Wikipedia talk:New user proposal

Implementing this
I know this is a fairly drastic change, which will almost certainly require modifications to some of the user (MySQL) tables, modifications to existing PHP files and possibly the need to create new PHP files for MediaWiki. But if it can solve a lot of the problems caused by inexperienced users creating unwanted articles, it will be well worth the effort. Ejay (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

proposal
I like the idea. A dedicated vandal can wait 4 days. An inspired contributer may be lost. Analogous to various forum software packages, users could have several levels of maturity, measured by edits they make which are accepted by the WP community.

for editing semi-protected articles: a box should be shown, having a short summary of the 5 pillars. We could leave editors the choice to study these or just go ahead and try it. We could make it mandatory that they first bring up their change on the assoicated talk page for discussion. Ideally, a virtual "diff" would be helpful, which should be inserted automatically into the talk page.

For creating new articles, a step by step questionaire could be made.

I would propose to keep the 4-day trial period as an alternative, certainly during an evaluation period. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that this idea is practical, with respect to the questionnaire. Even if one secured against exploits, a vandal that can wait four days can learn the five pillars by heart. Why must one be able to edit semi-protected articles in less than four days? The suggestion about the user hierarchy would, I feel, result in more time wasted on (vicious) personal conflict and Wikipedia maintenance. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this would involve a whole lot of work with little or no pay-off. Many new forms of software will send the user through a short tutorial.  How many users simply click Next, Next, Next, without reading anything.  I think a simpler, more productive idea would be to create a "Welcome bot".  This robot would automatically place a welcome template to every newly registered users talk page.  This welcome template would include a prominent link to an automated tutorial.  Perhaps the template could have text that states, "Before you create a new article, read this."  This seems like a better idea to me.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this going to help? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This could be incredibly hard to implement, especially as all accounts are in a usergroup (autoconfirmed) when they are passed a certain age (set on enwiki to 4 days). Making a required tutorial could be tricky to do with the current software, but, writing this, I have thought of a suggestion - an extension, which adds the tutorial in as a special page. This could be made modifyable using the system messages in the MediaWiki namespace. This option would, however, require the developers to write a new extension specifically for this purpose - I don't know what their stance on this is.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't picked up on that this would be a technical restriction for new users. I'm not so sure about that, but at the same time I can't say that it's a bad idea. There was a time when we wanted quantity over quality on Wikipedia, but maybe we're stepping away from that stage (though we do have a lot of topics still left uncovered). We might be able to combined a form of this proposal with a form of flagged revisions. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is not unreasonable. However how great is the problem with "dedicated vandals" who wait for four days? Would it be worth the trouble to make these changes only to prevent an insignificant amount of vandalism?

Furthermore I don't think a tutorial alone would be sufficient. As Ursasapien points out new users could just hit the "next" button without reading the material. An introductory tutorial is a good idea in itself but if its completion is to grant user rights there should also be a small multiple choice test at the end to make sure the new user has read and understood the policies.--Regicollis (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)