https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
Aaron Schulz <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #37 from Aaron Schulz <[email protected]> 2011-08-09 17:18:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #34) > 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. Right. > 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. I'd agree it's more complicated than made out to be here. Though...without targeted funneling of people to at least edit existing articles, I doubt hardly anyone will "learn more about Wikipedia before they create that first article". > 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. > Yes, I've done NP patrol before...and it's pretty terrible. I've also made a few misfires early on too. Patrollers could definitely better orientation. It's also tempting to move quickly to manage the backlog, but speed increases mistakes like bad deletions or tagging. It would be *nice* if we could get newbies to help in the new page cleanup effort, but it's hard to "nutshell" our new page policies. Without that, newbie help could just make the mess worse (with copyvios, editorializing, and poor sources). Still, it seems like there has to be something better than a hard autoconfirmed restriction...that feels like totally "giving up". > > 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. IMO, this does seem to go against those principles pretty clearly. I don't think the "edit"/"create" distinction works here. "anyone can edit" didn't mean "edit" in the strictly idiosyncratic MediaWiki sense, or at least, I highly doubt that. > 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. I'd agree that we need not get into NP-patroller bashing, especially on a bug report. -- 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
