That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints, because
the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive effort to

The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and spam
from people who never have the slightest intent of editing helpfully, and
those who are newbies who genuinely want to help but need guidance get
caught in the crossfire aimed at the vandals and spammers. It is relatively
rare that when a genuinely new editor's first edit is a creation, it is the
creation of an appropriate article on a workable subject, and that's
normally more by dumb luck than them having actual knowledge that they
should do it.

So, consider that a complaint. The proposed fix didn't work, and most
people at the time didn't figure it would work, but it was clearly the best
we were going to get.

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
> wrote:

> > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen <> wrote:
> >
> > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above.
> The
> > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the WMF
> > shrugged and said "Nah, rather not."
> That's... Not exactly what I remember happening there. What I remember was
> that a pretty good number (~500) of enwiki community members came together
> and agreed on a problem, and one plan for how to  fix it and asked the WMF
> to implement it. The WMF evaluated it, and saw a threat to a basic project
> value. WMF then asked "what's the problem you're actually trying to
> solve?", and proposed and built a set of tools to directly address that
> problem without compromising the core value of openness. And it seems to
> have worked out pretty well because I haven't heard a ton of complaints
> about that problem since.
> ______________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to