Wikipedia talk:User access levels/RFC on autoconfirmed status required to create an article

RFC on autoconfirmed status required to create an article
The above conversation seems to have stalled out without any consensus becoming clear, and also without any strong opposition. I am therefore initiating an RFC on the matter, and will be adding it to WP:CENT in order to solicit the widest possible input. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Should users be autoconfirmed before they are allowed to create an article?


 * Note: Page moved from Wikipedia talk:User access levels to Wikipedia talk:User access levels/RFC on autoconfirmed status required to create an article, Template:Cent updated. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
The intended effects of this proposal are:
 * To reduce the likelihood that a user's first edit will be the creation of a page that is speedy deleted
 * To discourage creation of vandal/hoax/attack articles, which are for the most part created by non-autoconfirmed users
 * To discourage spammers, who will in most cases not make ten constructive edits to articles not related to the entity they wish to promote


 * Other, lesser actions such as moving pages or editing semi-protected articles are already restricted in this manner. It is believed that this will severely reduce the administrative workload in Category:Speedy deletion, and will help us to retain new editors by better ensuring their first experience on Wikipedia is a positive one. Users who wish to create a page before being autoconfirmed will be encouraged to use existing avenues, such as creating a user subpage draft or submitting their work at articles for creation.

Users who endorse this statement

 * 1) as proposer Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse to the extent that this applies to article-space pages or moving pages into article space. Note: Moving already requires autoconfirmed status.  While endorsing this change, I would prefer a lighter touch, as outlined in a discussion above.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Nearly ever single article at CSD, Prod, or AFD was the creator's first edit. Not only does it essentially eliminate the backlogs for deletion, good new articles will be of higher qualify because the creator knows a little more about what they're doing. Reywas92 Talk 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Supporting this, we should at least give this a trial run somewhere else before we implement it for real though. ViperSnake151   Talk  03:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support. An excellent idea that should go ahead without delay.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I don't find the arguments that this will put off useful good faith contributions by new contributors convincing. Wikipedia has reached the point at which clueless new users should no longer clog up the NPP with junk. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse above statement. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse. Ironholds (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Endorse. I have seen very little (if any at all) articles up for CSD that are authored by autoconfirmed users.   TheWeak Willed   (T # G) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Endorse, though should be given trial run as per ViperSnake151. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Endorse with a trial. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Strongly endorse - If the choice is between "I worked hard on my first article and then it got deleted right away" and "I wanted to create an article, but I had to spend a little time learning about how Wikipedia worked first," I'll pick the latter every time as being less bitey. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Makes perfect sense to me, and I am unconvinced by the oppose section below. We're already losing users at a record rate essentially by following our own rules. This would attempt to do something about that while also protecting the encyclopedia. Would any of us really have gone away in a huff and never come back if for a few days we couldn't create an article? It was weeks for me before I did anything but spelling and grammar checks on articles, and at least a month before I even had an idea for an article to create, longer still before I actually did it. I really don't think the project is deluged by millions of people frothing at the mouth to write an article and, if anything, "...that anyone can edit" could use a check or two on it.  Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Endorse. Let's be realistic, this is a source of a lot of CSD's.And, in reality, the majority that are making their first edits as a new article probably aren't going to get it right the first round. It doesn't cost a cent to set up an account and get autoconfirmed There is no excuse why it can't be done. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Endorse. I agree with all of the above statements. This would save new changes patrollers a lot of time.  Lourie Pieterse  10:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Endorse. I highly doubt this will discourage new article creation and discourage new members from signing up, but even if it did, the loss of one newbie is acceptable to the loss of an experienced editor who retires from the stress of a million speedies. This will free up experienced editors who know what they're doing from admin work and allow them to involve themselves more in the mainspace, and like I said, I highly doubt there will be any effect on new registrations. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Endorse. I'd have to agree, this makes sense and it will benefit Wikipedia in the long-run. We'll have higher quality articles, and less time spent on speedying crap means more time for editors to focus on article-editing. Wikipedia has grown and evolved to the point where I think it's time we tighten up the belt to the next notch. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Endorse Anybody who really wants to create a quality article can wait five days, request confirmation, or submit a draft in personal userspace or to AfC. This is an easy way to make vandalism and spam very manageable, and nearly eliminate the focus we put on CsD. I don't think this will impact the "anyone can edit" atmosphere (much less than, for example, flagged revs), it would only add a layer of protective oversight for article creation, which we badly need.  Them From  Space  19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Endorse I see this as an easy way to cut down on articles that will get speedied. --Rschen7754 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Endorse. Using AfC should be fine if a user isn't patient enough to wait for autoconfirmed. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Endorse I agree with the proposal. DrNegative (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Endorse I suspect that this will move the goal posts for people who really want to create a spam article, and it will appear anyway, but it will significantly reduce the amount of on the spur junk articles. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Endorse—I actually thought this was the case at the moment! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► consulate ─╢ 08:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Endorse - true newbies have their hands full with editing. There's no harm in making them wait 5 days for the page creation ability.  Also, page creation would be a nice incentive for creating an account, and account names are generally easier for others to remember and identify with than IPs. The Transhumanist 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Weak endorse on the balance of conveniences, but it will be necessary to have a strong and well-manned reviewing system for articles by new users created in userspace (or wherever). Stifle (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Davidwr

 * This proposal should only apply to new pages in article space or moves from other spaces into article space. In particular, it does not apply to pages created in user space until the user attempts to move them into article space. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

 * As proposer, davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my intent, have tweaked the wording from "page" to "article." sorry for the vagueness. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Reywas92 Talk 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Logical as proposed. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Per Beeblebrox.  Lourie Pieterse  10:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Reywas92
Nearly every single article at CSD, Prod, or often AFD was the creator's first edit. Not only does it essentially eliminate the backlogs for deletion, good new articles will be of higher qualify because the creator knows a little more about what they're doing. Unfortunately, many users oppose this proposal because it makes it too hard for anyone to start here. How about a lower autoconfirm just for article creation. It could be ten edits without the four days, or maybe one day, or even a single edit, but new users should not be able to create articles without an ounce of knowing what they're doing. Even a minimal requirement would ward off nearly everything that would be soon deleted. Reywas92 Talk 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

 * Makes sense. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the ten edits without 4 days of service proposal idea.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ruslik0
The proposed restriction if implemented: For detail arguments see my post in the previous thread. Ruslik_ Zero 13:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will almost eliminate new article creation.
 * Will significantly reduce the number of new editors joining Wikipedia.
 * Will have no measurable effect on spam and vandalism.
 * This proposal is one of the most unreasonable I have seen in a few last years.
 * "see my post in the previous thread". Is there a reason you didn't respond to my reply to you there? Once again, "spam and vandalism" is a red herring, we cope fine with those anyway. The issue is WP:BITE. Rd232 talk 20:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

 * 1) Ruslik_ Zero 13:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Zvn (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) RP459 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) We do not need more restrictions. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) This proposal is not necessary. The backlog at CSD is not that great plus it's simply against the wiki way. Garion96 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Falcorian (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Agreed. Kill it with fire! — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) While I don't agree with some of the points, I agree with the underlying message; this proposal is not a good idea. I could see requiring (through software) some sort of confirmation that the user has some degree of clue, but simply raising restrictions is not the answer. {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) I think we need more hard data and fewer assumptions before we make a big decision like this. Mr.Z-man 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Sure, the statement exaggerates things a bit, but it's still 100% my view. There are so many alternatives to improve the article creation process, patrols, criteria, tools, templates, etc etc etc that going this far is completely unnecessary. The blanket proposal is far too broad and is a skip around any actual productive or meaningful discussion of new users and new articles. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) While the statement is a bit exaggerated, I for one want anyone to be able to fill red links. It's bad enough that there's the red tape of account creation to go through. CSD seems very much under control these days; I rarely see a real backlog (two years ago, 200+ was the norm, not the exception). —Кузьма討論 10:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) See my statement in the discussion section. However, I do disagree that it will completely eliminate new article creation, there are other glaring issues that outshadow that. –MuZemike 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) --LexCorp (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) There are major issues with this proposal, and I think it will only discourage new users from getting involved with the project. I think a lot of people first register so they can create their first article – I know I did, after at least a year of editing as an IP. I don't think it's a good idea at all to add more red tape in this arena. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) While I don't think this will completely kill article creation, it is BITEY, and kind of puts a damper on our "...that anyone can edit" mantra. While it would likely cut down on CSD/AfD backlogs, it might come at too high of a price. (Especially since I don't really see the backlogs as that much of a problem). It also won't deter serious vandals. -- B figura  (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) It will make the Wikipedia safer. Will give some time to users that hasn't read the policies, and will avoid many conflicts. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Absolutely no. Spammers and POV pushers will jump through hoops if they have to. Honest people will just go somewhere else. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) I don't think this change would promote growth of Wikipedia in the many areas where our coverage is inadequate. As for this being a solution to the "biting" problem, I'd liken it to trying to make oneself a more friendly person by becoming a hermit. We need to be more welcoming of new users, not less. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Agree--strongly oppose the proposal. The most important need in Wikipedia is to keep getting new editors. Many editors first make a fairly incompetent article, and then learn. We can easily cope with the problem articles,at least in prod and speedy--there is almost never an article backlog in either, and if there is, just ask me or any other admin to deal with it.  My experience with both is that about one-third of the dubious tagged new articles can be rescued. We need them.    DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) The proposal's downsides seems to strongly outweight any upsides.Locke9k (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) No way. The proposal is very much against the open attitude Wikipedia seeks to promote. Brilliantine (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Will exacerbate the current slowdown in Wikipedia activity. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Agree fully. We don't need such extensive bureaucracy and protection. And FWIW, I think this goes against the spirit of AGF (some people make bad articles, so we force everyone to wait four days before that can do so?) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) The openness of Wikipedia is its greatest strength. Removing the ability for anyone to start an article whenever they want will cause us to stagnate.  Cerebellum (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse all points except the third, which would be much more manageable with this proposal. That being said, the spam/vandalism benefit doesn't make up for the loss in new articles.  Them  From  Space  21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, mistook "autoconfirmed" for "autoreviewer". This proposal makes much more sense now.  Switched to support.  Them  From  Space  19:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose this unjustifiable restriction of current editing norms. All proposed restrictions must be carefully scrutinized in line with the "anyone can edit" ideal. —  James Kalmar   22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse this statement, strongly oppose the proposal. I have been editing anonymously for months before I created an account, and the creation of a new article was the very reason I made the jump to getting an account. The article I created survived a good-faith speedy deletion nomination (the nominator later became an admin) and later a bad-faith AfD nomination, and I would probably never have created it if I had been required to wait for my autoconfirmed status. Furthermore, had this article not been created by me, it would probably have been created later by (whom I met in person several years ago) and deleted as spam. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse. Speaking as someone who works quite a bit in the area of speedy deletion, I don't see anything that needs dramatic revision in the way articles are currently created.  I agree with DGG that new articles are our lifeblood, and I'd rather sort through dozens of speediable ones than potentially turn a single useful one away through setting the barrier any higher.  I appreciate the thought that prompted these suggestions, but I also think that new page patrolling is improving all the time and needs less amelioration than once it did.  As noted above, backlogs of 200+ in speedy-tagged articles are now the exception rather than the rule.  Accounting4Taste: talk 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree, we are going against the spirit of "anyone can edit" this way, and whilst you may claim most of these articles are deleted, I have seen a significant number of new user articles which are either improved upon to the point of inclusion, or are already good enough at the first edit. We shouldn't stifle new contributors in order to make behind-the-scenes work easier, especially as there isn't a huge backlog anyway. --Taelus (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

General discussion of the proposal

 * See also: The thread above the RFC that led to this wider discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was suggested in that thread that there is no proof this would have the desired effect. Of course there isn't, because there is no way to prove it without actually doing it. However, there has been widespread concern in the community about how many new users have as their first experience created an article that is deleted within minutes, or sometimes seconds, of creation. By requiring at least a tiny amount of familiarity before they actually create an article, I believe the frequency of such events will be reduced. The vast majority of vandals lack the patience to make ten constructive edits and wait four days before creating an article, so there is much to be gained by this. WP:AFC requests can be handled by any autoconfirmed user, so the admin workload would be reduced, and many of those who currently patrol new articles could simply move over to AFC, which is much more of a "feel good" experience for both submitters and reviewers, as it usually provides more back-and-forth discussion than a simple CSD case. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming user-page drafts are allowed, editors without autoconfirmed status are allowed to create user-page drafts then use WP:AFC to have the article created. This may prompt some changes to WP:AFC to streamline requests for articles that already exists in user-space, but this is not a major issue.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ruslik asks us to look at the details in his previous posts on the subject. Having done that, one thing in particular jumped out at me: "How many spammers will be deterred by this? My guess is zero. They will simply reprogram their bots to wait 4 days and to make 10 meaningless edits. " I find this rather odd, most spammers I have run into are intent on creating either an article or a user page to promote their employer or client. The idea that they are using bots to do this is hard to fathom. If they were using a bot, it would most likely be adding spam links to articles, not actually creating pages, and would therefore be outside the scope of this discussion, as this conversation is about whether this would curtail the creation of junk pages. I also wonder about his objection that a new user might have information on a new planet being discovered, and they will have to wait four days to post on it. If an item is really that important, a registered user will no doubt start an article on it, and the new user can contribute there like anyone else. Or the new user can submit their article to AFC, and if it is verified, it will be moved to article space. As I've said, it's unfortunate that neither of us have any hard evidence to back up our positions, it seems the only way to find out if this would work or not is to do it. Lastly, I see someone has commented that we "don't need more regulations." I tend to agree. However, IP users are already restricted from creating pages or voting at RFA. Non-autoconfirmed users are already restricted from editing certain pages, uploading images, and moving pages, yet they can create any garbage article they want the second they register. This would simply be an adjustment of existing restrictions on new users, not some wholly new territory. If I could try a metaphor here, it's like turning 18 (for U.S. citizens anyway) any autoconfirmed user would be an "adult" and any non-autoconfirmed user, whether registered or an ip, would be a "minor." This actually strikes me as less complicated than what we do now. Beeblebrox (talk)`

I'm not going to jump onto a soapbox and create a long-winded statement basically repeating what the above opposers already said, but I don't think it's really a good idea, nor does it make sense to restrict new page creation to autoconfirmed users. After four days or ten edits, whichever comes first, users automatically gain that userright. Personally, I'd like see brand new users be encouraged to start on improving existing articles first (which was coindidentally how I started out; I didn't create a new article until 9 months after I came aboard) instead of creating new pages right off the start, but I understand that's a difficult task to do, not to mention we kind of been lately embracing this expectation that new users are supposed to create new articles. –MuZemike 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposal seems sound, but care should be taken to explain to new users why they are unable to create a new article immediately, and to point them to a place where they can request (the page of) a certain article to be created. Cs32en  19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say I cannot endorse either proposal. The "contra" proposal is too heavily worded and rests on wrong assumptions, the "pro" proposal seems not to make too much sense - I see it as one of the most exciting exercises to add an entry to Wikipedia that was previously not there (talking of the rather advanced state of WP these days). At least this was my reason to join. There are several new page creations among my first 25 edits... far from perfect but not a single one has been deleted, iirc. I'm not sure whether I would have wanted to wait, I still remember that I was more shy to change someone else's work than to put my own article in. Only my personal experience, of course. --Pgallert (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues of increased userspace page creation
If we were to push new articles from the namespace into userspace, those still need to be monitored for copyright and attack status. It also may raise the number of abandoned userspace pages with problems that are never addressed.

I assume those pages don't show up in google, and aren't as accessible, so the downside is less, but there are some problems especially if it gets linked. This is especially acute for copyright and attack pages, less so for the other classes of deletable articles. Shadowjams (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Some statistics from Special:Newpages - this proposal will not immediately eliminate new article creation
Ruslik0 said above that this proposal "Will almost eliminate new article creation."

I wondered about that so I looked at Special:Newpages. To avoid time-of-day and multiple-contributions-by-the-same-editor issues I skipped and only looked at every 500th new article. This took me back almost 5 days.

What I found is 10 of 13 sampled articles from the New Page log are by editors with more than 1000 edits and more than 30 days of service. 2 were by editors with over 100 edits. 1 was by a first-time editor, that article is at WP:PROD.

This means creation of new articles that don't get deleted will not decrease, at least not immediately.

If true, his second claim (that this proposal will "Will significantly reduce the number of new editors joining Wikipedia") will have a long-term effect on article creation as retiring editors are not replaced.

Below is the raw data and additional commentary, collapsed for your convenience.

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevant to this, what % of articles by newbies vs autoconfirmed vs established editors get deleted (via CSD, Prod and AfD)? This info could be pertinent to whether directing non-autoconfirmed users via AfC is a good idea. I've asked before but got silence. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a very accurate representation of the new pages. Many (non-Wikipedia material) articles that are created by new users get speedied (at least) within the first day.  Therefore if the article lasts a few days, it will most likely be kept.  A more accurate representation is to look at the first 3 or so pages of new pages, and look at how many of those articles are 1) Up for CSD 2) CSD Material 3) PROD or AFD worthy.  I'd say it is at least 20%, depending on when you check it.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Two suggestions for this RfC: (a) move it to a separate page (eg Requests for Comment/articlecreation), since it's rather taking over this page; and (b) try and have some collaboratively written position statements, in addition to individual ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd232 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 December 2009
 * (a) done, but moved to a Wikipedia talk:User access levels/RFC on autoconfirmed status required to create an article instead. It seems more logical.  We can always move it again. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, isn't creating new articles already restricted to autoconfirmed users? Hasn't it been that way for years? --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ummm, no. Maybe you're thinking of Ip's, they lost the ability to create new articles years ago-- Jac 16888 {{sup| Talk }} 14:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Backlogs There is never a significant article backlog in prod at the end of the 7 days. The worst (and the best) are removed from the list even before that, and the ones still there tend to be dealt with almost immediately. At speedy, the only time there is an article backlog is sometimes at the end of a weekend. It is usually cleared up within a day, and the real problem categories like  defamation never have backlogs. The backlogs at speedy are usually caused by files--and even this is infrequent. Occasional articles stay in speedy for a day or even 2, when they look tricky and new admins are reluctant to handle them, but there's now a chronological listing, and a number of admins, including myself, try to make a point of looking at them.  (When I joined 3 years ago things were different, & there were frequent backlogs for articles.)   I suggest the promoters of this motion remove this from their list of reasons. to help focus discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in my statement did I use the word "backlog." I said it would reduce the workload. CSD and PROD don't often get backlogged because there are so many users who patrol them, but the flow of junk articles is pretty steady. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Methods of evaluation
I'm not wildly in favor of this proposal, nor do I exactly oppose it. If we try it, and it turns out to be a bad idea, we can always go back to the current system. The sky won't fall either way.

What primarily concerns me is that if we try this, we'll have an argument later about whether it's successful based -- not on what new editors actually experience, but on whether WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- as in, it doesn't matter if the patient lives or dies, because we already know that the surgery is, by definition, a success if my method was used, and it is a failure if your method was used.

I would like is some general agreement, in advance, about what constitutes "success" or "failure". For example, I don't think that the raw number of articles created is a good metric: lousy articles on non-notable subjects don't improve the encyclopedia, especially if they just get deleted. But perhaps it would be interesting to know things like this:
 * the percentage of articles created by inexperienced editors (e.g., with fewer than 100 edits at the time of page creation) that get deleted or redirected within 30 days of creation ("Are we reducing the number of newbies that are wasting their time?)
 * the number of new accounts that reach 100 edits within 30 days (as a metric for "Are we scaring away new editors?")
 * the proportion of new accounts that edit more than two pages (Are we getting editors, or just SPAs and spammers?)
 * the proportion of new articles that are proposed for CSD/PROD/AFD (Are we reducing the workload on experienced editors?)

I don't know how to get these numbers, and I don't want any metric that is obviously/uncontrollably biased 'for' or 'against' the proposal. For example, the correct comparison might be "ever edited three pages" in the current batch of editors vs "ever edited four pages" for future editors, since the proposal is essentially to require new editors to edit something other than their new article.

I want a pre-determined system that most of us can agree on how to interpret. For example: If the current system creates 100 newbie articles each day, and 35 are deleted or redirected within 30 days [net:  +65 each day], and the new system creates 70 articles each day, with 10 deleted or redirected within their first 30 days [net +60 each day], then I'd call that success. Would you agree? Perhaps you value the five 'lost' stubs more than I do, and the hassle of deleting the extra 25 articles is less important to you.

If anyone has ideas about how to get the data (ideally, an automated system that could provide comprehensive information, not something that requires hours of handwork to get a small sample), or ideas about what questions we might want to ask (or to not ask), I'd love to hear them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To pre-clarify:
 * I personally don't expect this proposal to provide overwhelming benefits or overwhelming harm. IMO, the likely outcome is that this will make only a tiny bit of difference overall, with some benefits (e.g., fewer upset newbies) being canceled out by other harms (e.g., fewer newbies).  The evaluation plans should therefore have an option for acknowledging that didn't really matter that much (if that's what the data show).
 * These discussions are usually intractable because people won't, or can't, name their actual values. I happen to value the time and energy of experienced editors (slightly) more than newbies.  I prefer quality over quantity.  I'm not "right", and if you disagree with me, you're not "wrong".  (Some editors may find the terms of moral psychology useful in trying to name their values:  a commitment to security and fairness protect the individual from the excesses of the group; valuing community, respect for authority, and purity [=not disgusting other people] protect the group from the excesses of the individual.  You can read more here.)
 * Relying on personal and anecdotal impressions ("Well, I remember more upset newbies at AfD this month than last month, so the problem must be getting worse") leads to bad decisions. If this actually makes a difference, I would like to know that the difference is a positive one, and I therefore want objective data instead of biased guesses.  If it's really a bad idea (which I doubt), then a month's trial should be able to prove it conclusively.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

oh well
While I still strongly believe in this idea and think it would have tangible benefits to the project, it seems there is little chance of it gaining sufficient support to become policy at this time. There's probably no point in leaving it open for another week, although there's probably no harm in that either, I think this could be closed as "no consensus" anytime. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now archived the discussion, as it is no longer active and no consensus emerged. Cenarium (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)