User:Nathan/BLPN
Questions about BLP/N
[edit]1) Does the current noticeboard work well for addressing problems brought to the board for attention?
2) If not, is this because of
- (a) Difficulty intrinsic to addressing often significant content problems
- (b) Problems related to the way reports are addressed at the board
- (b) Both
3) If the way reports to the board are responded to is a problem, independent of the difficulty of the underlying issues, why? Is the noticeboard in the ideal format, and issues of response are primarily a problem relating to community inattention?
4) Would the system of reporting problems to BLP/N, seeking greater attention and assistance resolving these problems via the board, and coordinating this effort work better if the board had a more efficient organization?
Organizational thoughts
[edit]The way the board functions right now isn't ideal. It runs the same way as incident reports do at AN/I, but with far less attention. Because AN/I has so many eyeballs, each reported problem with any merit has a good chance of getting attention from people watching the page. BLP/N doesn't have nearly as many editors patrolling it, and faces some challenges that separate it from AN/I.
Like most noticeboards, the sections are archived automatically by a bot. This gives each section a finite number of days (let's say 7) to get the attention requested by the poster. Since nearly all reports to the noticeboard concern a specific article, respondents may: comment on the noticeboard thread, edit the article, comment on the article talkpage, or all three. A report with no response on the noticeboard may be completely handled or not handled at all, and nothing identifies the difference. It happens, then, that reports of a problem article will appear on the noticeboard, scroll up to the top of the table of contents without any attention or action, and get archived off the page with no improvement.
I believe that the ideal method for reporting, discussing and resolving BLP problems to a noticeboard includes the following qualities:
- A respondent can quickly scan the page to see outstanding reports
- Reports are grouped by type and status (in progress, resolved, oustanding)
- New reports building on a history of prior reports automatically include reference to that history
- Activity towards resolving a problem can be noted automatically in the report
- Problems don't leave the page until they have been resolved or dismissed
This type of efficient board design is already implemented on Wikipedia, on bot-assisted noticeboards like WP:AN3, AIV and SPI. Below is an example of what this sort of thing might look like applied to BLP/N, and how it might function with bot reports and etc.
SPI and BLP/N both currently make use of a bot to track and manages changes and issue alerts to an IRC channel. The BLP/N bot is currently limited to reporting edits to the page, but conceivably could be adapted to manage the tasks suggested below and also alert editors in the IRC channel to new reports, relevant changes to articles currently reported to the board, archive and maintain resolved reports, etc.
Examples
[edit]Resolved
[edit]| John Doe |
|---|
| The following is a content that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
The subject of this article, a well known United States politician, was indicted by federal prosecutors for bribing Mongolian herders into delaying their seasonal migration by one week. The indictment has been reported in many major media outlets, and as a result many derogatory and derisive comments have been left on the article and its talkpage by new accounts and IP editors. Because this is an ongoing news event, protection of the article was declined at the RFPP board. Can we get some more experienced eyes on this article, to make sure it stays compliant with the BLP policy?
|
| The above is content that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
Open
[edit]| Jane Doe |
|---|
| The following is a content that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
|
This article says that Jane Doe, a famous movie actress, worked in Las Vegas as a prostitute and was addicted to crack cocaine before her big-screen debut in "My Little Dog Sally: An International Incident." Many other claims, negative and otherwise, are of dubious plausibility and remain in the article. I'm leaving for a weeklong junket in Phuket, I've just taken my lorazepam for the flight, and I don't have the time or the brainpower to fix this right now.
|
| The above is content that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
New
[edit]| Peter Doe |
|---|
| The following is a content that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
|
User:ExampleA keeps inserting the real name of Peter Doe into the article. Doe is a male porn star, and no reliable sources have reported his real name. Nevertheless, ExampleA is edit-warring against consensus to put the real name on the talkpage and in the article, and even moved the article last week (which an admin reverted and move-protected against happening again). He's using an industry blog as his source. Shouldn't he be blocked for this transgression? -User:ExampleB
No information should be included in a BLP without referencing it to a reliable source. -User:ExampleC
|
| The above is content that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
Eyeballs only
[edit]- Bubba Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added by Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Doris Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added by Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Eugene Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added by Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)