Charles Matthews wrote:
A striking number, i.e. 2000 per day. More than the amount of honest page creation. AfD is only around 5% of that. Presumably there is something behind the four-figure numbers some admins clocked up. My 20 or so seems strangely inadequate if not.
Go do [[Special:Newpages]] patrol some time. (Sunday afternoon and evening US time are "good" for this.) MY GOD, THE AVALANCHES OF CRAP! I can fully believe we have ~2000 shoot-on-sight new page creations a day.
- d.
On 1 Nov 2005, at 11:17, David Gerard wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
A striking number, i.e. 2000 per day. More than the amount of honest page creation. AfD is only around 5% of that. Presumably there is something behind the four-figure numbers some admins clocked up. My 20 or so seems strangely inadequate if not.
Go do [[Special:Newpages]] patrol some time. (Sunday afternoon and evening US time are "good" for this.) MY GOD, THE AVALANCHES OF CRAP! I can fully believe we have ~2000 shoot-on-sight new page creations a day.
Looking at the log that is almost everything. It does make you wonder about these people.
Justinc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
David Gerard wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
A striking number, i.e. 2000 per day. More than the amount of honest page creation. AfD is only around 5% of that. Presumably there is something behind the four-figure numbers some admins clocked up. My 20 or so seems strangely inadequate if not.
Go do [[Special:Newpages]] patrol some time. (Sunday afternoon and evening US time are "good" for this.) MY GOD, THE AVALANCHES OF CRAP! I can fully believe we have ~2000 shoot-on-sight new page creations a day.
That rougly corresponds to the number of AOL users right? :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
"David Gerard"
Go do [[Special:Newpages]] patrol some time. (Sunday afternoon and
evening US time are "good" for this.)
I have done, in the past. That's why I thought the figure was large. Of course it could be stubborn repeat junk posters versus admins deleting within seconds. But the numbers appeared high even for that.
Charles
Go do [[Special:Newpages]] patrol some time. (Sunday afternoon and evening US time are "good" for this.) MY GOD, THE AVALANCHES OF CRAP! I can fully believe we have ~2000 shoot-on-sight new page creations a day.
I have been looking at this for a while now, something that is clear is that virtually all (as in ~95%) of the deleted articles (especially speedies) are from anonymous users, and a lot of which aren't tests, but plain old vandalism. I really think we need some kind of "votes for creation" or "approved creation" or something, maybe not soon as there are still vast quantities of topics we don't cover (see [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Missing encyclopedic articles]] for ~150,000 examples), but maybe a in year or so from now I dont think we will have much choice.
Martin
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More fodder for your editcountitis
Charles Matthews wrote:
A striking number, i.e. 2000 per day. More than the amount of honest page creation. AfD is only around 5% of that. Presumably there is something behind the four-figure numbers some admins clocked up. My 20 or so seems strangely inadequate if not.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Martin Richards wrote:
Go do [[Special:Newpages]] patrol some time. (Sunday afternoon and evening US time are "good" for this.) MY GOD, THE AVALANCHES OF CRAP! I can fully believe we have ~2000 shoot-on-sight new page creations a day.
I have been looking at this for a while now, something that is clear is that virtually all (as in ~95%) of the deleted articles (especially speedies) are from anonymous users, and a lot of which aren't tests, but plain old vandalism. I really think we need some kind of "votes for creation" or "approved creation" or something, maybe not soon as there are still vast quantities of topics we don't cover (see [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Missing encyclopedic articles]] for ~150,000 examples), but maybe a in year or so from now I dont think we will have much choice.
Martin
How about the much simpler approach of restricting page creation to logged-in users? This would act as a minimal speedbump which is probably just enough to discourage many (most?) drive-by junk page creators, whilst still allowing anons to edit any existing page as freely as before.
This could be applied only to the main article space, thus allowing anons to create talk pages as before.
This would be similar to the current restriction of image uploads to logged-in users.
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote
How about the much simpler approach of restricting page creation to logged-in users?
No, no and three times no!
Do we want people to try test edits of [[World War II]] rather than creating [[pancakesMMM!!!]] as a sandbox/test edit. No we don't.
I find that many anons are graduate students very much able to help with developing WP. We need these guys! We need them to understand that 'libre et gratuit', as the French helpfully put it, is exactly that. We ask no more than that you come and edit; we put no barriers in place; we are geniunely open to business to IP numbers. We want people's toes in the water and don't put up signs saying 'Private Beach'.
Charles
I kind of agree with Charles in the sense that some institution computers dont allow cookies to cache - meaning all edits must be IP edits (dont use term 'anon').
It would be interesting to hear from the regular IP community what their concerns are - anonymity, caching, too busy to log in, dont care to have a web ident, dont want to get personal, etc?
SV
--- charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Neil Harris wrote
How about the much simpler approach of restricting
page creation to
logged-in users?
No, no and three times no!
Do we want people to try test edits of [[World War II]] rather than creating [[pancakesMMM!!!]] as a sandbox/test edit. No we don't.
I find that many anons are graduate students very much able to help with developing WP. We need these guys! We need them to understand that 'libre et gratuit', as the French helpfully put it, is exactly that. We ask no more than that you come and edit; we put no barriers in place; we are geniunely open to business to IP numbers. We want people's toes in the water and don't put up signs saying 'Private Beach'.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
If, as appears here, at least half of our anonymously created articles are *not* speedied, then we'd lose articles by blocking article creation by anon IPs.
As someone else has remarked, most of the rest can be put down to sandboxing, which as a wiki we encourage.
The wiki isn't broken, so we don't need to fix it.
Pruning Newpages is fairly easy. I don't think anyone has demonstrated that keeping up with the flow of junk articles is yet a problem, and certainly not one big enough to take such a radical step.
And I regularly come across good articles created by anon users. Bear in mind that there are some long-term users who edit anonymously by choice and may leave if we require login.
-Matt (User:Morven)
On Nov 1, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
Pruning Newpages is fairly easy. I don't think anyone has demonstrated that keeping up with the flow of junk articles is yet a problem, and certainly not one big enough to take such a radical step.
And I regularly come across good articles created by anon users. Bear in mind that there are some long-term users who edit anonymously by choice and may leave if we require login.
Isn't it a Foundation issue that we don't do this, in fact?
-Phil
Matt Brown wrote:
Pruning Newpages is fairly easy. I don't think anyone has demonstrated that keeping up with the flow of junk articles is yet a problem, and certainly not one big enough to take such a radical step.
I agree with this. I actually kind of like doing Newpages patrol, and I don't think it's a huge burden on admins in general. There are actually probably more admins doing it now than strictly necessary---if you go past the newest 50 pages or so, most of the obvious junk pages have already been taken care of by another admin. It would have to be a much bigger problem than it is now to be worth changing something major like disallowing new page creation by anons.
-Mark
On 11/1/05, Martin Richards Martin@velocitymanager.com wrote:
I have been looking at this for a while now, something that is clear is that virtually all (as in ~95%) of the deleted articles (especially speedies) are from anonymous users, and a lot of which aren't tests, but plain old vandalism. I really think we need some kind of "votes for creation" or "approved creation" or something, maybe not soon as there are still vast quantities of topics we don't cover (see [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Missing encyclopedic articles]] for ~150,000 examples), but maybe a in year or so from now I dont think we will have much choice.
Martin
There is a proposal I made somewhere to limit the creation of orphan articles. From what I recall nocking out rubish on new pages was't a problem.
Incerdetnly do new pages turn up in Recent changes a fraction before they turn up on new pages?
-- geni
David Gerard wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
A striking number, i.e. 2000 per day. More than the amount of honest page creation. AfD is only around 5% of that. Presumably there is something behind the four-figure numbers some admins clocked up. My 20 or so seems strangely inadequate if not.
Go do [[Special:Newpages]] patrol some time. (Sunday afternoon and evening US time are "good" for this.) MY GOD, THE AVALANCHES OF CRAP! I can fully believe we have ~2000 shoot-on-sight new page creations a day.
Don't forget that this number varies widely depending on the ideology of the person doing the patrol. Indeed, my very first contribution ever -- which was creating a page titled [[Extrema]] containing the text "Plural of [[extremum]]." -- was deleted when it should have been turned into a redirect. Several further contributions of mine were deleted when another action would have been obviously more sensible. It feels to me more like an avalanche of rampant admins than an avalanche of crap.
That said, I have done Newpages patrol in the past and I too encounter a lot of "shoot-on-sight" pages (I particularly don't get why people create pages where the content is a copy of the title)...
"Timwi" wrote
(I particularly don't get why people create pages where the content is a copy of the title)...
More often a question of copy-and-paste the nearest thing than writer's block (I've got the title, now I just need the characters and plot), I imagine.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
"Timwi" wrote
(I particularly don't get why people create pages where the content is a copy of the title)...
More often a question of copy-and-paste the nearest thing
That doesn't explain it, because the "nearest thing" (assuming you mean the page heading in large letters) is "Editing [title]", not just the title...
Timwi