On 6/3/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: 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 6/3/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: 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 6/3/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: Ooops, that should read "the date and time proposed for creation". I guess I gave myself away :). Anthony

On 6/4/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: 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

On 6/8/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: 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, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)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. ~maru

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Google doesn't spider page histories -- geni

Anthony DiPierro schrieb: 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

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: 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.

On 6/8/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: Eh? What do admins need to do in AfC? Steve