:ACTRIAL. Those people have now largely  given up  hope that  their work  will  be recognised, and have lost  a great deal  of confidence in  the competence and sincerity  of the WMF. The vast  majority  of NPPers is a base of transient  individuals who don't  give a hoot  for WP:NPP.


 * It`s a bit late in  the day  to  labour  for more months or even years under new suggestions that  pretty  much  everyone thinks is an improvement -  if user retention  is a priority, what  is needed fast  are some concrete  suggestions -  such  as WP:ACTRIAL with  its three fast-track avenues for serious creators,  and to  stem  the tide of totally and uncontroversially   unwanted new pages, while  drastically  enhancing the new user experience for new article creators. New users are being  turned away  by  the 100s every  day  due to both  the walls of text and rules they  are confronted with, and the bitey messages they  get  when they  are trying  to  create a decent  article in  good faith. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WSC, if that was directed at me, I am certainly not saying I don't like Zoom or that I don't want anyone to work on it or "take advantage of that". I'm looking forward to using Zoom. I am simply making the point that it is naive to think that Zoom addresses any of the concerns behind ACTRIAL. I think Eloquence is wrong that Zoom is the kind of "focused support for the community from WMF" that will bring us closer to the described NPP nirvana. That is all. I'm looking forward to using Zoom, but I hope something is also done to address the concerns behind ACTRIAL, since those, I think, are pretty serious. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is essentially my perspective as well. &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, since you brought it up and it was mentioned on the bug, I just want to make a side note and say that the 30% stat isn't in the final summer research findings on Meta or in the PDF of the flyer you're talking about because it was simply a stupid miscommunication between the researcher who did the study and us when we were all writing the flyer on a tight deadline. Their number was 33% of the current top 100 by edit count were reverted in their first edit session, not reverted for vandalism. It was a confusion in terms, that's all, and I'm sorry it got published. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Do a lot of NPPers actually use the NPP interface itself, or intermediary software products (like NPWatcher of old, or Huggle, or whatever is the current standard)? Nathan  T 23:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I use Twinkle, which is fine for me. Every so often I'll do it without tools, to keep it fresh in my mind (I manually patrolled pages for months before using Twinkle). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Two tools I know of are Kissle and NPWatcher, though they both seem to require some form of pre-approval to use and I'm not sure how actively they're used. My guess would be that the long tail of patrollers are using the Special page, perhaps combined with Twinkle. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've thought about trying Kissle, but I move faster on Twinkle than I've seen people go with Kissle. I don't know how much of that is my reading speed (well within the top quartile of the 99th percentile) that lets me go fast versus the tools being used, so I might give it a shot to see what happens, though installing code is not one of my strengths. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I naturally  use Twinkle -   Since it  was recently  completely  overhauled, Twinkle is a superb interface, is quick to  do  what  it  does, is cross-platform compatible, needs no  user permission, and takes up no  screen space. It also gives me an opportunity  to  reflect  upon, and modify  some of the bitey and/or TL;DR uw that  have been written for it.. I remain  fully  convinced that  any  other forms of automation  for NPP are unnecessary, and even dangerous in  inexperienced hands (so  is Twinkle actually). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow...
I can't believe how this got halted at the eleventh hour. Missed the tussle during the move back to uni. Thank you, editors who put so much effort into moving the idea forwards (I shan't list names, because I'll inevitably forget some, but you know who you are); it's a real shame that hasn't paid off. Crossing my fingers that the WMF will reconsider this at some point in the future before the turning point is passed. Cheers guys. Brammers (talk/c) 18:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not running ACTRIAL will deny us of the valuable feedback that it would have provided, and it's true that the WMF has had it's fair share of disagreements with several Wiki communities of late. However, I do believe the WMF has now taken all this on board and although ACTRIAL as an immediate experiment may not happen any time soon, there is positive resonance from them and some serious challenges to the problems of New Page Patrolling (which triggered everything in the beginning) are going to be met head on, and most importantly, now with the close collaboration of some of us 'ornary lot' . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)