Is it because of the new task I am working on or has there been an
increase in bad good faith edits? I am seeing a lot of images being
added with incorrect syntax and therefore appearing inCategory:Articles
with missing files
Is that attrition of experienced editors starting to show??
Thank you so much for your kind words about Page Curation!
We are delighted that this new tool works well for you. Page Curation was created in close collaboration with many editors on the English Wikipedia, who played an important role in its development. Thank you all for your great insights and generous guidance!
For a quick overview on how Page Curation works, watch this video tour:
To try the tool for yourself, head over to the New Pages Feed:
(you must be logged in as auto-confirmed editor to review new pages)
After you've had a chance to use it, we invite you to leave suggestions for improvement on our talkpage:
Thanks again to everyone who made this tool possible.
To be continued soon, I hope ...
On behalf of the Wikimedia Editor Engagement team
On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:00 AM, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia
> Date: September 26, 2012 2:51:21 AM PDT
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Special:NewPagesFeed is fantastic, by the way. Click on an article and
> see what you get.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org>
> Date: 26 September 2012 02:02
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia
> To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Hi folks,
> I am happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has just launched
> Page Curation, a new suite of tools for reviewing articles on
> Current page patrol tools like Special:NewPages and Twinkle can be
> hard to use quickly and accurately, and have led to frustration for
> some users. Page Curation aims to improve that page patrol experience
> by making it faster and easier to review new pages, using two
> integrated tools: the New Pages Feed and the Curation Toolbar.
> Read the Page Curation announcement on our blog:
> To learn more, visit our introduction page:
> If you are an experienced editor, please give Page Curation a try:
> We are also holding IRC office hours on Wednesday, September 26 at 4pm
> PT (23:00 UTC), during which we will be happy to answer any questions
> you may have. Please report any issues on our talk page or to our
> Community Liaison, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>.
> A number of patrollers have already started using Page Curation, and
> we hope that more curators will adopt this new toolkit over time. A
> 'release version' was deployed on the English Wikipedia on September
> 20, 2012, and we plan to make it available to other projects in coming
> This feature was created in close collaboration with editors. We would
> like to take this opportunity to thank all the community members who
> patiently guided our progress over the past few months. This includes
> folks like Athleek123, DGG, Dori, Fluffernutter, Logan, The Helpful
> One, Tom Morris, Utar and WereSpielChequers, to name but a few. We are
> deeply grateful for your generous contributions to this project!
> We designed Page Curation to offer a better experience, by making it
> easier for curators to review new pages and by providing more feedback
> to creators so they can improve Wikipedia together.
> We hope that you will find this new tool useful. Enjoy!
> Fabrice Florin
> Product Manager, Editor Engagement Team
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Fabrice Florin (WMF)
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Special:NewPagesFeed is fantastic, by the way. Click on an article and
see what you get.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 26 September 2012 02:02
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I am happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has just launched
Page Curation, a new suite of tools for reviewing articles on
Current page patrol tools like Special:NewPages and Twinkle can be
hard to use quickly and accurately, and have led to frustration for
some users. Page Curation aims to improve that page patrol experience
by making it faster and easier to review new pages, using two
integrated tools: the New Pages Feed and the Curation Toolbar.
Read the Page Curation announcement on our blog:
To learn more, visit our introduction page:
If you are an experienced editor, please give Page Curation a try:
We are also holding IRC office hours on Wednesday, September 26 at 4pm
PT (23:00 UTC), during which we will be happy to answer any questions
you may have. Please report any issues on our talk page or to our
Community Liaison, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>.
A number of patrollers have already started using Page Curation, and
we hope that more curators will adopt this new toolkit over time. A
'release version' was deployed on the English Wikipedia on September
20, 2012, and we plan to make it available to other projects in coming
This feature was created in close collaboration with editors. We would
like to take this opportunity to thank all the community members who
patiently guided our progress over the past few months. This includes
folks like Athleek123, DGG, Dori, Fluffernutter, Logan, The Helpful
One, Tom Morris, Utar and WereSpielChequers, to name but a few. We are
deeply grateful for your generous contributions to this project!
We designed Page Curation to offer a better experience, by making it
easier for curators to review new pages and by providing more feedback
to creators so they can improve Wikipedia together.
We hope that you will find this new tool useful. Enjoy!
Product Manager, Editor Engagement Team
User:Fabrice Florin (WMF)
Wikitech-l mailing list
> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:12:51 +0100
> From: "Phil Nash" <phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Jacobs" <sxeptomaniac(a)gmail.com>
> To: <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 6:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> > >
> >> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:12:49 -0400
> >> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> >> Agreed. But how could such a mechanism be created given the existing
> >> structure of the Project?
> >> marc Riddell
> >> I've seen a lot of complicated RfA proposals, as well as community
> >> desysop
> > procedures, and I really think the simplest solution would be for
> > Adminship
> > to no longer be a lifetime appointment. Make it for terms of one or two
> > years, with no limit on the number of terms, and no requirement to
> > re-apply. It simply means that admins remain accountable to the
> > giving them an incentive to remain polite and fair, to the best of their
> > ability. I don't buy the arguments that "good admins will never be
> > re-appointed", as good admins may make a few enemies, but they'll gain
> > even
> > more supporters. I also believe that the community could easily adapt to
> > manage the increase in RfAs.
> > To be clear, there is no perfect solution, but I think that instituting
> > admin terms would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, I also
> > don't think the community will ever accept such a major change, as it's
> > become far to conservative regarding policy.
> This isn't a new idea, and has been proposed, and rejected, more than once:
> As you point out, it is open to abuse by enemies the admins may have made-
> which is only to be expected if they're doing their job properly, since
> people, sadly, will never accept authoritative statements of WP policy.
> Worse (as in my case), they might receive death threats on a daily basis.
I never claimed it was a new idea. I'm aware various versions are brought
up, though people often try to tinker with it and end up making it more
complicated than it needs to be. I was asked what I think would help fix
WP's issues, and I answered. I also mentioned that I think it's got
near-zero chance of passing, as, for the most part, I don't believe the
community is interested in improving WP at this point, but only protecting
Any system is open to abuse. My argument is that it better enables the
community to prevent and deal with abuse when (not if) it happens.
Yes, admins make enemies, but they also gain supporters. A good admin will
gain more of the latter than the former.
As you pointed out, you're already receiving death threats, so how is that
an argument against change? If anything, it has the potential to reduce it
somewhat, as they have something they can do about their anger/frustration,
whereas there's little recourse at this time.
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:14:12 +0100
> From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> Re Matthew Jacobs and the periodic reconfirmation idea
> There's also the point that some of us don't like the idea of admins
> becoming a small elite group within the community. OK we are already quite
> a way from the "no big deal" idea of adminship, but one of the downsides of
> reducing the admin cadre to a small number of fixed term admins is that the
> vast majority of our current 1400 or so admins have insufficient activity
> to get through an RFA. Many of the rest are unlikely to want to put
> themselves through the RFA hoops again, especially if remaining an admin
> means taking on a significantly larger share of the admin workload.
> We need to remember that admins are unpaid volunteers doing a bunch of
> essential chores on the site.
> We also need to remember that the fewer admins there are the more their
> scarcity value increases. So fixed terms might be of interest to status
> seekers and those exhibitionists who rather enjoy the opportunity of an RFA
> to have a public confrontation with their critics. But we'd lose most of
> the quiet and uncontentious admins who are active editors who have the
> tools and use them as and when they come across a situation that requires
> Of course periodic reconfirmation would work if we made adminship a
> salaried position. But I'm hoping that we can find other ways to fix the
> RFA problem long before that starts to look necessary.
> That said RFA is continuing to decline, this year, maybe even this month,
> may well see the first month without a new admin since October 2002. With
> 20 new admins so far this year compared to 52 last year we will be doing
> very well in the rest of the year if we manage to kepp the year on year
> decline at only one third. There is a real risk that 2012 could see the
> rate of decline steepen and only half as many new admins be appointed as
> the previous year.
Much of your claim as to why it's no benefit is rooted in the assumption
that adminship should be permanent; that admins should continue to be
reconfirmed on a regular basis. I disagree. Adminship is a job, not a
person or group of people.
Part of the reason adminship became such a big deal is because it's so hard
to remove it from someone once they have it. If people knew that it was
only for a limited period (in addition to just holding more of them), it
means motivation to make RFAs less of a big deal, not more.
You act like RFA isn't already a massive drama magnet where people play out
their petty squabbles, drawing "status seekers" and "exhibitionists". It's
been like that for years, and there's no reason to think terms would change
human behavior, but they would reduce the motivation for these things, by
spreading it out among more of them and reducing how serious a decision an
RFA is. There's LESS motivation to give someone the benefit of the doubt
when there's no way to undo the decision, which directly leads to MORE
Yes, we already knew of the problems with the declining RFAs years ago, due
to the greater and greater requirements, increased scrutiny of applicants,
and highly contentious process. All of those are because adminship has
become such a big deal, and a major reason for that is because it's very
hard to remove.
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:34:26 +0100
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
> On 11 September 2012 17:29, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > It seems I have not posed this as a question. The question is how could
> > we better handle VIP subjects who give us feedback, attempt to edit
> > either themselves or through an agent, or contact OTRS?
> > For example, could we assign some diplomatic people to handle such
> > situations, I've noticed CBS does that. It's a skill.
> We have assigned diplomatic people to handle such situations - they're
> the OTRS volunteers. The problem is how we make sure people get
> directed to OTRS.
One problem with that approach is that OTRS is not seen as representative
of WP; the administrators are. If the admins are widely perceived as being
dicks (probably because way to many of them behave like dicks a large
portion of the time), then OTRS is going to continue to be ineffective at
changing the perception of WP as unfriendly and more concerned with
protecting territory than having accurate information.
Even more fundamentally, WP admins are not accountable for doing a good
job, only avoiding doing a bad one. Until that changes, most admins have
little incentive to be anything beyond mediocre. Sure, I believe they
generally mean well, but if they think they're right, why shouldn't they be
rude and drive off the annoying editor who says they're wrong, rather than
waste a bunch of time trying to be helpful and diplomatic. They can be as
rude and territorial as they want, provided they don't cross the line into
"abusing the tools", and no-one will punish them, so why should they bother
politely pointing someone to OTRS, much less spend time and effort trying
to be diplomatic themselves?
The link is to the NPR article and the comment below is worth reviewing.
How can this perception typical among the NPR commentators be over-turned?
" Boe D (Dajoe) wrote:
"People: If you are knowledgable enough to find a fault in Wikipedia--Go
Boe, are you kidding? it's because of the hubris and tenacity of the
ignorant that we cannot fix it. we have only finite energy and time, and
the self-appointed "editors" who elect among themselves the
"administrators" (who wield the real power), will just revert any fix that
doesn't fit with their POV.
if you take them on, they will run to an admin friend of theirs and you
will be blocked. if you stand your ground, they will "community ban" you
indefinitely and then you either get another login ID or you edit
anonymously, but in either case you must fly below the radar or be accused
you can be a noted expert in your field, but if you are outnumbered by two
self-appointed editors that disagree, any time you spend contributing to
the project will eventually be wasted.
the second pillar of Wikipedia has crumbled to the earth. it does not exist
anymore except as rubble."
if Jimbo only knew.
Links send out this morning to 1000s of librarians.
Wikipedia Irks Philip Roth With Reluctance To Edit Entry About His
"Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software
that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from
stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions,
FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain
far and away the most popular items on the company's servers."
Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're
really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't
print it if it wasn't true...
If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving
treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone
to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems
in their article.
The thing is, VIPs generally get VIP treatment, personal and forgiving
attention. They may not be prepared, as a practical matter, to "work it
out with the janitor," so to speak. What could we do to improve our
interface with VIPs?
After all, as said, famous people we know, or who know us, do get plenty
of help. They don't get to veto the content of their article, but careful
consideration is given to any issues they may have.
As to who, let's just say that one or two have ended up here:
Perhaps they might have some advice?
There are limits; we're not going to completely satisfy someone who is
thin-skinned and cranky or totally puffed up over themselves, but I'm
sure we could do better even with someone like that.
It's a new topic. Addresses the general question rather than rehashing Roth.
> Fred, it's very difficult to keep track of mailing list threads if you
change the subject each time you post - this makes several in the last
couple of days on the same topic.
> Can you keep them all under the same topic please!