I don't know that there is a next step. The WMF has clearly indicated they will not budge on the solution that the high-level Wikipedia community says is needed. I have qualms myself about the way the community operates at times but covering ACTRAIL and New Page Patrol at the Signpost felt like an enormous and egregious slap across the face. I still see and feel the repercussions of these breaches of trust today.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pete,
Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
Pine On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall --
was
the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in response to ACTRIAL?
If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes panned out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed and built a set of tools to directly address that problem without
compromising
the core value of openness"?
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients and students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's
solved,
since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate
(AFC).
Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new
users?
Pete On Sep 1, 2014 4:38 PM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response
to
concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed
articles
showing up in mainspace?
Risker/Anne
On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker joedecker@gmail.com wrote:
This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of the
WMF's
response to ACTRIAL. To the extent that there was additional
feedback
given, it was not given at WP:ACTRIAL, nor any other venue I am
aware
of.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
--Joe
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints,
because
the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive
effort
to
produce.
The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and
spam
from people who never have the slightest intent of editing
helpfully,
and
those who are newbies who genuinely want to help but need guidance
get
caught in the crossfire aimed at the vandals and spammers. It is
relatively
rare that when a genuinely new editor's first edit is a creation,
it
is
the
creation of an appropriate article on a workable subject, and
that's
normally more by dumb luck than them having actual knowledge that
they
should do it.
So, consider that a complaint. The proposed fix didn't work, and
most
people at the time didn't figure it would work, but it was clearly
the
best
we were going to get.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette < pbeaudette@wikimedia.org > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as
mentioned
above.
> The > > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change,
and
the
WMF > > shrugged and said "Nah, rather not." > > That's... Not exactly what I remember happening there. What I
remember
was > that a pretty good number (~500) of enwiki community members
came
together > and agreed on a problem, and one plan for how to fix it and
asked
the
WMF > to implement it. The WMF evaluated it, and saw a threat to a
basic
project > value. WMF then asked "what's the problem you're actually trying
to
> solve?", and proposed and built a set of tools to directly
address
that
> problem without compromising the core value of openness. And it
seems
to
> have worked out pretty well because I haven't heard a ton of
complaints
> about that problem since. > > ______________________ > Philippe Beaudette > Director, Community Advocacy > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Joe Decker www.joedecker.net _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe