Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was
the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in
response to ACTRIAL?

If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes panned
out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed and
built a set of tools to directly address that problem without compromising
the core value of openness"?

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients
> and students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's solved,
> since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate (AFC).
> Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new users?
>
> Pete
> On Sep 1, 2014 4:38 PM, "Risker" <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response to
>> concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed articles
>> showing up in mainspace?
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
>> On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker <joedec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of the WMF's
>> > response to ACTRIAL.  To the extent that there was additional feedback
>> > given, it was not given at WP:ACTRIAL, nor any other venue I am aware
>> of.
>> >
>> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
>> >
>> > --Joe
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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
>> > > produce.
>> > >
>> > > 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 <
>> > > pbeaude...@wikimedia.org
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
>> 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:
>> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> ,
>> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Joe Decker
>> > www.joedecker.net
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to