This argument is absurd. You dismiss the opinions of those who bother to
speak up, simply because very few bother or care to speak up. On that
basis, it's not worth ever asking the community anything, ever. That
includes the famous editor retention studies, or image filter 'referendum'.
Not
BTW, can I claim past credit for this one too?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-November/057225.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-November/057321.html
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sure, you'll get a line in my biography (hahahah) ;p
On 12 March 2012 06:11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, can I claim past credit for this one too?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-November/057225.html
On 12 March 2012 08:44, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 03/11/12 3:36 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
As opposed to the majority who supported the idea of
stopping editors creating articles until they'd been autoconfirmed, and
who
believe in template bombing newbies articles or
I dispute the idea that they have. WSC says that the majority of editors
support this idea. We know this is incorrect; if it was true, the majority
of editors would have supported it when given the opportunity - as opposed
to 400 people. This is a sizeable number, yes, but it is a tiny, tiny
On 11 March 2012 03:37, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
snip
The reason we're starting off by seeing
if we can improve quality and inform newbies with Special:NewPages rather
than Special:RecentChanges is, firstly, because it's a lot easier to trial
there (less stuff going on), and
On 11 March 2012 08:56, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A low barrier to contribution is not a problem. What we are trying to fix
is the overwork of patrollers and the fact that new editors go into the
article creation process unaware of what to expect and ignorant of policy,
which
Hi Oliver,
Yes my criticism of your requiring new authors of new articles to have a
familiarity with policy and several references was about what you said
you intend this new software to do, not on how close the current prototype
is to achieving that. If your intent is other than you said then
On 11 March 2012 09:30, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.comwrote:
On 11 March 2012 08:56, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A low barrier to contribution is not a problem. What we are trying to fix
is the overwork of patrollers and the fact that new editors go into the
On 11 March 2012 10:36, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Oliver,
Yes my criticism of your requiring new authors of new articles to have a
familiarity with policy and several references was about what you said
you intend this new software to do, not on how close the
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Did someone change the password? Those details aren't working for me.
Oic, you can create your own account on the labs site.
My thoughts:
- The choices use the article wizard, create a draft, create this
article myself
Oic, you can create your own account on the labs site.
My thoughts:
- The choices use the article wizard, create a draft, create this
article myself are a bit confusing. Especially the first two - that's
a really unusual distinction that doesn't make much sense to me. I'd
expect the
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
To clarify, it might be a help to state what it is that is apparently
broken that you are trying to fix. If it is the existing low barrier to
article creation by one-and-all, it is worth pointing out that
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a great point. In addition to Oliver's explanation on-list, do
folks think the descriptions on EN [1][ and MediaWiki.org [[2] are
sufficiently clear?
The former is meant primarily for the community, and
Hey guys
So, as you know, we have issues with how new pages are treated on
Wikipedia. A lot of the pages created by new editors simply aren't very
good; this is bad for the new editors, because their pages get deleted, and
bad for the new page patrollers who then have to wade through a tide of
On 10 March 2012 11:16, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
snip
Currently, when a registered newbie clicks on a redlink, they get
automatically taken to an edit page where they can create the article, but
without any context as to what is actually happening. With the proposed
system,
Currently, when a registered newbie clicks on a redlink, they get
automatically taken to an edit page where they can create the article,
but
without any context as to what is actually happening. With the proposed
system, instead of seeing a blank edit window devoid of context, they'll
On 10 March 2012 12:55, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
In a way they've already got that through things like Articles for Creation
(which I would love to see us support better, on the software side. I can't
promise anything, though).
The problem with AFC is that hardly anyone cares
On 10 March 2012 12:55, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If a new editor
tries to create the article, they'll be informed that they need a
familiarity with policy, an absence of a COI and several references
(amongst other things) before the tool recommends they create it.[4]
On 10 March 2012 14:48, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I'm particularly concerned that ham-fisted reference to the COI guideline
could put off good and conscientious people we do want editing, while
having no effect on those who are motivated in such a way as to have
Since the Foundation vetoed the EN wiki idea of not allowing newbies to
create articles until they'd been autoconfirmed, I'm surprised that it is
considering requiring them to have a familiarity with policy and several
references. Yes you need that for a Good Article, but this is about new
On 11/03/2012 12:16 a.m., Oliver Keyes wrote:
Hey guys
So, as you know, we have issues with how new pages are treated on
Wikipedia. A lot of the pages created by new editors simply aren't very
good; this is bad for the new editors, because their pages get deleted, and
bad for the new page
There would be no need for these additions if we used Flagged Revisions.
Alan
On 11/03/2012 12:16 a.m., Oliver Keyes wrote:
Hey guys
So, as you know, we have issues with how new pages are treated on
Wikipedia. A lot of the pages created by new editors simply aren't very
good; this is bad
After all that fine talk, i feel almost hesitant. But let's be real
here. It isn't the threshold
getting in you need to worry about in terms of editor retention. It is
the threshold of
getting tossed out either as content or editor or both!
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Hi Steven,
I'm quoting from OKeyes' description a familiarity with policy and
several references and responding to that proposal. If the experiment is
going to be nothing like that, then how would you describe it?
WSC
On 11 March 2012 02:18, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On
WSC, have you actually tried using the prototype, as suggested? It makes
very clear precisely what we're suggesting of newbies. I may be mistaken,
but your questions above about what exactly is included, and the idea that
we require anything, strongly implies you haven't actually tested it. It
26 matches
Mail list logo
