Neil Harris wrote:
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.
Sounds plausible. What are the numbers on the problem? What percentage of anon page creations are shoot-on-sight?
(Adding a new restriction is, of course, NOT something to be done lightly.)
- d.
Neil Harris wrote:
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.
David wrote:
Sounds plausible. What are the numbers on the problem? What percentage of anon page creations are shoot-on-sight?
I was only talking about the general principle, but yeah Neil's idea is probably better,
David, this is an extract from my user page (it isn't particularly interesting at the moment, I keep meaning to do more samples, but it's better than nothing); I selected 4 random pages of 50 newpages, then deleted what was obviously speedy deletable, here are the statistics;
a.. 200 new articles total. b.. 89 were from anonymous IP users. c.. 41 anonymous IP articles were deleted. d.. 0 registered articles were deleted. 21% of all new articles were easily deletable (all from anonymous users), 46% of all IP user articles were deleted.
Note 1: More of the anonymous IP user's articles could have been deleted, but not strictly under the speedy deletion criteria, and they will eventually be deleted through AFD or edited to remove all the original content anyway. Some registered users articles will probably suffer the same fate, although none met the speedy delete criteria.
Note 2: 200 articles isn't a very big sample, but it is probably enough to be representative.
Note 3: There could have also been other admins deleting articles, so it is possible that an even greater proportion of them were speedy deletable.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/11/05, Martin Richards Martin@velocitymanager.com wrote:
Note 2: 200 articles isn't a very big sample, but it is probably enough to be representative.
Note 3: There could have also been other admins deleting articles, so it is possible that an even greater proportion of them were speedy deletable.
From personal experience, by the time you've gone most of the way down
a single fifty-entry first page of [[Special:Newpages]], a good few of the speedy candidates have gone (at least, they have if you're awake at the right time). Might be worth checking only the first ten and doing it more times... I'll see if I can remember to try some later.
My gut feeling is that "auto-speediable" is closer to 40% than 20%.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
Sounds plausible. What are the numbers on the problem? What percentage of anon page creations are shoot-on-sight?
(Adding a new restriction is, of course, NOT something to be done lightly.)
I can't give you hard numbers, but speaking from personal experience: When RC patrolling, I never look at new articles created by registered users, but I always look at every new article created by an anon. Looking at registered user created articles is almost always a waste of time; they're almost 100% good. Anon-created articles could be as high as 30% speedies/copyvios, and another 30% get some form of {{cleanup}} tag from me.
Ryan