Wikipedia talk:New users

Yes, and can we do it today? How about yesterday?
In 99.9% of cases, if a brand-new user creates a page, it's going to get deleted. That's bad for the new user and a timesink for newpage patrollers and administrators. People should edit first. After a while, they get good enough to judge the appropriateness of an encyclopedia topic, learn how to properly source, stub tag, and categorize a new article, and then get it created. The only people who this would hurt are spammers and SPA's who are here to create a spamvertisement or vanity bio and run. We don't need them. Also, if it would be technically feasible, it would probably be best to set it up so that the "four-day clock" starts ticking from the user's twenty-fifth edit or so, to ensure that they're at least reasonably serious about the project first. Obvious vandals and spammers will have been blocked long before edit number 25, and "sneakier" ones may not have the patience to make 25 good edits just to engage in attack article vandalism or spamming. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely in favor. Here is my very first edit - creating a page that was on the requested pages list.  (I promise, I had not edited anonymously previously.)  Would I have become a regular editor, (now an admin), if I had been limited to minor contributions at first?  Unprovable, but I doubt it.  Would this reduce the vandalism pages - yes.  Would it reduce vandalism - probably a lot less.  Would we loose some good editors - yes.  Would the overall effect be beneficial?  Dunno.  GRBerry 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm against, as mentioned at Village pump (policy). The above has raised another reason. A dedicated vandal/POV pusher may go through the process, and then use this spurious legitimacy as adding weight to their disputed edits. LessHeard vanU 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fine idea, but what would prevent a new editor from going to a dozen +1 articles and adding then removing a comma, to get to the 25+ edits? Invent a rule, and people will game it. Edison 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea. I mean, four days? That isn't that long...--ionescuac(Talk) 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Need to consider the cost, too.
Yes, I'm sure the benefits discussed could be obtained.

But the cost is a substantial one -- PR. The introduction of semiprotection came with a flurry of media articles about how Wikipedia was closing its doors to anonymous editors, and how this demonstrated the wiki concept was flawed, etc. And that's just restrictions on individual articles, with only a small number of articles at any time having the protection applied. Introduce this, and there'll be a lot more of those stories, and this time they may be justified: we will be saying we don't want (a certain kind of) contributions from new users.

I don't think this is a cost worth paying for reducing the AFD backlog and saving time for those who monitor the recent changes list. JulesH 08:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, we do not want certain types of articles. We don't want spam and ads. We don't want attack articles. We don't want vandalism. We don't want nonsense and gibberish. We don't want hoaxes and lies. It is articles like these that give Wikipedia a bad name. Mr.Z-man  talk  17:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the Wiki concept that everyone should be allowed to vandalize an encyclopedia, is a badly flawed one, in that it wastes incalculable time spent by editors undoing the vandalism of others, when they could be improving articles. Then, too often, good edits get reverted away in the storm of vandalism. What is the "PR" of people reading about the amazing sexual exploits of the founding fathers of a country, which were added by vandals at computers in a school, for the hours or so before someone reverts? Edison 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not....but maybe there's milage in a halfway house
I'm opposed to this. We're a Wiki - this would make us a club. It violates AGF, WP:BITE and puts a big 'members only sign' at the door. Although it is true that many/most new users' articles are crap, some are not, and some specialist passing by and seeing a redlink should not be discouraged. How many established wikipedians created articles in their first days and the openness of the community allowing them to do so greatly encouraged them. We already prevent IPs from creating pages, and that's enough.

However, I think there's some mileage in flagging the articles' new users create and insisting that an experienced wikipedian look them over before they are confirmed as being kept. I recently created an article on the French Wikipedia, as a n00b, and was impressed when a {please check this}} tag was quickly added (by a bot?) and then removed shortly afterwards when someone had checked it.

I've actually mooted a more comprehensive solution to this problem here m:User:Doc glasgow/seconding which, if adopted, would insist that all new articles would require 'seconding' by a trusted editor, and that prior to their seconding, they are automatically flagged as 'provisional'. This solution would require some software changes (I'm told that's possible by the devs) but it would have the advantage of screening out most of the crap, without stopping the spontaneous creativity that's the beauty of the wiki.--Docg 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposal noted above (m:User:Doc glasgow/seconding) definitely looks like it could work. However, the only problem with it is that it doesn't seem all that different from what people are already doing on newpage patrol but it would restrict it to only "seconders", possibly only admins. If seconding could be done by more experienced users than just admins, it could work, the only thing we may have to worry about is a backlog that could lead to legitimate articles accidentally being deleted.
 * Perhaps what we should do is put more emphasis on how to write an article and policy like WP:NOT and less on beginning to write articles so we end up with experienced editors, quality pages that reflect positively on wiki, and less of this. Mr.Z-man  talk  18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nlwiki has several very decent developers working on it, and they have something called "patrolled edits" iirc, and even have a tool (hennas vandalfighter) to help deal with them even better. This saves time double-checking every edit. One person briefly looks through suspect edits, with lots of software aid to filter out likely suspects, and likely non-suspects, and that will catch most or all of the problem traffic.
 * This system is simple, robust, is in part integrated in mediawiki, and can probably simply be turned on for en. (if not, I know who to talk to to fix it ;-) )--Kim Bruning 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would volunteer for such a patrol. Maybe you should have "content minder" admins to supplement the present admins who would still do the discipline. It could be a lesser grade of admin, without the power to ban etc., but with the power to mentor new editors or to approve articles. Edison 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is nicer to new users, and is good
We're not welcoming new users, by letting them make articles, while clueless of what we are, and than speedily deleting those very new articles. We're instead pissing them of, and making them dislike us.

Also, the more new junk made, the more power is given to admins, to speedy delete a huge percentage of what comes in. So, in trying to promote equality of all users with easy article creation, we're actually advancing the privledged power of the 0.1% of users who are admins. If you prevent "first day" articles, you can spend more time reviewing new articles, after people wait a few days.

A lot of the junk that comes in, is actually from good people, who just don't know what we are. They assume we're like a million other web sites, that take directory entries, or personal/company profile pages. So, while this restriction won't stop sneaky vandals, and it will avoid cases, of well intentioned, but uninformed contributors. If somebody makes an account, and waits four days, there's a much better chance, they'll know what's appropriate, and what's not.

There seems to be a weird notion around here, that somebody who makes a new article, has it deleted, will be so grateful to us, they'll wish to keep contributing.

While its a core principal any editor can edit anything now; its important to defend the purpose of the principal, not a technicality. Letting somebody make a new article, which is doomed to be deleted, adheres to the letter, and ignores the purpose of being an open wiki. --Rob 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what you mean. While stub sorting, I came across some of the pages here. Now, a new user gets 56 "Your article is nominated for AfD" notices after getting warnings about copyrighted images. And, after his 56 articles are deleted he will get a "Your category is nominated for CfD". I can't imagine that he is very happy now. Mr.Z-man  talk  19:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, except of course the user who created those articles had been using Wikipedia for nearly 3 months before he created them. JulesH 23:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And, of course, the best thing to do with his images would have been to tag them with, which given the articles they almost certainly were.  It wouldn't have been hard to confirm, at least.  I have to say, I've been editing Wikipedia on & off for over 2 years now, and I don't really see the problem with what he did.  He was a little unfamiliar with our processes, and screwed things up a bit.  He didn't tag his images correctly, and didn't follow the process at WP:EPISODE.  That's to be expected in a user who's only been here for a short time, and is just undertaking his first major project.  This proposal will do nothing to stop this: it will just irritate people.
 * It must be said, List of 2point4 children episodes is looking a lot better thanks to his work. JulesH 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather ironically...
I repeatedly have to convince people that you don't need autoconfirmed rights to create a page. If this were implemented, few people would probably notice. -Amarkov moo! 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFC?
If we're worried that we would "discourage" passing specialists, why not just direct them to AfC? If it really is a worthwhile article, it'll get accepted anyway, it gets created (and then the creator can edit it as normal as soon as it goes up), and there we go! I completely agree with Rob. I've had a ton of new users angry and upset that their vanity bio or garage band article was tagged for speedy. They weren't acting out of malice creating those, they just didn't know any better, and had to learn the hard way. Why not make sure they have a feel for the place first? That's not just better for us, it's better for them too! If they realize "Oh, you know, I don't really think that would be a good idea. Maybe I'd better ask someone first", it's a lot less bitey then just to let them create away and then we speedy away. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rejected
Sorry. Foundation issues #2. Foundation issues can not be negotiated on en.wikipedia, unfortunately.

If you would like to negotiate this policy, you can try posting to the foundation-l mailing list, or starting a discussion on

--Kim Bruning 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, I can't see anything on that page that relates to this except "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering." - but since we already restrict article creation to logged in users, then if we prevented them creating for a while it wouldn't stop them editing otherwise. I'm against this policy, but I can't see that page as a problem.--Docg 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Creating a page is also an editing action. Jimbo Wales got to bend this issue once for diplomatic reasons in a particular bad situation (My room-mate at the time managed to get slandered on national TV in the USA... Go figure! :-P ). But it's very unwiki indeed, and there is curently no emergency at all.
 * The semi-protection is a special case, because it's less powerful than full protection, so MORE people actually got to edit, after semi-protection was introduced.
 * I don't see any arguments of either kind here.

At any rate, Non-negotiable here. My apologies, but I must insist.

Even so, I'm sure a discussion at foundation-l or meta would be most welcome, and it is not said that no consensus might be formed there.

--Kim Bruning 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the foundation say further restrictions on article creation are not allowed, fine my me, but the page you cite does not say that.--Docg 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that either. Moving a page is also an editing action, but we time-limit that. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain. When a scientist or other kind of smart type person comes to wikipedia, they are typically looking for an article on such-and-such a topic. Sometimes that article doesn't exist yet. Amazingly, such people will then actually start pages on those subjects, and start editing. Yes, I know it's hard to believe. If I had told you wikipedia would be this large in 2001, would you have believed it? And yet we now have over 1M pages. Now statistics show that wikipedia is virtually unchanged. This process is still the source of the vast majority (>90%) of our legitimate new pages and edits.

Even a small percentage slowdown in that process still represents a sizable slowdown in wikipedia growth and improvement. No wonder we"guarantee the ability of anyone to edit"!!!

Fine, you're sticking to the letter here, it's "page creation, not editing". But if you really believe that, well, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell. :-) It's part of the wiki process. Wikipedia is a wiki (what's in a name?). So damage or compromise of the wiki process will obviously always hurt wikipedia.

I maintain that this discussion should be held on foundation-l. --Kim Bruning 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We refuse page creation priveleges to anons. Nobody to my knowledge has tried to remove that restriction because it violates Foundation policy. Why is this different? -Amarkov moo! 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We refused page creation privs to anons as a kind of sacrificial goat to the media, and was taken as an emergency measure (despite the fact that it wouldn't have helped in the Siegenthaler affair at all).


 * Jimbo did an emergency measure in his role as benevolent dictator. Of course the dictator gets to overrule the foundation issues in an absolute emergency. But only him, and only then.


 * A lot of people still protested. And it has been the only major sacrifice of the wiki-principle to date.


 * We should probably allow anons to create pages again on en.wikipedia (we're the only wiki with this rule afaik). I sort of hoped that it would have been re-allowed much sooner.


 * --Kim Bruning 04:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC) This particular case was memorable to me, because a roommate of mine at the time (who was also a wikipedian) got slandered on American national television! Interesting times.
 * Interesting, I never knew that (although I doubt that it will ever be re-allowed; people tend not to like to remove restrictions once put in place). But I don't understand how that would be the only major sacrifice of the wiki-principle. Surely, it's much more of a sacrifice to have a group of people who are allowed to completely stop editing on a certain page, from anyone? Defend it as a foundation level issue, not as some great principle, which it isn't. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Page protection is a temporary measure that allows you to force people to think for a minute. It works because where old wikis had one page, wikipedia has the pages split into two (one for content, one for discussion of content). On an old wiki, protecting a page would stop editing dead. On wikipedia, page protection merely temporarily guides editing in a different direction. Long term protection would be very harmful, and is mostly prohibited. --Kim Bruning 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you would encourage lifting the anons-creating-pages restriction, Kim, I would strongly encourage you to take a quick look over WP:AFC. This procedure works for the very few pages which are sourced and appropriate (they still get created!) As to the rest...well...you be the judge of that, but having participated in that, the number of attacks and copyvios we decline in a day (despite nice bold text at the top of the page specifically stating that these will be declined) is amazing. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I argued quite strenuously for keeping Articles for creation on Misc for deletion, despite the large backlogs that were present at the time.
 * I do think that there are better tools available in new pages patrol than there are in AFC, so that you can go through things much more quickly.
 * I don't think that content at AFC is representative of the kind of content that we got when anon editing was permitted. It is a different mechanism, so it works somewhat differently, and has somewhat different results.
 * --Kim Bruning 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this contradicts foundation issues. From "anyone can edit the encyclopedia", it does not follow that "anyone must be allowed to start new articles". We're focusing on quality here, rather than quantity.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have always read the foundation issue the way I have. We want quality and quantity, but most importantly, we want a well-oiled wiki. I'd like to see sub-articles that go into more detail than regular encyclopedias can ever attain. (we may need to also work on the concept of "notability" to achieve that properly). --Kim Bruning 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But what reflects better on wiki? Having a large quantity of articles, some good, but many just absolute crap? Or, having a few less articles but having a higher standard of quality? I don't think its really possible to have both quantity and quality. We have to restrict one in order to get the other. Mr.Z-man  talk  20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is statistically not necessarily true. If "90% of everything is crap", then increasing the total pool of incoming articles will increase both bad articles and good articles. --Kim Bruning 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the village pump

 * I disagree. I first joined specifically so I could create an article that was missing, and a 4-day waiting period would have severely limited my doing so and likely turned me away from Wikipedia entirely.  If someone wants to create vandal articles, they can simply create necessary accounts 4 days in advance and then have at it.  It's one thing if there are articles you intentionally intend to vandal, as that means you have to keep track of the article or articles; but drafting a vandal article takes so little organisational effort that I don't see much use to a 0 day or a 4 day waiting period.  Basically, I feel that this would be highly detrimental to the Wikipedia community.  The speedy deletion tags will suffice -- I like to think we catch the vast majority of those vandal articles :) --Thisisbossi 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Thisisbossi. Serious vandals will not be deterred, and useful contributor/ions may be. LessHeard vanU 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, I added the following comment at New users; "A dedicated vandal/POV pusher may go through the process, and then use this spurious legitimacy as adding weight to their disputed edits..." LessHeard vanU 14:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad idea, but it is on to something. I've actually mooted a more comprehensive solution to this problem here m:User:Doc glasgow/seconding which, if adopted, would insist that all new articles would require 'seconding' by a trusted editor, and that prior to their seconding, they are automatically flagged as 'provisional'. This solution would require some software changes (I'm told that's possible by the devs) but it would have the advantage of screening out most of the crap, without stopping the spontaneous creativity that's the beauty of the wiki.--Docg 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea in principle, but how do you define a trusted editor? An admin? Someone who's been here for a set amount of time without being warned for vandalizing? I think you'd have to make it some criteria like that, because I think creating another rank of editor above normal user but below admin, with all the nomination processes, etc, would be impractical as well as unnecessary. Chuck Norris&#39; IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My proposal defines it as 'admin', not because others can't be trusted - but because that's procedurally easier, and would generate sufficient checkers to cover everything.--Docg 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, we could do it without software by using an admin bot. It could work like this: Article is created by a new user (or anon if we turn that off), 24 hours later if no established user has edited and given it an edit summary that includes the words "okay article" then the bot puts a notice on it. If it still hasn't been approved X time later, then the bot deletes it. This would allow us a fairly complex and nuanced definition of established user if we so desire. It's not quite as good as actually hiding the article from anons before it's approved, but it would have most of the benifits. We could later enhance it with software support. Hmm.. actually a general permission bit that hides pages from anons would be pretty useful. ...--Gmaxwell 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And what if the whole process got backlogged? We'd end end up with en-mass deletion of articles. That's a good idea in theory but it would probably be better for human admins to do the deleting rather than bots. Maybe a better way to do what you're suggesting would be to have a semi-protected Wikipedia page that's continually updated by the bot, say, every hour with new articles created by new users. Then, users could remove articles which are OK, or, submit them to AfD and admins could look through it and delete any articles that are speedy candidates. Tra (Talk) 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bot deletions are a bad idea, and my original proposal did not require them. One idea might be to have a bot prod every new article that is created by a new user after 24 hours. Then human beings can remove the prod on good articles, and in 7 days a human being delete the article if it is crappy.--Docg 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am against the bot deletion, but tagging is a good idea, IMHO. Something like The article was created by a new user and have not been reviewed yet. If you are an experienced editor please review the article and remove tag if the article conforms Wikipedia rules. And of course, the tag puts the article into a special category. That way readers would be make aware of the potential problems and scrutiny will be encoureaged.  I can make the User:AlexNewArtBot to produce these notices overnight if OKed Alex Bakharev 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me, we could make a new sort of prod notice which had language targed at new articles by new users. Although I don't think we yet have a good way to address the new creator simply removing the prod. Perhaps the/a bot could supervise the page and restore the prod if removed by a newish user? --Gmaxwell 01:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Alex may have found the solution, though I would word it even more gently. New creators removing prods, or creators removing speedies, can be targeted and reviews by people. If they have a reasonable case, they should be left alone even though they did not follow process. One cannot expect a new user to understand process.DGG 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia wants to recruit new, active members, they should invite them, not restrict them. In addition, it would only prevent the vandalism done by users that have their account for less that 4 days. I am not so sure it would be a good idea. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  04:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The tagging idea (as I said in a discussion above somewhere) sounds like a good idea, at least in theory. There are some things that would need to be addressed though.
 * We would have do define a "new user." Would this be based on time, edit count, both?
 * What is the time limit before an article is deleted?
 * What about borderline cases? For example, a topic that could have an article written about it but is created in horrible condition like this or a well written, extensive article about a non-notable subject?
 * This is a very good idea though, I would like to see it in place, at least in some form. Mr.Z-man  talk  20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

New users to take tutorial before being able to create articles?
I propose that all new users should be required to undertake some kind of self-paced tutorial (especially on the main policies of WP) before they are allowed to create new pages or edit protected pages. This could replace the 4-day waiting period. It means that new users can make themselves familiar with the policies, rather than going off elsewhere (and not bothering to learn about WP) whilst they wait for the 4-day period to elapse. Shootthedevgru (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut for new user log
Is there a short cut for the new user log? I currently keep being redirected here and then clicking your link! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I just realised: The link I keep clicking is the shortcut *turns red*...how embarassing! Thanks anyway! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
I am redirecting the article to Special:Newusers as this is long out of date, but I will leave all content preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Grave Rob (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)