https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
--- Comment #34 from Snottywong <[email protected]> 2011-08-09 14:40:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #31) > > Please provide a link showing actual hard data (i.e. non-theoretical proof > > and/or experimental evidence) which specifically shows that restricting > > non-autoconfirmed editors from creating new articles will create a > > significant > > decline in new editor retention, and/or damage (and possibly kill?!) the > > entire > > project. I sincerely doubt you can, since to my knowledge it's never been > > attempted before. Thus, why we would like to attempt it, so that we can > > base > > our beliefs on evidence rather than gut feelings. > > Look at that: on the Signpost, just like I said: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-08/News_and_notes > > It does not take a genius IQ to extrapolate saying "no, you can't edit the > encyclopedia" to new users will cause them to get disappointed and go away > based on all of this. It's very, very fragile, this thing. There is nothing in that signpost that is specifically about restricting non-autoconfirmed users from creating new articles. There is only an article about stats which imply that new users are more apt to leave the project if their first few edits are reverted or deleted. While that study doesn't seem to specifically include new articles getting deleted, I think it's logical to assume that this would count as a form of rejection. Indeed, in my own analysis of the first 5 months of this year, 60% of non-autoconfirmed users whose new article was deleted never made another edit to the project. That's nearly 10,000 new users per month who quit after their article was deleted. Only 4% of non-autoconfirmed users whose new article was deleted eventually became autoconfirmed. That is hard evidence based on statistics: new users who create articles that get deleted simply do not stick around. > I disagree that you can't base decisions on "gut feelings" in this case. I'm > fairly certain that if I get stabbed it will hurt; I don't need someone to > actually stab me to have actual data points to draw the conclusion. This is actually a far more complicated issue than you give it credit for. There really is no telling what this change would do for new editor retention. I'm hoping that it will improve new editor retention. There are a lot of new editors who come here just to create an article on something they think is missing, and then they leave. If those editors would be required to make a slightly larger investment in order to create that article, will most of them choose to abandon it, or will they go make the investment and perhaps in the process realize how rich of an experience Wikipedia is, and eventually become a long-term editor? Will that experience of becoming autoconfirmed force them to learn more about Wikipedia before they create that first article, upping the chances that their article doesn't get deleted, and therefore sparing them the initial rejection which might have caused them to leave? No one knows, and gut feelings certainly aren't helpful in predicting such a complicated situation. > Yes, I am familiar with that statistic (which is poorly understood, to my > knowledge), and I don't think it supports what you think it does. I think it > mostly supports that a lot of people are trigger-happy deletionists eager to > ramp up their edit counts so that they can "make admin faster" more than it > means that everyone in the world has Bad Faith. That statistic was never intended to prove that everyone in the world has bad faith. It was intended to show that the vast majority of articles created by brand new users are utter crap (and if you've ever done any new page patrolling, you'd be quite aware of this). It's extreme bad faith to say that the people who are deleting these articles are "trigger-happy deletionists" trying to game the system at the expense of new users. Seriously, that is ridiculous and you should be ashamed of making a comment like that which disparages the hard work of dozens of editors, particularly considering you're on the WMF staff. If it weren't for patrollers filtering out these terrible articles, Wikipedia would be a laughingstock by this point. > No, I'm suggesting that this change is myopic in scope and: > > a) Violates a resolution by the Board of Trustees, and > b) Violates the spirit of the Five Pillars I disagree on both points. There is no data which proves that this change will harm editor retention, and there is nothing in this trial which violates the five pillars. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not necessarily the encyclopedia on which anyone can create new articles. I would suggest that your opinions are myopic, based on gut reactions rather than experimental data, and appear to be mired in stereotypes and bias (based on your bad-faith "trigger-happy deletionists" comment above). In any case, the community has clearly spoken, and re-arguing these points on bugzilla is not what I came here to do. I'm going to attempt to not argue the politics of this trial in this venue any further, and defer to the devs who are wiser than myself to ensure that this trial is correctly implemented. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss the politics of this trial further. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
