Dear RC patrollers and vandal hunters,
This is a desperate plea for help!
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked. They almost can't keep up with the new requests and a lot of dubious submission are left with no idea how to handle them. Even worse, occasionally "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today" get blanked by a newbie who isn't reading the instructions. Unfortunately, those blankings aren't always discovered in time, and this way a lot of good submissions are missed. Once they get archived, they're almost never touched.
I want to ask vandalhunters to keep their eyes open for blankings and revert them on the spot so they're going unnoticed any longer. And I hope RC patrollers can be pursuaded to fulfill some requests when they come across them.
We need your help!
Sincerely,
Mgm (in name of the overworked Meegs)
I'll add this article to my watchlist in CDVF. Thanks.
Ryan
On 5/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Dear RC patrollers and vandal hunters,
This is a desperate plea for help!
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked. They almost can't keep up with the new requests and a lot of dubious submission are left with no idea how to handle them. Even worse, occasionally "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today" get blanked by a newbie who isn't reading the instructions. Unfortunately, those blankings aren't always discovered in time, and this way a lot of good submissions are missed. Once they get archived, they're almost never touched.
I want to ask vandalhunters to keep their eyes open for blankings and revert them on the spot so they're going unnoticed any longer. And I hope RC patrollers can be pursuaded to fulfill some requests when they come across them.
We need your help!
Sincerely,
Mgm (in name of the overworked Meegs) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/3/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked.
Isn't that a clear hint that AfC shouldn't exist, and that unregistered users should be able to create articles again?
Perhaps not. The rate on AFC (I sometimes help out) for rate articles is really quite horiffic. Perhaps one in ten is optimistic.
~maru
On Jun 3, 2006, at 5:43 AM, Timwi wrote:
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked.
Isn't that a clear hint that AfC shouldn't exist, and that unregistered users should be able to create articles again?
No. When IP accounts could create articles, the few people who work at "Candidates for Speedy Deletion" were overworked.
On 6/3/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked.
Isn't that a clear hint that AfC shouldn't exist, and that unregistered users should be able to create articles again?
No. As the others have pointed out, the dross rate is very high, and "not creating" crappy articles is much less work than deleting crappy articles. However, massaging newbie egos and creating the few salvageable articles does take a bit of work, and isn't that rewarding, as most newbies never seem to come back again... (which begs the question...)
Steve
On 5/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Dear RC patrollers and vandal hunters,
This is a desperate plea for help!
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked. They almost can't keep up with the new requests and a lot of dubious submission are left with no idea how to handle them. Even worse, occasionally "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today" get blanked by a newbie who isn't reading the instructions. Unfortunately, those blankings aren't always discovered in time, and this way a lot of good submissions are missed. Once they get archived, they're almost never touched.
Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation exists as a separate page. And there could be a special page set up which points to each of them. This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer.
Anthony
On 6/3/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer.
Ooops, that should read "the date and time proposed for creation". I guess I gave myself away :).
Anthony
Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation exists as a separate page. And there could be a special page set up which points to each of them. This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer.
Surely that would be equivalent to just letting unregistered users create pages again and having a Special page that simply lists all articles that have only ever been edited by IPs.
On 6/4/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation exists as a separate page. And there could be a special page set up which points to each of them. This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer.
Surely that would be equivalent to just letting unregistered users create pages again and having a Special page that simply lists all articles that have only ever been edited by IPs.
Yeah, that was my point.
Although, as I thought about it more, there would potentially be one difference - "proposed" articles could live in a different namespace (and have a warning at the top or whatever).
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/4/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation exists as a separate page. And there could be a special page set up which points to each of them. This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer.
Surely that would be equivalent to just letting unregistered users create pages again and having a Special page that simply lists all articles that have only ever been edited by IPs.
Yeah, that was my point.
Although, as I thought about it more, there would potentially be one difference - "proposed" articles could live in a different namespace (and have a warning at the top or whatever).
And then the actual real difference would be what? The warning? The namespace prefix showing up in the article title? Both of those are trivialities. They are still publicly-visible and -editable pages that are primarily distinguished from others by means of that Special page that lists them. Whether that Special page performs a complex query or just lists a namespace, is irrelevant.
Timwi
On 6/8/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/4/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation exists as a separate page. And there could be a special page set up which points to each of them. This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer.
Surely that would be equivalent to just letting unregistered users create pages again and having a Special page that simply lists all articles that have only ever been edited by IPs.
Yeah, that was my point.
Although, as I thought about it more, there would potentially be one difference - "proposed" articles could live in a different namespace (and have a warning at the top or whatever).
And then the actual real difference would be what? The warning? The namespace prefix showing up in the article title? Both of those are trivialities. They are still publicly-visible and -editable pages that are primarily distinguished from others by means of that Special page that lists them. Whether that Special page performs a complex query or just lists a namespace, is irrelevant.
Timwi
There could be a warning. Nofollow could be turned on. The pages wouldn't be downloadable in the article-only db download that some mirrors use. The pages could be automatically deleted after a certain period of time if they aren't promoted.
Sure, this could also be done without using a different namespace.
What's the difference between the system that exists now and the system that existed before, other than the fact that it's harder to maintain? The proposed pages are still publically visible and editable - in fact they're *more* publically visible. Why aren't the people who were overworked with deleting stuff from the article namespace now overworked with deleting stuff from AFC?
I really don't know the answers to these questions. My comment about proposed pages existing in a different namespace was just an attempt to get the benefits of the AFC system without the detriments. But other than being in a different namespace, it not really clear to me what those benefits are (there must be some benefit though, because a lot of people seem to prefer it).
Anthony
On 6/8/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What's the difference between the system that exists now and the system that existed before, other than the fact that it's harder to maintain? The proposed pages are still publically visible and editable - in fact they're *more* publically visible. Why aren't the people who were overworked with deleting stuff from the article namespace now overworked with deleting stuff from AFC?
Why bother deleting anything from AfC? my understanding of the process was that the AfC for a given day hangs around for a few days to see if anyone can find anything redeeming, then the whole lot is flushed down the plughole. If we're preserving archives of AfC, then we're probably doing somethnig wrong.
Steve
On 6/8/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What's the difference between the system that exists now and the system that existed before, other than the fact that it's harder to maintain? The proposed pages are still publically visible and editable - in fact they're *more* publically visible. Why aren't the people who were overworked with deleting stuff from the article namespace now overworked with deleting stuff from AFC?
Why bother deleting anything from AfC? my understanding of the process was that the AfC for a given day hangs around for a few days to see if anyone can find anything redeeming, then the whole lot is flushed down the plughole. If we're preserving archives of AfC, then we're probably doing somethnig wrong.
Steve
Flushing the archives isn't a particularly good idea, because good articles *do* get lost in AFC. Now, if we had some mechanism to mark each day as "Done", then that would be another thing.
~maru
On 6/9/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Flushing the archives isn't a particularly good idea, because good articles *do* get lost in AFC. Now, if we had some mechanism to mark each day as "Done", then that would be another thing.
Done is the same thing as "we have extracted all the good articles out of this mess", isn't it? Marking the page as done would be the same blanking it.
Steve
Well, what's the point in blanking a page? The history would still be retained and it doesn't save any space.
Anyway, I want to correct a few misconceptions. AFC people aren't overworked the way deletion admins would be because AFC work doesn't require admin abilities. The overworkedness is simply due to the fact only a small number of people are tending to it. If my initial message can get more people interested in joining the workload for each individual person would go down.
Also, good suggestions occasionally get lost when a newbie somehow blanks the page. I wanted RC patrollers to be on the look out for this to save some good articles. AFC patrollers are too busy in looking at the entries themselves that they often don't note blankings. RC patrollers would see that, but so far never acted.
Lastly, I prefer the current situation to anons being able to create new pages. It's easier to evaluate a suggestion and post it if it's good than to spend half an hour deleting unsuitable entries from the main namespace.
Mgm
On 6/9/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/9/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Flushing the archives isn't a particularly good idea, because good articles *do* get lost in AFC. Now, if we had some mechanism to mark each day as "Done", then that would be another thing.
Done is the same thing as "we have extracted all the good articles out of this mess", isn't it? Marking the page as done would be the same blanking it.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Well, what's the point in blanking a page? The history would still be retained and it doesn't save any space.
Uh, I didn't really understand the complaint about old article suggestions being stored in the first place. But if we really don't want anons to be able to create articles (in the sense that an entry on AfC is itself an article) that persist, then we should delete them all periodically...
Anyway, I want to correct a few misconceptions. AFC people aren't overworked the way deletion admins would be because AFC work doesn't require admin abilities. The overworkedness is simply due to the fact only a small number of people are tending to it. If my initial message can get more people interested in joining the workload for each individual person would go down.
Yep. I try and help out sometimes, but it's pretty repetitive...
Lastly, I prefer the current situation to anons being able to create new pages. It's easier to evaluate a suggestion and post it if it's good than to spend half an hour deleting unsuitable entries from the main namespace.
Yep. Also, the created articles tend to meet the basic requirements for a Wikipedia article:
- Suitable definition of subject - Basic style (bolded subject) - At least one source - At least one category - Stub tag
Which is more than can be said for a lot of articles created by "established" Wikipedians.
Steve
On 6/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Well, what's the point in blanking a page? The history would still be retained and it doesn't save any space.
Google doesn't spider page histories
On 6/8/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What's the difference between the system that exists now and the system that existed before, other than the fact that it's harder to maintain? The proposed pages are still publically visible and editable - in fact they're *more* publically visible. Why aren't the people who were overworked with deleting stuff from the article namespace now overworked with deleting stuff from AFC?
Why bother deleting anything from AfC? my understanding of the process was that the AfC for a given day hangs around for a few days to see if anyone can find anything redeeming, then the whole lot is flushed down the plughole. If we're preserving archives of AfC, then we're probably doing somethnig wrong.
Steve
Last time I checked "archives" of AfC were being kept.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro schrieb:
On 5/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Dear RC patrollers and vandal hunters,
This is a desperate plea for help!
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked. They almost can't keep up with the new requests and a lot of dubious submission are left with no idea how to handle them. Even worse, occasionally "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today" get blanked by a newbie who isn't reading the instructions. Unfortunately, those blankings aren't always discovered in time, and this way a lot of good submissions are missed. Once they get archived, they're almost never touched.
Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation exists as a separate page. And there could be a special page set up which points to each of them. This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer.
My Tasks extension handles requests for creation, with the date the task was submitted, and the IP of the submitter. Tasks can be sorted by creation date, and assigned to people. Each task can have its own discussion page.
Besides, it could handle requests for deletion, stub notes (automatically categorized), etc.
Currently, however, it is sitting unmaintained in the extensions module, since noone gives a s**t. Business as usual.
Magnus
Where can I find out more about that extension? To others: the whole point of AFC is to help out people who don't want to create an account and still want to submit articles while at the same time filtering out the crap. Allowing anyone to create articles again, would indeed overwork admins who work in deletion. Jimbo called it a temporary test, but he never reinstated anon powers to create articles - probably for a very good reason.
Mgm
P.S. Thanks for adding AFC to your VandalFighter watchlist, Ryan.
On 6/7/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Anthony DiPierro schrieb:
On 5/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Dear RC patrollers and vandal hunters,
This is a desperate plea for help!
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting
overworked.
They almost can't keep up with the new requests and a lot of dubious submission are left with no idea how to handle them. Even worse, occasionally "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today" get blanked by a newbie who isn't reading the instructions. Unfortunately, those blankings aren't always discovered
in
time, and this way a lot of good submissions are missed. Once they get archived, they're
almost
never touched.
Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation exists as a separate page. And there could be a special page set up which points to each of them. This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer.
My Tasks extension handles requests for creation, with the date the task was submitted, and the IP of the submitter. Tasks can be sorted by creation date, and assigned to people. Each task can have its own discussion page.
Besides, it could handle requests for deletion, stub notes (automatically categorized), etc.
Currently, however, it is sitting unmaintained in the extensions module, since noone gives a s**t. Business as usual.
Magnus _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Jimbo called it a temporary test, but he never reinstated anon powers to create articles - probably for a very good reason.
Did any actual results ever come out of that test, BTW? I'm curious whether there was a significant effect on the rate of article deletion, and whether it resulted in a significant increase in throwaway accounts being registered.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
To others: the whole point of AFC is to help out people who don't want to create an account and still want to submit articles while at the same time filtering out the crap. Allowing anyone to create articles again, would indeed overwork admins who work in deletion.
What difference does that make, given that AfC *also* overworks them?
On 6/8/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
To others: the whole point of AFC is to help out people who don't want to create an account and still want to submit articles while at the same time filtering out the crap. Allowing anyone to create articles again, would indeed overwork admins who work in deletion.
What difference does that make, given that AfC *also* overworks them?
Eh? What do admins need to do in AfC?
Steve
On 6/8/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
To others: the whole point of AFC is to help out people who don't want to create an account and still want to submit articles while at the same time filtering out the crap. Allowing anyone to create articles again, would indeed overwork admins who work in deletion.
What difference does that make, given that AfC *also* overworks them?
No... AFC overworks whatever poor registered editor feels altruistic enough to help. Not merely administrators.
~maru