People still put stuff in WP:AFC, and useful things linger there for *months*. I discovered this when looking up the [[dekatron]] on Wikipedia. (Vintage electronics only remembered by long-since-retired techies? Just the thing for Wikipedia!) There was no article. I did a search and found an article had been lingering in AFC since last August. It wasn't a great article, but it was much more useful than nothing. I'm cleaning it up as we speak.
WP:AFC contains stupendous amounts of crap, of course. But then, so does Wikipedia. So if you're bored and want to extend the encyclopedia rather than just do administrative noodling, it might be a useful place to start.
By the way, will anon article creation *ever* be switched back on? What's the problem?
- d.
On 28/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
People still put stuff in WP:AFC, and useful things linger there for *months*. I discovered this when looking up the [[dekatron]] on Wikipedia. (Vintage electronics only remembered by long-since-retired techies? Just the thing for Wikipedia!) There was no article. I did a search and found an article had been lingering in AFC since last August. It wasn't a great article, but it was much more useful than nothing. I'm cleaning it up as we speak.
WP:AFC contains stupendous amounts of crap, of course. But then, so does Wikipedia. So if you're bored and want to extend the encyclopedia rather than just do administrative noodling, it might be a useful place to start.
By the way, will anon article creation *ever* be switched back on? What's the problem?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah, AFC, it's the archetype of Sturgeon's Law. I tend to deny, deny, deny, and clear out some backlog from time to time, but I do agree useful stuff is there. I created a Paul Simon album article that was on WP:AFC. Still, it's annoying after Colbert is on, talking about Wikipedia.
On 28/05/07, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
WP:AFC contains stupendous amounts of crap, of course. But then, so does Wikipedia. So if you're bored and want to extend the encyclopedia rather than just do administrative noodling, it might be a useful place to start.
Ah, AFC, it's the archetype of Sturgeon's Law. I tend to deny, deny, deny, and clear out some backlog from time to time, but I do agree useful stuff is there. I created a Paul Simon album article that was on WP:AFC. Still, it's annoying after Colbert is on, talking about Wikipedia.
Still better than [[Special:Newpages]]. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, will anon article creation *ever* be switched back on? What's the problem?
Well, the problem seems clear to me. If it was switched on the stupendous amounts of crap you admit are there would be in the article space and not everything would be caught. It would put a lot more strain on administrators and the deletion system to get rid of things that shouldn't be there in the first place.
Idea: There is a bot that evaluates articles in the newpages feed to see if any are DYK worthy. Perhaps we could apply a similar bot to find gems in AFC?
Mgm
David Gerard wrote:
By the way, will anon article creation *ever* be switched back on? What's the problem?
A few discussions ago IIRC Jimbo said it would be reenabled when version flagging was implemented. Considering how slowyly version tagging itself is coming, I wonder if it was meant as some variant on "next year in Jerusalem." :)
More seriously, though, this disabling of anon article creation has bugged me from the start and is now IMO a prime example of both how _not_ to implement a major policy change. It was a knee-jerk response to bad publicity that didn't even address the issue that caused the bad publicity in the first place, and there was no plan for how to evaluate its actual effects. I've been told at several points that analysis was being done but I've never seen any results and no longer believe it.
It's been something like a year and a half now, I hate sounding like a broken record for such a long period.
On 5/28/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
By the way, will anon article creation *ever* be switched back on? What's the problem?
A few discussions ago IIRC Jimbo said it would be reenabled when version flagging was implemented. Considering how slowyly version tagging itself is coming, I wonder if it was meant as some variant on "next year in Jerusalem." :)
More seriously, though, this disabling of anon article creation has bugged me from the start and is now IMO a prime example of both how _not_ to implement a major policy change. It was a knee-jerk response to bad publicity that didn't even address the issue that caused the bad publicity in the first place, and there was no plan for how to evaluate its actual effects. I've been told at several points that analysis was being done but I've never seen any results and no longer believe it.
It's been something like a year and a half now, I hate sounding like a broken record for such a long period.
I thought it addressed the fact that we can't keep up with our recent changes - a thing that stable versions would address.
Michael Snow is right though, we seriously need to give those devs some incentive to speed things up. On the other hand, do we really want them to do a rush job?
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 5/28/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
By the way, will anon article creation *ever* be switched back on? What's the problem?
A few discussions ago IIRC Jimbo said it would be reenabled when version flagging was implemented. Considering how slowyly version tagging itself is coming, I wonder if it was meant as some variant on "next year in Jerusalem." :)
More seriously, though, this disabling of anon article creation has bugged me from the start and is now IMO a prime example of both how _not_ to implement a major policy change. It was a knee-jerk response to bad publicity that didn't even address the issue that caused the bad publicity in the first place, and there was no plan for how to evaluate its actual effects. I've been told at several points that analysis was being done but I've never seen any results and no longer believe it.
It's been something like a year and a half now, I hate sounding like a broken record for such a long period.
I thought it addressed the fact that we can't keep up with our recent changes - a thing that stable versions would address.
Michael Snow is right though, we seriously need to give those devs some incentive to speed things up. On the other hand, do we really want them to do a rush job? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yeesh. Just what we need, -more- crap from the firehose. When to turn anon article creation back on? What's wrong with "never, and set creation to only autoconfirmed (users who can edit semiprotected articles) while you're at it"? Have a look at WP:AFC. -Even with very specific instructions-, the vast majority of it is garbage. Now have a look at Special:Newpages. Most of that is garbage. We need less of that, not more!
I was feeling encyclopaedic but uncreative. I looked at recent changes, and came across [[Penny Dreadful Players]], moments before it got {{db-spam}}'ed. I think I rescued it.
This was a sample of one articles, with one bad result detected. Is it always like this?
Steve