Hi, all.
Replies inline.
On Jun 19, 2012, at 01:59 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Tom Morris
<tom(a)tommorris.org> wrote:
There is currently an enormous backlog at
Articles for Creation, of over
700 articles.
If you've got some time spare, it'd be great if you could help work on the
AfC backlog.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFC
Many hands make light wiki-work. ;-)
Thank you for bringing this up Tom.
As a volunteer admin, it looks to me like AFC is horrible mess. Not only
has there always been a large backlog,
The backlog is routinely at 800+ articles, if anyone is curious. Last time it wasn't
marked at a backlog, a couple other editors and I spent about 36 hours off and on cutting
the backlog. It was back within two days.
but articles that have references
and would normally pass the CSD barrier at New Page Patrol are routinely
rejected for trivial reasons.
Again, I see this a lot. Actually, I sometimes override declines after users come into
the IRC help channel asking for an explanation. At the very least, a "guide"
page should be developed outlining exactly what each decline reason is and how it should
be applied.
I think we need to brainstorm ways to either drastically improve AFC's
ability to review articles in a reasonable time, or discuss not
highlighting it so prominently to authors of new articles. People who
actively seek input from other editors before publishing articles in
mainspace are our most promising new editors, and we're doing them a grave
disservice right now.
Steven
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Even through all that, I believe AfC needs to exist. It does provide a great service to
anon editors who won't create accounts for whatever reason.
I think the biggest thing we should do right now is recruit more editors to AfC. I sound
like a broken record, but 3 or 4 of us really can't review articles effectively.
Just my $0.02
Matthew Bowker