Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Special report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Special report

The plight of the new page patrollers

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Resident Mario

This week the Wikimedia Foundation reported the results of its New Page Patrol Survey, part of a project to increase understanding of editors who work on new page patrol (NPP). NPP is the first line of defense against articles that do not belong on Wikipedia, be they unsuitable pages, copyright violations, or attack pages.

New page patrolling has long been a prominent problem area for the Wikipedian community. While patrollers complain of being overworked, other editors have raised issues with the patrollers themselves, characterizing them as mostly young and inexperienced volunteers who lack clue, are ignorant of deletion rules, and often mis-tag new articles. The NPP Survey, first suggested by Kudpung, aimed to collect information on current patrollers to base improvements to the NPP process. The results: Most new page patrollers are over 18 years of age, most have at least an undergraduate degree, and most are very much clued into what they are doing. The report – while providing a better view of who the average page patroller is and what the average page patroller does – substantially refutes some stereotypes.

History of the process

Patrolled edits is a software feature that went live on Wikipedia in November 2007, after a proposal to re-enable anonymous page creation (see previous Signpost story). The feature draws on Special:NewPages, which lists newly created articles on Wikipedia, although it can be extended to any other page category by using a drop-down option. The interface lists recently created pages in descending order (the most recent first), allowing users to easily browse recently created pages. New pages are kept on the list for 30 days, after which they disappear from view.

A de facto new pages patrol group has existed since at least March 2004. Its members used the Special:NewPages page directly, a page that has been part of Wikipedia's infrastructure since the introduction of the Phase II software in January 2002; before then, the New topics page was used for this purpose. Problematic new articles were a large part of the votes for deletion process, the unified deletion process that covered all namespaces in earlier days of Wikipedia. (Today, there are separate discussions depending on the type of page to be deleted.)

The introduction of patrolled edits provided a better process for patrolling new pages. Unpatrolled new pages are highlighted in yellow, and patrollers can choose to browse just those unpatrolled new articles. Once viewed, any autoconfirmed editor can mark an article as patrolled by clicking the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link at the bottom right corner of the page. If the patroller thinks the article is ready for mainspace, or they have added multiple maintenance tags or nominated it for deletion, the article can be marked as patrolled. Articles created by administrators were automatically marked as patrolled by the system; this was unbundled in June 2009 (or, rather, a system of whitelisting was formalised with the creation of the autopatrolled user right), so that now any prolific creator of valid articles can have this privilege. This keeps most of the articles created by established editors (familiar with inclusion criteria) out of the pool of those needing to be patrolled.

Because Special:NewPages only holds onto articles for 30 days, unpatrolled articles that survive that long drop off the list, making them exceedingly difficult to find later. The length of the queue of unpatrolled articles has oscillated for years, but there have been occasions at least as far back as 2009 when there were insufficient numbers to patrol all new articles. Due to the 30-day cutoff there is a constant pressure to keep up with the list, in the face of what many patrollers see as a shortage of reviewers. Coupled with the pressure to "get it right the first time" (because once an article is marked as reviewed, other patrollers no longer see it), the process has been characterized as stressful by some patrollers. The front of the queue can also be stressful if an individual patroller tries to keep pace with the flow of new articles.

The patrollers themselves have come under fire; critics contend that they "deal with new users inappropriately, scaring them off, that they have an unacceptably high error rate when tagging pages for deletion, and that they are more interested in using New Page Patrol as a route to gaining higher userrights [like adminship] than in actually patrolling productively and helping improve new articles" (NPP survey). Many critics consider the underlying issue to be that patrollers were overwhelmingly young and inexperienced editors, much more likely to act immaturely or without regard for new editors or new articles. Others believe that it is the stress of the process that drives the perceived errors among its users.

In response to perceived problems with new page patrolling, on April 3, 2011, a proposal was put forward to reduce the stress in the system by limiting article creation to autoconfirmed users. Snottywong summarized the reasons for this with an analysis that showed that only 17.5% of autoconfirmed users' articles were deleted, compared with 72.5% of new editors' contributions. A second proposal soon after established a "clear consensus for a six-month trial, followed by a one-month period of discussion to determine the trial's effects"; the specifics were finalized at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial.



Articles created by autoconfirmed users: deleted versus kept.
Articles created by non-autoconfirmed users: deleted versus kept.
Note: The large jump in April was caused by bot activity.


The Zoom interface.

Yet when the technical solution was submitted for implementation on Bugzilla, it was shot down by the Wikimedia Foundation, being marked as a "RESOLVED WONTFIX". WMF deputy director Erik Möller said that "creating a restriction of this type is a strong a [sic] statement of exclusion, not inclusion, and that it will confuse and deter good faith editors."

Instead, the WMF proposed that there be improvements for the interface that managed the new page backlog, with one goal being to better welcome constructive editors into the community. The refusal to accept community consensus was extremely controversial; many editors considered it damaging to the relationship between the Foundation and Wikipedia's editors. The Foundation focused on a "New Page Triage", an initiative that Möller hoped would "reduce the work involved in patrolling new pages by simplifying and smoothing out the process ... a system that is self-explanatory for newer editors; someone who hasn't done New Page Patrol before can look at it and gain an instinctive understanding of what they're expected to do and how they should work."

The upshot of these developments was the new Zoom interface, a redesign of Special:NewPages. It has a dynamic construction that allows users to mark a page with any of several specific templates, both for maintenance and deletion, before saving their changes and continuing on to the next article. One other change that is currently under consideration by developers is the addition of a patroller user-right to control who can access the interface.

It was quickly found that there was no single way that patrollers did their work, and that they were using a variety of third-party software for their work. The lack of understanding page patrollers led to Kudpung creating a survey to find out more about what an average page patroller did, and who they were.

Survey results

[W]e can confirm that the common stereotype of patrollers as young, poorly educated and ignorant is almost entirely without basis. The vast majority of patrollers are over 18 and have undergraduate degrees or above – in some cases, actually exceeding the average for editors overall ... They are largely familiar with relevant policies, and greatly exceed the expectations set by the stereotype. Indeed, the only major difference between patrollers and any other editor is that patrollers choose to patrol.

Editors were identified as patrollers and surveyed based on three separate sources: 2,504 from a script by Snottywong, the 1,300 editors with a {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} template on their userpage, and those 133 with a {{User Newpages with Twinkle}} template. Of the editors asked to fill in the survey, 1,255 did so, but after removing surveys with incomplete answers, errors, and obviously fallacious data (e.g. 10-year-olds from Africa with doctorates), and making adjustments because a number of editors had been mistakenly asked to participate, the total included in the survey was reduced to 309 participants. To supplement the survey, an analysis was done on the top quartile of editors by number of patrol actions. A summary of the results follows.

Demographics


Demographically, New Page Patrollers were found to indeed be overwhelmingly North American and European, with these regions accounting for 85 percent of those surveyed. Only 8% identify as females, consistent with cross-wiki average found during the April 2011 Editor Survey.

More than 60 percent of patrollers have been editing since 2006 or earlier, the antithesis of the stereotype of inexperienced editors. But this creates a new concern: the absence of new editors, accentuating an emerging wikigeneration gulf and the recently highlighted new editor retention collapse, and strongly supporting the need for a more usable, intuitive interface.

Between 79 and 82 percent of responders were over the age of 18; more than 90 percent had completed secondary schooling, and 63 percent had an undergraduate degree or postgraduate qualifications. In short, new page patrollers are not much different from the rest of those who edit Wikipedia.

Demographics: new page patrollers by...
Gender: 89% male.
WikiAge: 60 percent editing since 2006
Decade of birth: 79 to 82 percent are over 18


Editing activity

Patrolling distribution was found to have a prominent Long Tail-distribution, with 89% of the work done by 25 percent of the patrollers. The report states that "we clearly need to make involving more users, and involving patrollers to a greater degree, a priority". 64 percent of new page patrollers spend between 1 and 3 hours a day reading and editing Wikipedia. 46 percent of patrollers have made 10,000 edits or more; this is a marked difference from the Editor Survey 2011, in which only 20 percent of editors had reached this count, more evidence against the belief that many patroller problems come from inexperience. In terms of user rights, more than half of patrollers were rollbackers and reviewers, and more than 40 percent had autopatrol rights.

A question on non-patrolling activities found that patrollers did other things: 97 percent were active in anti-vandalism efforts in some form, and 95 percent were adding content to Wikipedia, by creating and editing new articles. As expected, Articles for Deletion, speedy deletion, and similar venues were tied in with the process, and many editors who patrolled new pages also participated in discussions there.

An analysis of tool usage found that a large percentage of page patrollers were aware of and use semi-automated tools like AutoWikiBrowser and especially Twinkle in their work.

Editing activity: new page patrollers...
Editors who are most active at Special:NewPages, showing a long tail type distribution
Editors by edit count, showing double the usual rate for users over 10,000 edits
Editors by user-right, with high numbers who are rollbackers, autopatrolled, and reviewers.


Patrolling

The vast majority of patrollers originally learned about New Page Patrol passively, for instance from a userbox on somebody's userpage that advertised New Page Patrol, or through seeing a new page at Special:RecentChanges and navigating to Special:NewPages from there. Most patrollers also give positive reasons for their motivation: they want to "keep vandalism and bad-faith pages out of Wikipedia" (83 percent) and "watch over the quality of new articles" (80 percent). 35 percent of patrollers were motivated because it "provides experience that may be valuable further down the road".

Activity is unevenly distributed, with almost 40% of patrollers spending 1 hour or less on New Page Patrol per week. How long it took to patrol an article was more evenly distributed, splitting half-and-half at the one-minute line. 28 percent of patrollers found that "trying to decide what should be deleted/if something should be deleted" was the most stressful part of the job, with the rest listing a slew of other reasons. An overwhelming majority have read the various relevant deletion guidelines, and very nearly 100 percent have read the speedy deletion guidelines. About 45 percent of editors reviewed from the front of the Special:NewPages buffer (the newest articles), just under 30% from the back, and 15% chose "Other."

New page patrolling habits
Hours per week spent patrolling.
Policy awareness—an overwhelming "yes."
Where new page patrollers patrol from


Improvements

By 53 percent to 45 percent, a majority of patrollers disagreed with the implementation of a patroller user-right. If the right were to be instituted, the largest group of respondents felt that it should be granted automatically at some point, with slightly less support for distribution through Requests for permission. Based on the results, the survey concludes that "it seems clear that some variation on 'X edits and Y months as an editor' is likely to be the most acceptable criteria, but ... any attempt to get firm consensus on this point, whether made by the community or by the Foundation, is likely to be drawn-out and gruelling." Finally, 60 percent of new page patrollers wanted to see technical changes implemented, while 20 percent wanted to see cultural and policy-based decisions. The remaining 20 percent did not comment, or felt that the current system basically works.

The future

What now? The results of the NPP Survey clearly refute many of the views held of patrollers by their critics; nonetheless, it is often the patrollers themselves that are clamoring most loudly for changes.

According to the survey's conclusion, "the next step for the Foundation is to use this data to continue developing the Zoom interface. We have already identified a representative sample of patrollers, and contacted them for detailed interviews and to provide "screencasts" of their patrolling work. With these, developers can examine the process of patrolling, get more details on precisely how patrollers do their work, and try to identify unnecessarily difficult areas that can be simplified to make patrolling easier."

The survey broke new ground by giving everyone a clearer view of a subset of Wikipedian editors; perhaps, in the future, similar surveys will provide detailed information about other specialized groups of editors.

The New Page Patrol survey was conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation's Oliver Keyes, with contributions from staffers Howie Fung and Dario Tarborelli and from Wikipedians Kudpung and Tom Morris. The raw data, sans gender and contact information (per policy), will be made available to anyone willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement (requests can be sent to okeyes@wikimedia.org).

Have a keen interest in or strong feelings on new page patrolling or another issue of relevance to the English Wikipedia community? The Signpost is recruiting reporters and soliciting opinion essay submissions; those interested should apply to wikipediasignpost@gmail.com, leave a note in the newsroom, or contact an editor directly.

← Previous "Special report"
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Random Section Break 000

FYI. ResMar 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Resident Mario: can you either back up the assertions there or apologise for them? I note you're linking to complaints, without taking into account the responses to those complaints. And if you could please point out where "cherry picked" is used in those complaints? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, as well, would ask that Resident Mario either demonstrate a factual basis for those claims, or cease to continue to broadcast them. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I value the thoughts of my fellow editors over those of WMF employees. They registered doubts, I found that these are legitimate and put up a disclaimer. All the "evidence" is here, and it worries me that the people who had originally suggested this survey are the ones most concerned with the results. ResMar 15:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you have to believe what I'm saying (although it would be nice, because I am one of the aforementioned editors); I'm just asking where you're quoting from with "cherry picked". The link you have just provided does not include that phrase. Quoting talkpage discussions is all well and good, but rather unfair if you don't consider the rebuttals. Kudpung's concerns are entirely without merit; I have told him six or seven times now that if he wants me to provide any additional analysis, he should simply contact me with details. He has repeatedly failed to do so, all the while insisting we're out to screw him over. Quite frankly, while you may feel editors > staffers, I think staffers should be treated relatively decently - which is why I've stopped engaging with him. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for cherry-picking, I'll pose you one question. Having run a comparative analysis on both the full (unreliable) dataset and the smaller (reliable) dataset, I found that the results were incredibly similar - to within 2 or 3 percentage points. If I was cherry-picking data to come up with a result I wanted, why would I pick data that produced the same result as if I'd left it alone? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point of view: I saw the reversal of community consensus happen, and rose an eyebrow. When this showed up, I saw the shrinking data pool and raised another eyebrow. On querying the users—volunteers, mind you, who don't get paychecks from the Foundation—on asking those users that had suggested and partaken in the survey I found that they were all negatively aligned to it. How can it be that the volunteers who had been most involved in the process find the most fault in it? Their issues warrant concern. I voice their concern. You can stop fidgeting now. ResMar 18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I'm fine with people voicing their concerns; I'd just rather they did so in a way that allows us to move forward and correct any mistakes. Ask me a direct question, I'll answer it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculously short-sighted that WMF dismissed the idea of only allowing autoconfirmed users to create articles. This is one of the reasons established editors choose to leave WP. 76.185.111.45 (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I'd consider it more short-sighted if they'd permitted it. It'd be another reason for new editors to choose not to join. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's another symptom of the lack of leadership from the WMF. They don't give the new page patrol (NPP) volunteers any support. So, to lessen their workload and stress the NPP regulars come up with the auto-confirmed user criteria. Then, the WMF reflexively denies it and tries to come up with a rushed, half-measure to mitigate the problem. I will say it again, I encourage NPP volunteers to simply refuse to patrol new pages. Go ahead and let the English Wikipedia start filling up with garbage. Put the entire problem in the WMF's lap if they're going to act like this. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cla68, we're designing an entirely new Special:NewPages interface. Can you explain how this is a half-measure? I work for the WMF specifically *on* this project, and I've patrolled more new pages than most people; if these weren't projects I believed in I wouldn't be here. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for Cla68, but for myself, the problem with what happened is twofold, and a new UI can't solve it. As far as established editors go, the WMF gives lip service to retaining them. So the English Wikipedia does a rare thing—it comes to consensus for a trial on a major structural change. Not something permanent and irreversible, just a six-month trial to see how it works. If it ends in massively lower new editor counts, then we say "Oops, we screwed up!", and do not continue once the trial expires. If it works as proponents expected, we'd get consensus to re-establish it permanently. But you're worried about new editors? Me too! And one of the nastiest tricks we play on new editors is to say "You can create this article!", followed a couple minutes later by "...and now we're going to nuke it from orbit!". THAT'S a reason for a new editor not to stick around—and the vast majority don't. It would be much gentler to say "Our article creation rules can be complex, and we don't accept articles about everything. Before you can create an article, we ask that you spend a little time editing existing articles, to get a feel for our community and our expectations. If you're certain you know the rules well enough to create an appropriate article and don't want to wait, you can submit it to articles for creation for immediate consideration." That would also reduce the workload on NPP in two ways-vandals and spammers would often be stopped by that bar, while good-faith contributors might, after spending some time editing and getting a feel for what we want, submit a decent or at least salvageable article instead of speedy bait. An improved UI, while welcome and appreciated, will solve exactly zero of those issues. Not to mention, it seemed after having a reasonable discussion and coming to a genuine consensus, the community got a handwave (or really, another type of gesture) from WMF. No engagement with the community, no "We have concerns, you sure you want to do this?", certainly no understanding of the concerns that led to the consensus (since the proposed solution doesn't address any of them), just a "Nah, you got no idea what you're doing here. Now run along and speedy some more articles." Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree on most of these points. What I'd disagree with is the idea that once you just turn off a six month trial, things can go back to normal. If you turn off easy page creation for six months, the gestalt mind that is the internet is not likely to notice when you turn it back on; it has the potential to do a lot of harm after the trial period. I agree completely that we need to make things clear to new editors; that's why we're developing a new landing page for newbies, which should be deployed in a trial format (we don't want to overwork people if it actually works) in a couple of months. The announcement is about to come out - hopefully I won't get shouted at for spoiling the surprise factor ;p.
    I'd take a look at the Zoom page - it's far more than just a new UI, although what precisely we do with it is yet to be seen. I agree that a lot of devs don't quite get the situation within the community and, to be entirely honest, I'm pissed off at ACTRIAL too. Not the result - I agree with the decision not to turn it on - but the way the community was dicked around. The WMF had ample time to step in and say "this isn't happening" before editors wasted months of their time trying to agree on it. That's partly why I was hired; to act as a go-between on tech issues, and to tell Engineering when they're doing something godawfully stupid. If I'm doing my job right, that means the engagement situation is going to change. I can't reveal too many details of the engagement plan for Zoom and associated things, but trust me, it's going to be a lot more cohesive than the standard routine of "dropping tiny notices at the bottom of noticeboards and telling editors that if they want to comment on the designs they should go over to mediawiki.org, where their messages and ideas may or may not be addressed".
    The Foundation has not always done things right. A lot of the time, they've done things wrong. But hopefully that should change. I'm staking my reputation as a contractor and as an editor on the idea that how we approach new page patrol over the coming months will mark a paradigm shift in community engagement. I wouldn't be doing that if I wasn't sure that it would be. In the meantime, I'd just ask for some trust :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The potential harm that trial would have done is miniscule to the harm that WP has already done for years (and is continuing to do) to people's perception on the openness and user-friendliness of editing (overly complicated wikisyntax, poorly structured guidelines and policies, quick reverts/deletions and process flow - hint:ask any new user to upload a picture).
    I went to the Wikipedia:New pages patrol page and found no reference to the Zoom tool in the main page or the talk page (only in the talk page archive which no one looks at). There is only an outdated link at the top of the talk page to an inactive 2010 development discussion. How do you expect to gather as much useful feedback as possible if it's not on those pages?76.185.111.45 (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As said at the top of this page - we don't have anything useful enough for public consumption yet. Once we do, we're pulling out all the stops to make sure people can give feedback on the designs and participate in the deployment process. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there is a gestalt mind in the internet. What % still don't know that they can edit articles? And I think the WMF has learned from 2011, but there is a definite trap for the unwary there, especially those who were active in the community in the past, and assume that things are still as they were - that is that while the community is not always right, when it speaks with wide consensus, it is rarely wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 13:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    I'll hunt around for whatever data we have on that :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like nineteen percent are unaware. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but I have the feeling that those readers who still haven't managed to find out that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that everyone can edit, or how to edit (the Edit tab screams!), are not the ones we would like to actually edit our articles, or – mind you – expect them to understand our editing policies and guidelines. Nageh (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Something I have wondered about for years on the issue of "user friendliness" is just how many people who complain Wikipedia is too hard to edit are actually saying "I don't want to contribute, & I say it is too hard to edit because that excuses me from feeling obligated"? I know I've used that excuse to get out doing things off-Wiki; modern life is complicated, with lots of things competing for our attention. -- llywrch (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting question. I know the user testing the usability initiative did found a lot of people have trouble with the barrier to contributing - I'm not sure if they were subject to the same phenomenon or not (I assume user testers are experienced at noting when people are telling porkies). I do wish the reader survey hadn't had this question as a mutually exclusive one; I'm sure there are some people whose reasons as "I find it too hard, and, as a smaller issue, I'm not too fussed" or conversely "well I don't care that much, but even when I did I found it too hard to participate". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The reader survey was flawed in many ways, IMHO. The PTB have a preconception that all problems with the Wiki markup system can be fixed with a "user-friendly" interface that even the mythical Aunt Sally can use; however, from what I've seen no research has gone into determining exactly what parts of the Wiki markup is difficult. No one asks the people who actually edit articles which parts are worse than others. The basic pieces of Wikimarkup are quite simple -- far, far simpler than HTML, for Chrissake -- & anyone with reasonable motiviation & intellect can learn it in 15 minutes. (Which is why I suspect anyone who complains that Wiki markup is "too difficult" is making a disingenuous excuse for not contributing.) Adding links, both internal & external, is trivial to learn. However, the more advanced pieces -- viz. tables, images, using templates -- is daunting, & sometimes a nightmare. I've been editting articles longer than 99.999% of all of the editors, & the way I go about using any template I'm not intimately familiar with is to find another article which uses that template (or the effect it creates), open that section of the page in edit mode, copy what was done & fiddle with it until I get it to work. But instead of tackling the tangled mess of templates -- say, create a dictionary or thesaurus for users to find the template she or he wants -- resources are wasted in creating unneeded things.

    And my rant above assumes that the problem is simply in Wiki markup. Maybe when a given user says editting is "too hard", the user may refer to another part of the experience, such as how to add content so it improves the article, how to best organize an article -- or maybe the problem is (my pet peeve) that they honestly don't know how to research a given topic so they can provide information matched to a reliable source? All I know is that public schools didn't do a good job of teaching kids how to do research, & after reading many articles on Wikipedia I see they still don't do a good job of it more than four decades later. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the usability initiative did look at what bits were most difficult; it is, as you say, things like templates or tables. I think we may be getting away from the point here, though; I'm happy to discuss this on my talkpage or via email or in (insert appropriate venue here), but I want to avoid distracting from the actual subject of the special report. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that a more accessible user interface is a worthwhile goal. It may not be the most important step to take (and in fact, it most definitely is not), and while anyone with a bit of intellect can certainly learn the Wiki syntax in short time it is just another small barrier that all stack up. I also agree that one of the most annoying things even for experienced editors is editing tables and templates. Simplifying their use should be on a priority list for the new user interface design. Nageh (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, this is a priority :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Those who complain most vociferously about NPPers and perpetuate this claim that they're mostly young, uneducated, dumb males tend to be extreme inclusionists and people who are mad because their article was deleted. This is how we end up with disruptive breaching experiments like WP:NEWT that end up driving off the most experienced and productive NPPers and result in . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully Zoom will address concerns on all sides by providing an easy opportunity to see what other patrollers are doing and help each other out. Patrollers win - people can be corrected easily, by people who understand their POV - and people worried about the nature of patrolling get to see quality increase. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who responded to the survey? Those editors who have been around awhile. Survey didn't pick up all the new editors who tried doing NPP, made a mess of adding Speedy Deletions to legitimate articles, and then left. I know of five new editors that have created problems over the past three days. They will continue to make a mess. Editors will plead, beg, reprimand them and then they will leave. It is amazing how many new editors have their article speedy deleted only to turn around and start speedy deleting articles at NPP. There has to be some minimum requirements to do NPP. Bgwhite (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, obviously we didn't pick up people who left; the same is true of any survey. However, we did get a very large number of people who have done small amounts of speedy deletion, and then stopped, or small amounts, spread out over a long period of time. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how many of those who make mistakes leave and how many learn to patrol more accurately, but my experience of declining incorrect speedy deletions is that I'm definitely not dealing with a bunch of experienced editors who've been around since 2006. This survey has ruled out the theory that patrollers are generally young and inexperienced, but that leaves two theories in play - one that the patrollers are fine and all the problems are with the article creators, and the other that it is mixed, many, perhaps most new article creators need more help than they currently get to understand our processes; whilst many of our new patrollers go through a heavy handed phase. What I'm not sure about is the proportion of patrollers whose tagging quality improves, and the best ways to guide them. One thing I've tried is encouraging patrollers to install Hotcat and adopt a policy of if in doubt - categorise. ϢereSpielChequers 09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody who's actually waded through the waves of useless slop coming through the front gate knows that there NEEDS to be limits placed upon article creation. English Wikipedia decided to do something about the problem — and the Foundation vetoed en:WP's very reasonable proposal to make a change. But studying the "problem" of overworked NPP volunteers and wringing their hands about that problem — that they're good at. NEW VISITORS TO WP SHOULD NOT BE CREATING PAGES. Page creation should be an earned user right. Anybody can edit Wikipedia — not anybody can delete pages. Neither should anybody be allowed to create pages. But that interferes with somebody's pie-in-the-sky vision in San Francisco... So we have a study and hand-wringing. Whooopie!!! Carrite (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As said above, we're creating an entirely new Special:NewPages interface, and also a new menu given to newbies when they go to a redlink which tells them what we require of new articles, and advises them to go to "requested pages" or whatnot if they don't meet the requirements. I wouldn't describe this as hand-wringing. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another unread page on the already-too-long reading list isn't going to do what needs to be done, which is shutting down the spigot of bad articles about non-notable topics produced by neophytes. It is not unreasonable making people stick around for three days and a dozen edits before EARNING a page creation right and specious to argue that making them get up to speed just a little in that way deters the future participation of new editors more than having them blindly launch a bad page and see it speedily deleted through cold, semi-automated tools. Quite the contrary. In fact, if anything, the page creation right should be more like 3 months and 300 edits, truth be told. WMF is out of touch on this matter, protestations that "we have a plan" notwithstanding. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it strange you should reference San Francisco utopianism when A) the staffer ultimately responsible for the call to say no to the trial is German and B) the person responsible for this study is British and works remotely. Please do not stereotype or assume everyone who works at the Foundation is the same. We're actually quite diverse in our backgrounds and perspectives. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrite; you might find mw:Article Creation Workflow/Landing System useful; it's a bit more than "another unread page on the already-too-long reading list". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see the Foundation promise that they will NEVER circumvent community consensus again. ResMar 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't promise that. Erik said it pretty well, although about a different tool; the WMF is responsive to editors, and has to take us into account, but they have a wider remit and role than exclusively supporting editors. Sometimes there will be situations where what is best for editors is worst for the movement as a whole, and in those situations the Foundation has to balance the various groups and entities that make up this set of projects. There are, by definition, going to be situations where one group or another doesn't get precisely what they want. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of what's "best for editors", it's a difference of opinion about how best to build an encyclopedia, where those actually doing it feel they have been over-ruled by people who do not understand and do not listen. I'm sure you're tired of us flogging the dead ACTRIAL horse, but I have two reasons for banging on a little more.

First, I do think it's important that the WMF understand the depth of feeling, the lack of confidence and trust, that the ACTRIAL refusal aroused. When I read in the discussion one of the Foundation representatives saying that the sort of crap articles that ACTRIAL would have helped reduce were not a problem because we could "make a policy that marks "crap" articles as being poor quality, then funnel our efforts into make them good", the idea that people so out of touch with the reality of the New Page list could refuse, for what appeared to be ideological reasons, the considered request of en:wp for a change in its internal procedures made me stop reading and bang my head against the desk. When that was followed by the Indian train-wreck, many of us thought that, if the WMF was indeed on the same planet, it was certainly not pulling in the same direction as those who were trying to build an encyclopedia. It is regrettable that the volunteers should see the WMF as the enemy, but it will take a long time to rebuild trust: next time a similar situation arises, think very hard before using your ownership of the servers to over-rule a project's decision about how to run its affairs.

I see that Erik's message you linked above ends "If you don't trust WMF, you can - and probably should - contribute your effort elsewhere, because WMF may - and probably will - do things you won't like." In view of concerns about loss of established editors, that is an unfortunate attitude; it certainly means that WMF should be concerned about losing the trust of the volunteers.

The second reason is that, if I understand the reason for the ACTRIAL refusal, it was a belief, a WMF axiom, that no kind of obstacle must ever for any reason be placed in the way of anyone wishing to write an article.

Now, if you are concerned about editor retention and about newbies finding Wikipedia unfriendly, consider this: many of the new pages that get deleted are not the work of vandals or incompetents, but of good-faith new editors who have not understood what Wikipedia is and what it is not. A policy of "Welcome everyone in, no barriers" means that people sign on who think it is another Myspace or LinkedIn or a free advertising noticeboard, and are here only to post their CV or write about themselves, their garage bands, their self-published books, their companies or their school netball teams. We let them go all the way to writing an article, sometimes putting a great deal of effort into making it look good, before flagging it for deletion and telling them: "Sorry, this is not an encyclopedic subject, no amount of editing will make it acceptable."

Many of the people who complain that Wikipedia is unfriendly, and the "unretained" editors, are of this type. Painting the site pink and decorating it with fluffy kittens will not make these people happy. If you really want to increase percentage editor retention, you should discourage those who are not here to build an encyclopedia from becoming editors at all: replace the "Everyone welcome, come on in and edit!" sign with one that says "This is a project to build an encyclopedia. If you would like to help with that, you are very welcome; but if you looking for somewhere to write about yourself, your friends, your company, your band, or anything you are closely associated with, this is probably not the site for you: Myspace is that way". Stop trying to lure in the maximum number of new editors, and focus on recruiting ones who are able and willing to help build an encyclopedia.

JohnCD (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're actually largely in agreement. I too think that the WMF's actions late last year - the Indian issue, for example, or the way ACTRIAL was handled - were, to put it bluntly, screwups. What the Foundation is saying, though, is not that "no kind of obstacle must ever for any reason be placed in the way of anyone wishing to write an article"; it's that Wikipedia (as the motto goes) is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is comprised of three pillars; that we be free, that we be encyclopedic, and that anyone can contribute. Any change that impacts on one of those principles has to be (1) justified as promoting one of the other pillars and (2) the smallest possible restriction necessary to promote that pillar. So, in the case of ACTRIAL, proponents would argue that this is balancing "encyclopedia" against "anyone can edit"; I think the WMF agrees that this is what editors were looking to do: restrict the ability of people to contribute in order to cut down on the amount of junk contributors are forced to deal with, and improve both the quality of the project and the quality of the editing experience. Where the WMF and those community members who supported ACTRIAL differ is on the second point - the Foundation loves, in principle, the idea of promoting quality and making this a better place to be. But the restrictions suggested in ACTRIAL were thought to be too wide, and most definitely not the "smallest possible restriction necessary".
New Page Triage and the new landing pages are evidence that the WMF and ACTRIAL proponents have the same principles; you bring up, above, 'If you really want to increase percentage editor retention, you should discourage those who are not here to build an encyclopedia from becoming editors at all: replace the "Everyone welcome, come on in and edit!" sign with one that says "This is a project to build an encyclopedia. If you would like to help with that, you are very welcome; but if you looking for somewhere to write about yourself, your friends, your company, your band, or anything you are closely associated with, this is probably not the site for you: Myspace is that way".' The new landing pages seek to do precisely that: warn new editors trying to create pages that if they want to write an article on the band that performs out of their garage, or their company, or some new meme they've heard of that's been around for ~30 seconds, they're better off trying to do other stuff. In turn, New Page Triage is an attempt to improve the quality of the editing experience, by making sure that patrollers have to deal with less junk, and can more easily boot out the junk they do have to deal with (plus a lot of other neat things, like providing guidance to patrollers and allowing for some degree of review and oversight).
It's also important to note - you mention the axiom/belief idea above, right? Well, these things are formalised: the board passed a very clear resolution that says "we shouldn't be restricting the ability of new people to contribute" (paraphrasing to the max). WMF employees, at the end of the day, answer to the board, not to the community - although the community (in various ways) elects members of the board. A WMF employee, regardless of the strength of consensus, cannot just say "I know the board resolution says X but we're going to say X isn't an important principle" - it's asking to get fired. I'm not a Foundation employee, and I wasn't really associated with the WMF at the time when the ACTRIAL decision came down, but I genuinely feel for the staffers who are having poop flung at them for, well, not getting fired. I appreciate we can debate how the proposal was treated (as said above, I think the WMF seriously screwed up on this issue) but staffers cannot just ignore resolutions by the board of trustees, and it's unfair to expect them to do so.
I've tried to make clear to Howie, Brandon and, well, everyone I come into contact with as a contractor precisely how much things like ACTRIAL have harmed the Foundation-Community relationship. As a patroller and editor I understand the depth of feeling quite well; it's seen as evidence that the Foundation has no interest in existing editors, and only wants to focus on this mythical utopian future where Ethel, an 82 year old retired nurse from Swansea, can write articles about her lovely grandchildren without being troubled by any of these pesky rules or standards. Now, this isn't what the Foundation wants, but what the Foundation wants is secondary to what the community thinks the Foundation wants, because it is practical suicide to keep introducing technical changes (or not introducing technical changes) without community buyin. They have an ethical duty, in my opinion, to make editors a part of the conversation. And this status quo of the community thinking the foundation don't care about them and the Foundation being all confused as to why they're being screamed at cannot persist.
Fixing it doesn't start with trust, trust is the end goal. Fixing it starts with making the community part of the conversation, to a far greater degree than they are at the moment. Fixing it starts with communicating our reasons and intentions better. Fixing it starts with paying more attention to the community, so that we're actively measuring the editorial pulse and not just constantly reacting to stuff at the last possible moment. If we can do these things, and if we can do them well, we can regress to a time when the community trusted the WMF. All of these things are things the Foundation needs to do, not the community: all I ask of the community is that you acknowledge where we're trying to do things better, and keep an open mind. I cannot promise that the WMF will do everything editors want; I can't promise everything the WMF does do will be stuff editors agree with. But I can promise, at least for New Page Triage, that the community will be far more involved than they are at the moment. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find this thread of the conversation troubling. Two clarifications:
  • The Board did not say 'we shouldn't restrict the ability of new people to contribute' - the closest our resolution on openness came was to reaffirm what all projects already strive to do: "Treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect." In general, the Board does not micromanage the work of the projects; nor is it generally the role of the WMF to set Project editorial or community policy. An exception to that principle was made in this case, for better or for worse. But that was not directed by a Board resolution.
  • WMF employees do not answer to the Board. :-) (Nor, in general, do employees at any organization answer to their Board.) Only the ED answers to the Board; other employees answer to her. If anything, the Board has an obligation to avoid interference with the work of staff. You write "staffers cannot just ignore resolutions by the board of trustees" - that is true in one sense: resolutions set Foundation direction and policy. But sometimes policies need to change. If there is clear community consensus to do something that seems to go against current policy, the best course is to bring this up and discuss whether the matter has highlighted an area where policy should change. – SJ + 03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I fail to see the difference between "movement" and "editors". ResMar 23:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference it the "WMF movement" has little if anything to do with "editors". It has to do with the furtherance of "chapters", and few editors belong to chapters or even know about them. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, the vast, vast majority of the movement is editor-centric. I don't need to be rude, but comments like this and this (for reference, if Sue thinks the WMF should do something, the WMF will most likely do it, because she is the WMF's executive director) seem to suggest that you're not entirely familiar with the wider structure of the movement. Can I suggest you do some further reading before commenting? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One (edit conflict) and a rewrite later:
While I think the definition of "movement" is fairly nebulous (some people use it to refer to people and others to the mission; some to both!), the mission is the end goal of a "world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". All communities are working towards this goal in their own ways; editors are certainly a hugely important part of the movement—a crucial "cannot succeed without" part of the movement. Donors are also part of the movement, as they contribute in different ways. Staff, too, are part of the movement, even if they are not also editors. And readers are a huge part of the movement, as we are constantly trying to find new ways to get this material into their hands--for instance, with a major drive at the moment towards mobile access. They contribute when we engage them directly to provide feedback on their experiences with our work.
If you think of the "movement" as mission, then it's all about reaching the end goal; editors also debate the directions we take in reaching that end goal, for instance resisting efforts to subvert Wikipedia for other purposes (politics, promotion, socialization; of course, we see it all the time - the constant reassessing and reasserting of what Wikipedia is meant to be) and determining what constitutes such subversion (as with the ongoing RFC about WP:COI. WMF and chapters also take part in this dialogue. Naturally, we will not always agree. But we are colleagues in this shared mission, and we need to continue to attempt to work together as colleagues, or we're not likely to succeed.
While I know that you've only just discovered the existence of chapters, Mathew, and it's understandable that you may not yet grasp the relationship between chapters and the WMF or, indeed, chapters and communities, or what chapters are working to do, I'm concerned that positioning things as a battleground relationship is not likely to help in that goal. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random Section Break 001

In terms of membership: editors are people who primarily edit to contribute to the goal of producing a free encyclopedia for all. The movement, in my opinion, includes not only current editors but anyone who contributes to the goal in any other way, or potentially will/should contribute. So we've got editors, and we've also got researchers, staffers, people who do GLAM work and other chapters work - arguably even donors. And when we're talking about this goal and this movement, we have to take into account the people who come after us: Wikipedia is imperfect, and Wikipedia will never be finished, so we need to not only build an encyclopedia that is decent now, but also an infrastructure and culture that will be acceptable 1, 2, 5, 10 years down the line to the next generation of editors - or at least fluid enough that if it isn't acceptable, they can change it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what absolute percentage of such contributors have an account on Wikipedia, and are thus editors? To make almost any substantial contribution to this project you must have an account, which means you participate in and are bound to the community. The Foundation exists to oversee the community, not to command it. ResMar 01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of the next generation of editors have edited? Well, none: they're the next generation. And agreed; the Foundation exists to oversee the community, not to command it. But the community does not command the Foundation, either. Each "entity" has its sphere of influence, and things which are theirs to take the lead on. Technical changes are the Foundation's ballgame. Now, as said above, the community needs to be far more involved in technical changes, but this shouldn't be confused for having control over it. I don't think at any stage the Foundation was saying "we will tell you what you can and cannot do in terms of culture, policy, internal guidelines" - all the things that are the community's bailiwick. But ACTRIAL was a technical change, and one that clashed with a resolution of the board of trustees. Technical changes are the Foundation's thing, and staffers cannot supersede or undermine board resolutions. Things just aren't structured like that. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the ACTRIAL proposal that clashes with a resolution of the Wikimedia Board. It was aimed at improving the interactions between new page authors and reviewers, and a proposed tool to improve usability. The only clash was that proposers differed with developers in their beliefs about whether this would be effective at the stated goals, or whether it might have the opposite effect. – SJ + 03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The technical part of the trial was attaching an action to a flag, and nothing more. There was very little "technical" to it. It was first and foremost a community changer, of the kind that had been executed before; the Foundation's opposition was based on its mentality and nothing more then that. You state the very argument I was betting you were going to use, that the Foundation has to somehow protect the next generation of editors, with its policies of empowered kitten distribution, university pilot projects of various shades of success, and the whole bulwark about making Wikipedia more open. Ya'll fail to realize that Wikipedia is not simple. When I joined I spent a good two days reading through policies, amazed by their sheer multitude. Wikipedia is a complex place and as the Indian program lunacy showed, a fragile one to uneducated meddling. The policy that the Foundation shot down would have built a low wall between us and said masses, making it easier for us to deal with the crap flying by, and the Foundation shot it down on its own ideological ideals. The Foundation is out of touch on its lofty pedestal of "editing for anyone!", when it should be, as the community knows, "editing for those that can." Sorry, but we lack the Foundation's evangelical views. ResMar 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: if the Foundation cannot answer to the community that it is supposed to answer to, as you imply in the TLDR above, then it should be dissolved. ResMar 02:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RM, I've been an editor for six years. It is rather unfair to suggest I don't realise "Wikipedia is not simple". Now, as said above, the Foundation does not answer to the community: it is a delicate balancing process, and always has been. In the last year or so, the balance has swung rather off course, and we need to correct that. But the Foundation's staffers do not and never have answered to the community: they answer to the Board.
Now, clearly this is a wider discussion that needs to be had at some point, but this Signpost article is (narrowly) about the survey and (widely) about where we go with new page triage. This is not the place for a conversation about the general roles of the Foundation and Community, and who takes the lead on what and when: that's for a different time and place. I don't want to derail or distract from the subject of this report. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my (admittedly few) dealings with the Foundation I had come under the impression that they answer to us editors. This bit about the Board and delicate balancing comes as a shock and is very troubling for me. If the Foundation can toss out community consensus and doesn't even answer to its editors, then it is little more then an oligarchy, and that troubles me far more than a phony survey. ResMar 02:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As said, the survey was not "phony". Please either stop using inflammatory language, or justify it - with facts, not by pointing out that other people have also used inflammatory language. On the who-answers-to-who front; the WMF has never been an entity that the community can command to do what it will. The community can elect members of the board, who direct the Foundation's efforts and decide on its strategic goals. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phony phony phony. ResMar 02:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And at this point I'll choose to leave the conversation. If you want to discuss the survey productively, feel free to drop me an email or stick a note on my talkpage. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're no fun. ResMar 02:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okeyes, thank you for your eloquent and obviously considered response. I don't find it entirely convincing, though: "we shouldn't be restricting the ability of new people to contribute" may be a Board resolution, but it is clearly not an absolute: we already restrict it by requiring them to set up an account before being able to create articles, and there are other restrictions like being autoconfirmed before uploading images or moving articles. That being so, it can't really be argued that moving article creation up one notch from "registered" to "autoconfirmed" is a fundamental breach of principle.
I'm not sure there was a way of handling it that would have been any better: I don't think that either more consultation, or saying to en:wp when they began to think about it "Don't bother to ask for this, you can't have it", would have improved things much - the shock was to find that this (to us) outside body, which didn't seem to understand the problem, considered itself entitled to interfere at this level of detail in en:wp's operations, and that anyone who doesn't like it, in Erik's eloquent words, "can - and probably should - contribute your effort elsewhere" - i.e., go jump in the lake.
Explaining on the landing pages that WP is an encyclopedia, not Myspace, will help, but it really needs to be done at account creation time. We shouldn't let people sign up under a misapprehension, even if they are then deterred from submitting unsuitable articles. Better to turn those who are looking for another Myspace or Facebook away at the gate, though I fear this will be thought heresy.
I agree this isn't the place for a debate about WMF - vs - project responsibilities, though that needs to happen somewhere. To turn the conversation back to the survey, I was amused to find that even its organizers suffered from preconceptions - the drop-down list of years of birth did not go far enough back for me! JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we got a couple of comments along those lines ;p. And I agree, we need to have this debate at some point, although this probably isn't the place. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I hope this long discussion above demonstrates to the WMF why so many long-time editors are wary about the accuracy of the survey about which this excellent signpost article was written. To briefly recap yet again: the community spends months establishing a consensus for ACTRIAL and planning its implementation, and at the last step of implementation (i.e. asking the devs to flip a simple switch), it is rejected for ideological reasons. In other words, a handful of WMF staffers believe they know better than 500 editors. They believe that the ability for brand new editors to create shit articles (nearly 3 out of 4 from non-autoconfirmed editors are deleted) is so important, that they're not even willing to entertain a temporary trial just to see what happens as a result of the change. They believe they're so smart, they already know what would happen. They believe that the "gestalt mind of the internet" would never forget that the trial happened, despite the fact that the landing pages designed for ACTRIAL spelled out in bold that this was just a temporary trial. So, while the WMF was determining that bold notes on landing pages aren't sufficient to inform new editors of the situation, they simultaneously determine that the solution to the problem is to design new landing pages to inform new editors on how to create their new article. Genius. The WMF decided that instead of turning down the knob labeled "Shit Articles" in the sink of Wikipedia, they would rather waste their time creating a tool to slightly increase the efficiency of those volunteers who waste their time directing a full 75% of the output of the aforementioned faucet directly into the drain. Genius. The WMF have affirmed their belief that new editor retention is maximized by allowing new editors to create new articles freely, and then forcing those new editors to watch (Clockwork Orange style) as their beloved article gets nuked. Genius.
But I digress. Hopefully the above is an adequate summary of how WP editors felt about the WMF at the conclusion of the ACTRIAL debacle. Ok. So now, WMF decides they want to get more information about how new page patrollers operate. They organize a survey, promptly throw out 75% of the responses, and declare the results valid. Even if the results actually are valid and representative, it shouldn't be difficult to imagine how editors are hesitant to trust WMF staffers who say "hey buddy, trust me, the stats are cool, I checked them myself *wink*", particularly since the WMF now appears to have a motive to skew the survey results to benefit their new-found ideology. Make sense now?
The WMF have seriously damaged their reputation and capacity for trust within the editing community by deciding that it's more important to increase the efficiency with which we can delete new articles rather than reducing the number of poor quality articles that are created in the first place, and using their veto power to override the community's clear consensus to implement that misguided ideology. The new landing pages and the Zoom interface aren't going to make any progress towards repairing that damage (or fixing the problem). A real discussion about how to reduce the rate of shit article creation certainly would, but you won't catch me holding my breath. —SW— gab 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you don't think that telling new editors "if you're here to write about your garage band or aunty ethel, step aside" is going to reduce the number of new editors writing about their garage band or aunty ethel?
I understand why you may feel that the data is invalid. Tell you what; if you want, I can sit down over the weekend and retabulate the data, with one set of datapoints for the full survey number (minus the junk, obviously, but including all the responses removed because we couldn't verify their patroller status) and another for the "sanitised" dataset. So it'll work out as a long list of "Full data set, X percent Y. Sanitised data set, Z percent Y. Difference, + or - Q percent". Would that be helpful? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A landing page will have a minimal effect on actually stopping people from creating articles. No one is required to read or obey a landing page, and most editors likely won't do either unless they are forced to. Even if the 75% figure goes to 70% because of a landing page (which is optimistic, in my opinion), that's not going to have a significant effect on new page patroller workload or overall article quality. More is needed than just a stern warning.
As for reworking the survey data, I don't think anyone is asking you to waste your weekend with such a task. I'd rather see you release all of the unsanitized raw data and let me come to my own conclusions (and no, I'm not signing an NDA to get it). Furthermore, if you believe that there is only a few percent difference between the sanitized and unsanitized data, wouldn't it have been a wiser decision to just not sanitize the data and save us all the trouble? —SW— soliloquize 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not signing an NDA, I'm prohibited from releasing the data. The terms used means we need some kind of paperwork as assurance that the data is going to be used for [research purposes] as opposed to [any purposes]. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, SW. ResMar 21:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And on the "gestalt mind" front; did you see what happened with de.wiki's trial of not letting anonymous people edit in 07? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very late to this conversation, and I'm sorry if I'm missing a nuance, but I'm confused; Scotty, why wouldn't you want to sign a Non-disclosure agreement? The purpose of it is to protect the privacy of those individuals who responded to the survey. It wouldn't stop you from sharing the results. I'm also a bit confused by the evident concern that there is data not being presented to community. While I have not been part of this work, I was contacted a week or so ago by User:Kudpung about this. Since I'm trying to get up to speed and understand that he has possession of data, I asked him in an email of February 16 what data he was lacking so that I could try to help him get it. I haven't heard from him since, but will be happy to work with him if I do. If you change your mind about the NDA, I'll be happy to work with you. :) The NDA is required by our lawyers, who are really careful about user privacy issues. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with stats, although I have some of the same misgivings as editors above me, and everyone knows where I stand on the ACTRIAL business (I've read everything above, no need to rehash things here). I will, however, bring up a point that any good sports fan will immediately get. For my example, I'll use Derek Jeter, one of my childhood idols (my favorite, Mariano Rivera, is too perfect for this). A few years ago, people using some isometrics "proved" he was the worst shortstop in the league. This was based on all sorts of data gathered by a few statisticians, and it was trumpeted as The TruthTM. However, any baseball fan who's watched him play knows that's patently ridiculous; even at his age, Jeter is still one of the better shortstops out there, but many of the things he does don't show up in the stats or the box score. One of his most famous plays, the Flip Play (see 2001 ALDS, Game 3 of the Yankees-Oakland series), only shows up in the box score as 9-6-2 for one out. I'm as ardent a Yankee fan as you could ever hope to meet, and there are very few stats I pay any attention to because they don't tell the whole story. To understand Jeter's greatness, you have to watch the game. Benjamin Disraeli made his famed remark for a reason; anecdotal evidence, such as that supplied by the competent New Page Patrollers, really should carry a lot more weight than it's being given.
    And one other question. Why has Sue Gardner said nary a thing on this subject? One would think that ACTRIAL was a sufficiently momentous desire to change that she'd want to be involved, and when Foundation people shot it down one would think she'd want to opine, if for nothing else than to either push the Foundation people to let the trial go or make it appear that it was actually the WMF making the decision rather than a few people injecting their own personal analysis. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We are taking subjective evidence into account; we've asked for screencasts, and had several rounds of interviews. You'll also note the survey itself contained subjective questions. As for Sue, I cannot speak for what goes on inside her head, because I don't live there ;). I would suggest that she felt that if the Deputy Director, the Head of Reader Relations and the Lead Software Architect are all saying something, and the Deputy Director is investing resources in a new project to pull that something off, the opinion of the Foundation is clear. As hard-working as Sue is, she is not the only person permitted to speak on behalf of the WMF. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OKeyes, to be quite honest, I don't think a thing has changed here. Reading through the discussion that's ensued, I think a critical point is still being missed and is not being addressed: The issue is not how the Foundation communicated its decision—though that was poor, that was not and is not the central concern. The issue is, very simply put, that the Foundation made that decision at all. The way to fix the trust that was lost is not to promise to communicate bad decisions better and more nicely in the future, it is to not make them (and, ideally, reverse the one at hand too, though I'm not holding my breath). And from what I'm seeing here, it's based on some nebulous, unsupported concerns about "future" editors, while ignoring what the ones who are already here were clearly asking you for. Ironically enough, had the trial been done and proved disastrous, that would have given the Foundation firm ground to oppose any such future move. But a whole lot of us don't think it would have, and that it would actually increase new editor retention. Very few people read a nag screen if there's a clickthrough. The only way to get their attention is to say "No, not yet". As to the decision-making process, was this the Board? If so, why is Sue not a part of this conversation (or another one elsewhere, at the very least?). What we proposed didn't violate the Board's resolution. We already restrict new article creation more heavily than we do existing article editing (must be registered). We already (semi)protect pages when necessary. "Anyone can edit" doesn't mean an absolute free-for-all, even now. The community should absolutely be free to fine-tune that balance according to its needs. We did that, we presented very good cause to do that, and we got told, in essence, "It stays like it is, and if you don't like it, go away." Several editors—existing, good editors that already were part of the project—took Erik up on the second part of that offer. Continuing to dance around the issue is just going to frustrate yet more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Board was not part of this decision-making process. As you say, the trial proposed was not in opposition to any resolutions or policies. (Speaking only for myself, I don't think the trial would have had the positive effects predicted [cf. the related de:wp experiment]; but I would be glad to see a short trial to find out, and would like to see more short community-run trials.) – SJ + 03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry; I evidently haven't been making myself clear :). My intention above was not to suggest that comms was the issue - more a personal anecdote or why I'm pissed at the situation ;p. Trust me, I'm fully aware of how angry people are at this, and I've been communicating it to the staffers (not, it has to be said, using entirely polite language, but it gets the point across). I disagree that communications is not a problem; when you say "some nebulous, unsupported concern", for example, it's clear the WMF is not effectively communicating its research and numbers on this problem. I would agree that the easiest way forward is simply to not make bad decisions, or not make decisions that overrule the community, but I can't promise that this won't happen. First, staffers are human. They screw up. Second, the community is human. We screw up. It is inevitable that there will be a situation where the WMF feels the community is wrong, correctly or incorrectly, and has to step in. What I think we should be doing is trying to open a dialogue to talk through the relationship between the community and the Foundation on a more strategic level, but that's probably a conversation for a different venue. On the clickthrough point I'll poke Brandon; he's the designer, and fantastic at UX/UI, so I'll find out what his motivations are for the landing pages.
    Regardless of that, though, I am communicating how patrollers feel on this issue; it's hard not to get a decent impression of how angry people are when you have other editors screaming at you in-person for a decision made before you became a short-term contractor. People are hopping mad, and justifiably. I am making that clear: I appreciate it may not be apparent with the information currently available. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the rest of the Foundation? I'm sure they're reading along here; they were involved enough to make a fuss about me posting a diff above. ResMar 16:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the two staffers who commented? It's 8:50am in SF. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh in general, I would have expected them to plead innocence by now, given that they responded to the early comments. ResMar 20:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plead innocence? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, if the question is "why have the staffers not come over to discuss it"; staffers tend to have pretty packed schedules. My role is to act as a conduit between the community and the Foundation, and so that's what I'm doing. If we're going to discuss wider issues of the WMF/Community relationship, or of new page triage, I'm fine with that, but this probably isn't the best place for it - this is a Signpost article about a research report, and discussion should be concentrated on the research report. If you want answers to specific questions or arguments, I can ask staffers to provide them, either directly or through me. If you want to discuss new page triage, I'm happy to have that convo - on the new page triage page, or on my talkpage, or via email. But I think we should try here to discuss the task at hand. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very curious about what the WMF people do. I've been over to the Meta place today and looked around. There really isn't anything about wikipedia and its problems that I could find. Could someone explain, or show me where I can find information about how WMF is addressing the concerns of editors here? (besides the getting new editors stuff) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is, the concerns about the quality of articles and the difficulty of patrolling, or do you mean something more strategic about the needs of existing editors generally? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mathew. :) While Oliver is best positioned to answer your question about how the WMF is addressing these concerns, I just wanted to note that Meta is not the best place to read what the WMF people do. The WMF has a wiki of its own: wmf:Home. As it happens, I addressed your question as to what the WMF people do shortly after I came aboard - at least, right after the wmf:Answers system was established. The first two answers here will offer you an overview. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should stop shouting at Okeyes, though I think some of us were really shouting past him. If I have a final shot here, it's because I am about to go away (not pursuing the Möller Option, I will be back in mid-March) and may not have much internet access. I think the real issue is even further back, the message I would like the WMF to get is not "Communicate your decisions better", not even "Make better decisions", but "Don't make decisions at all, at this level: do not try to micro-manage the volunteer projects."
There certainly needs to be a higher-level discussion of WMF - WP relations, the fact that the issue keeps bubbling up in inappropriate places like this shows that there is a fair head of steam under it. I am not optimistic of any easy resolution, because I think the en:wp community (in so far as it has a common view, and indeed is aware of the WMF at all) and the WMF have rather fundamentally different views of their relationship, and of the best ways to pursue the common goal. The best we can hope for is to understand each other a little better. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There seems to be an agreement amongst the staffers I've spoken to that we need to have this discussion in some form, although where and when and how isn't entirely clear (and I can't promise everyone feels this way). But this is certainly something we need to look into and, in my opinion, do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is the best venue for such and such. ResMar 02:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Wikipedia:Request for Comment/WMF - WP relations - Redlink now, but I'll start putting a draft together. Always happy for help, of course. Also think that perhaps Meta relations could fall under the same auspice, given the recent dust-up? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses :). A very small group of staffers have indicated that they would personally like to see a discussion. Now, that's different from being, organisationally-speaking, able to engage in it. If you hold a party and nobody comes there's no real advantage - I'd wait until something more concrete comes down the line before starting anything. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With complete respect (you've been great on this page), while it would of course be best if WMF peoples participated in a request for comment, it's not required. EngWp can all sit down (metaphorically) and discuss WMF - WP relations without waiting. It's possible, for example, that once the highly-involved editors from this page have their say that the rest of the community feels that everything is fine. So, yes, please do issue some invites but I'll be continuing editing merrily away. My intention is first to build a framework of the history of previous ahhh, "episodes of sub-optimal communication." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need subdividers on this talk page. :) I would love to see some thoughts from the community on how to improve communication and collaboration between WMF and community, as this is one of the things I'm here to do. If you run an RFC, Aaron, I'll certainly watch with interest and contribute where I can. I will also make sure that the WMF remains aware of community feelings there.
Pointing out episodes of sub-optimal communication could be valuable if the purpose is to find a way forward; if it's just to say "this didn't go well", I'm not sure it'll help that much. Community know things haven't always gone well; so does staff. :/ Personally, I think the ACTRIAL situation would have gone much better if staff had become part of the conversation at early stages and could have helped shape thinking there as participants, rather than dropping in at the end. I think we need some better mechanisms for keeping WMF aware of emerging trends; I'm working on this. Since I started, I've been closely watching village pumps, central and noticeboard, and I try to raise staff awareness in part so that things like this don't happen again.
From where I'm sitting, it's obvious to me that the WMF is working on better collaboration and insight between community and WMF: they've created the Community Liaison position (mine) specifically to facilitate communication between staff and community; they created the Community Liaison, Product Development position (Oliver's) specifically to interact closely with community in work like this; they're actively working on reshaping the former "Legal Department" into "Legal and Community Advocacy" (see meta:Legal and Community Advocacy; Philippe is actively seeking community input on how our department can best support the community here). We are in the middle of a cultural shift. Have you seen the work General Counsel Geoff Brigham did with the community in shaping the proposed meta:Terms of use? I'm very proud of him for that. I loved Mike - he was very helpful to me in copyright work - but I believe that the degree of collaborative work there is simply unprecedented. Currently, Sue is recommending to the Board that the bulk of the WMF budget be put into the hands of an advisory committee composed primarily of experienced volunteers. (See 1, 2).
Sorry for the length here, but I felt like it might be helpful for me to share a bit of what I've been seeing. It might help explain why I suspect the Foundation would welcome thoughts on improving coordination as much as I would. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random Section Break 002

WMF owns the web domains, trademarks and servers of the English Wikipedia, not the editors. (For most everyday matters, the WMF chooses to defer to the community. This voluntary choice of theirs is what permits power users the illusion that the English Wikipedia is controlled by "the community") MathewTownsend (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are linking to an editor essay, Mathew, and quoting from it, but I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. :) Can you clarify? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said somewhere, I've been looking around on Meta and there's no mention really of wp;en. WMF is a company, structured under 501(c) because of the tax advantages, as many companies are. "Non profit" has nothing to do with being "free". It's interests are expanding WMF "initiatives" globally according to the strategic plan of 2009, and en:wp is just a part of it's volunteer work force laboring under idealistic aims. WMF tolerates much of what wp:en does because "so what?" But if en:wp does something that doesn't fit with the global strategic plan (as WMF sees it), then they squash it, as in the NPP issue. WMF is "surprised" that en:wp is outraged (if they even know it is), and en:wp is outraged because they labour under the illusion that they're a self-determining "community". But when WMF uses the word "community" (e.g.[1]), they mean the WMF community. They're really not interested in en:wp, except how they can exploit it through using it to do the grunt work for their "educational iniatives" etc. That's why they learned apparently NOTHING from the copyvio recent scandal in course work done on line in wikipedia. And why they're not conserned that by expanding this use of en:wp, it will cause editors here more work. These are the conclusions I've come to in the last few days. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed the note I left you above on this page (that being the "somewhere" where you mentioned Meta), but Meta is not the WMF's website. :) You might want to look higher up to find that note.
What you've learned in the last few days may not reflect a full understanding of the history of Wikipedia and the Foundation, or of current activities. For instance, you say "they learned apparently NOTHING from the copyvio recent scandal in course work done on line in wikipedia", but I'm not sure if you're aware that they hired an outside consultant to evaluate that situation so that they could adjust future approaches: Wikipedia:India Education Program/Analysis/Independent Report from Tory Read. Far from learning nothing, they've learned quite a bit from that experience and are working to incorporate what they've learned in forward movement. I'm not sure if you're aware that the WMF is run by a Board of Trustees composed of 10 people. Besides Founder Jimmy Wales (who is very much active here), there are three seats elected by editors, two by chapters (which are not part of the Wikimedia Foundation but separate community-run organizations), and four which are chosen by the people elected to the Board by editors and chapters. They are the ones who direct the activities of the WMF, including directing the staff of the WMF to develop the strategic plan, which included input from editors from English Wikipedia and around the world and also (at their direction) from parties not part of the Wikimedia community.[2] The "WMF community" is the community of all contributors to the movement, including editors of English Wikipedia and the many other language Wikipedias that exist, as well as to the other projects, including Wikimedia Commons, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc. It also includes readers and donors, not all of whom edit.
Your perspective that "They're really not interested in en:wp, except how they can exploit it through using it to do the grunt work for their "educational iniatives" etc." is, I have to admit, frankly baffling to me. Wikipedia is itself the largest and widest reaching "educational initiative" that the Wikimedia Foundation supports; the English Wikipedia is the largest and widest reaching of the over 280 Wikipedias that exist. This is the "educational initiative; it's not being exploited to do the grunt work for that initiative. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that. I didn't see the link to here which is a place that allows me to log in at least. It does say though: "In many respects WMF is like any small business; in others, it faces unique challenges unlike any other online organization in the world. While there are many Wikipedia projects, at their root, they are all the work of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation in the State of Florida, USA." - exactly. Now I'll roam around that place and see if I can find out more. I had a horrible awakening this week when I realized that anyone with (WMF) after their name can't help on en:wp, and if I've contacted an (WMF) editor, I'm not eligible for help from that same person using their en:wp account. My problem was that your overall top Online Ambassador for the educational initiative for US and Canada didn't know that close paraphrasing/plagarizm is not allowed in a GA article, (she was trying to get her article passed) and still doesn't get it - though she's working with university professors and also student editors, according to her user page, and is some sort of top supervisor - goes on those travel junkets and stuff. And WMF on en:wp only deals with copyright violation issues, and if the top supervising on line ambassadors are ill informed, and close paraphrase/plagiarize in their own articles, there's no recourse for me. No one to contact that's related to WMF because they don't cover that. She said, well it passed dyk, so what could be the problem? I'm disillusioned no end. What kind of damage is this top supervising online ambassador going to do as the US and Canada on line courses move forward? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that our conversation was a horrible awakening for you, Mathew, but I'm happy to say that you've misunderstood a bit what I told you. :) It's not that we can't help on en:wp, it's that we can't manage or control content for legal reasons that are important for us all (happy to explain, but this might not be the best page, as it doesn't really directly relate--has to do with the difference between being an "online service provider" and a publisher). When I took the position, I made clear to the WMF that being able to continue with my work as a volunteer was important to me, and they have been nothing but supportive of that, but I do have to keep my roles separated. However, I was very happy that the admin I recommended, User:Dcoetzee, was willing and able to help. All editors are subject to the same dispute resolution processes; if you are concerned about this person's editing habits, your mentor may be able to help you find the best avenue for approaching that. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just any editor. This editor according to her user page: "I am an Online Ambassador, member of the Ambassador Selection Team, and member of the Ambassador Steering Committee. I have worked with university professors and students through the Public Policy Initiative over the past year and attended the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit in July 2011, to assist with expanding the project to the global community. I am now part of the Wikipedia Education Program, with an emphasis on the United States and Canada." I assume she holds this position through WMF so the dispute resolution processes wouldn't cover my concerns as we await the next flood of edits from students of on line university courses. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathew, I'm staff at WMF these days, but if I do something as User:Moonriddengirl that's wrong, I'm completely and fully accountable to the community for it. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the WMF would take a long, hard look at my appropriateness for my position if the community found issues, especially if they brought into question my competence to do my job. I'm not 100% sure how the Ambassador program works, as I've not worked much directly with them and the program predates my employment, but I know that none of us are immune to dispute resolution processes. We're all still community. :) If you have concerns about somebody, I would really urge you to follow the proper processes for having those concerns evaluated, to help avoid any further issues. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, you've hit upon an enormous problem, they get through DYK all the time (unless Nikkimaria checks them, at the rate of more than one a day), and that same online ambassador is in charge of the single class that has given me the most headaches (although there are quite a few of them). I spent a good portion of my fall cleaning up plagiarism after student editors, who appear to be getting no guidance from ambassadors. Based on what you found, it's no wonder. These problems brought upon us by these WMF programs have caused me to unwatch several hundred articles and give up. So instead, just this week, I started patrolling new medicine articles and found that the problem is even worse. It is very hard to understand what the WMF is thinking; based on what I'm seeing, I'll give up on that as well, and it escapes me why the WMF ignored the community proposal. If there are future efforts to curb these problems, I hope someone will ping me, because my days of working for a futile project that encourages quantity over quality are winding down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guys and Dolls, there is some really great exchanges happening here... but is this really the best venue for it? Suggest we move to a better spot. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bots in April

I don't remember the big group of bot page creations in April. What were they? Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question :). Resident Mario? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snottywong's graph, not mine; I've asked him. ResMar 14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was User:PotatoBot. See here. —SW— confer 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey data

The article says "obviously fallacious data" includes, for example, claims to be "10-year-olds from Africa with doctorates".

And what is it about the phrase "from Africa" that makes the data even more improbable? Does no one see anything wrong with such a stereotype? Kablammo (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 10-year-old with a PhD generally is statistically improbable. I think it's acceptable to say it's even more improbable when you consider the dearth of PhDs in Africa. For reference, it's not a stereotype; it's an example :). Somebody genuinely filled out the survey claiming to be such an individual. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should have said " a 10-year-old with a doctorate". "The term "from Africa" adds nothing to it. (Or would the claim that someone, age unstated, was a PhD from Africa be disbelieved?) A presumption that an individual African is unlikely to have a PhD is an offensive stereotype. I hope you can see that. Kablammo (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, the data shows that about one person edited from Africa (see relevant graph in Signpost article). Must've had a PhD. And they nabbed him. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no; he was excluded from the survey results. The section Kablammo is quoting from is specifically about the data sanitisation. Kablammo, you're right; I miswrote, and will alter it from the plural to the singular in the morning. It's just past 1am, so I'm going to bed :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that both versions say 10 year old from Africa singular, and always have. It seems that Resident Mario is the source of the issue you have; RM, if you're watching, you may want to correct your article. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-20/Special_report&oldid=1193868772"