Wikipedia talk:Credo/Archive 2

Mailing list

After being inactive for nearly a year, someone has suggested on the mailing list that:

One thought though, there should be some mechanism for the donor to get feedback on the use and usefulness of their donation by active and successful Wikipedia editors if they are going to be satisfied that their donation was useful and appreciated.

Is there currently any place to leave such feedback?Smallman12q (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the same. I guess the donor could access this page. We had a discussion about that last year. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

More accounts available

There's been a discussion on the Foundation mailing list about Credo offering more accounts, up to 400, so Erik has asked that a list of names be drawn up.

Suggested criteria

---

Please add your name to the list, if each of the following apply to you:

1. You have no free online access (at home or from wherever you edit most) to Credo, or a similar database, through your membership of a university or public library;

   Before adding your name to the list, please check here whether your local library offers access.

2. You have an e-mail address set in your preferences, and you consent to the Wikimedia Foundation looking it up and sharing it with Credo.
3. You've been editing regularly for at least 12 months and throughout the last 12 months, on any language edition of Wikipedia;
4. You have at least 3,000 non-minor edits to articles (not just total edits), the focus of which is content contribution, in the sense of article creation, or adding sources or sourced material;
5. You've nominated at least one FA, GA, or FL (or other-language equivalents), even if the article/list was not promoted; or you're an FA, GA, or FL reviewer; or you'll commit to nominating an article/list for FA, GA, or FL within the next 12 months; or you're regularly active at content-oriented projects such as Article Rescue Squadron, Unreferenced BLP Rescue, Did You Know (or other-language equivalents).

The list will remain open from [time and date] until [time and date]. If you satisfy the criteria, please add your name, together with a link to the number of your article edits, and a description of how you fulfill criterion 5 (e.g. list your GAs, or say which content projects you're regularly active in, with some diffs that demonstrate involvement).

---

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Erik's mentioned on the mailing list that the second tranche of accounts are still out there waiting to be assigned, but we need to find some way of assigning them!

It's clear from the discussion above & elsewhere that first-come-first-served is ineffective, and that overly specific allocation ("editor has written 5 GAs") isn't very helpful. However, there's definitely some value in minimum thresholds, simply to ensure these are going to be used meaningfully, and I think there's a general feeling we ought to have some. So, here's a suggestion:

a) hash out a set of minimum thresholds and allocation rules now;

b) it's now the 15th; ten days from now is the 25th, so we can aim to have something agreed on then;

c) over that weekend, advertise the process widely (possibly focusing on specific groups, eg/ fact-checking projects);

d) take requests for a set time period, say until the 10th of April (two weeks);

e) someone then goes through the list and selects 200 names in accordance with a).

(I'm happy to do e; I've no particular desire for an account and I'll be on holiday by the 12th)

I'll add a set of possible rules below, for discussion. Shimgray | talk | 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added some suggestions above, from last year, and I've asked for input from people on the FA and GA talk pages. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Those sound good, although considering how quickly the accounts disappeared last year (100 applicants in 7 hours), they might could stand to be more stringent. I think the majority of active article writers would probably meet the criteria above, so you might have another mad rush. If you're wanting to accept applicants for 2 weeks (rather than 2 days), they will definitely have to have a higher bar. Kaldari (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds mostly fine, though I'd like to see FL included in the last clause, but I don't really know if it would expand eligibility all that much. (Though looking through the resources offered, I get the impression this is more useful for referencing crappy articles than putting stars on already good ones, so I'm not sure the last clause is that useful at all.) The one that strikes me as needing to be stricter is expecting only 1,000 main-space edits. Courcelles 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we could extend point 3 to include reviewing (construed broadly) as well as new-authorship - these seem possibly more useful for reviewers - and potentially people actively involved in things like WP:RD. I'm ambivalent on the last point, but it's a reasonable aspiration - any editor could reasonably aim to put an article through GA, and it's good to encourage it as a goal.

In general, I would suggest that we let people sign up and include an optional comment, leaving them free to say - "I'm in Dhaka, this sort of access is really hard to get here", or "I do a lot of work in X specific topic area, and there's good material on it in the collection". No long essays, but it lets us feed back to the donor what the material's likely to be used for, and helps us identify the most deserving cases. Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec, to Kaldari) I'd be worried about excluding people by making the bar much higher. First, a lot of people do have free online access to this (from home) through their public libraries in the UK, though they may not realize it, and the same is likely to be true in other countries, so that's a fair number right there who won't need them. What kind of extra things would it be reasonable to ask for, do you think?

Perhaps the bar should be set rather high at first (so that the most deserving cases are most likely to get accounts), and if there are still accounts left after a couple days, the criteria can be lowered. I think you'll be surprised how many people want these accounts. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles, the suggestion is 1,000 article edits, not mainspace overall. What number would you say was reasonable? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have said 2,500. 1,000 edits, even limiting it to mainspace, isn't particularly many anymore. If there aren't many sequesters, the criteria can always be lowered, whereas the situation that happened last time; where those that were around a single afternoon were all that could be accommodated, is something I'd like to not see repeated. Courcelles 22:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Increased to 2,500; added FL; and added reviewing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A key thing to work out is where to advertise this, and when to open the list, i.e. what time of day is fair, globally. Last time there was an announcement and the list opened immediately (I believe). This time, I think we should give a couple of days notice: the list will open at midnight UTC, or whatever is best, on a certain date. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggested above that there's no automatic reason to worry about first-come-first-served; we could set a minimum threshold to ensure that all requestors are likely to make some decent use of it, leave requests open for some reasonably long period (a week or two) to let everyone who's interested nominate themselves, and then pick the "most beneficial" from the applicants - prioritizing those who've used it in the past but can't get at it any more, or those who're after a specific resource in the collection, for example, above those whose interest is more speculative.

Alternatively (if selecting the "best" candidates is something people are uncomfortable with), it'd be easy to take a list of however many applicants who've passed the minimum threshold and randomly select a sufficient number. Shimgray | talk | 22:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a random lottery sounds terrible. Please keep in mind that there are numerous editors who spend hundreds of dollars on purchasing articles to feed their editing habits. They will be solely disappointed if they miss this offer due to not being randomly selected. Perhaps we should solicit a list of editors who aren't interested in the offer, and then just choose the most meritorious editors who aren't listed. I'm only half-joking. Whatever you do, expect far more demand than you have accounts for. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not very good as an approach, but I thought I'd throw it out there so we could clearly rule it out ;-). Shimgray | talk | 23:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be first come, first served, among editors who fit the parameters. We shouldn't have people picking and choosing beyond that. That's why the parameters have to be good. If we add DYK, we'd be adding a lot of editors, and there have been lots of quality issues surrounding it, so I'd be opposed to including it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We "sold out" within five hours last time; even allowing for warning people in advance and picking a neutral time to do it, any form of first-come-first-served is going to pose problems in that regard! I strongly suspect that to be fair we might have to have some form of post-request selection; it's going to be difficult to predict in advance what the "special cases" might be. Perhaps we could do this in two or three tranches, setting a firm "process-focused" threshold such as that above for the first time around, using the response to it to gain feedback from editors who're excluded but can make a good case for having access (I'm quite taken by the refdesk suggestion, for example - Credo is quite quick-reference focused), and having a second application window some time later with the conditions adjusted accordingly? Shimgray | talk | 23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if we went through the previous list, and removed everyone with access through a public library, and everyone who didn't edit articles much, it would remove a ton of names, and perhaps even most of them. I can't see how we could judge between people's needs once the parameters are met, or how that could ever be done fairly. I really think the best way not to increase resentment is to decide on firm but fair parameters, with a couple of days advance warning and good publicity, then leave it up to who gets here first.

Alternatively, we could do this. Erik said there would be 400 accounts. We could offer 300 via the above (parameters, then first come), and 100 via a separate list where people would simply describe their special needs (no parameters, not first come), and a panel of uninvolved editors will decide who gets them. People can only be on one list. Though I worry this complicates things. My preference is just to do the former for all 400. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to ruffle feathers, but I've had a CREDO account since the first batch was released, and they are only minimally helpful in content building. If you see above I've expounded this before. IMO their primary value is for fact checking, and would be most beneficial in the hands of reviewers or writers of starter articles like at DYK. Anyone who wants to write something of FA or GA quality is not going to find nearly enough material from CREDO to do that. Please keep that in mind when applying for these accounts. I don't think trying to get it to content builders is really the way to go here. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps DYK articles could be added to the list. Of course at that point the criteria are even more open than they were to begin with. What about something like: "either 5,000 article edits, or one successful DYK, GA, FA, or FL article, or an active reviewer".

I would like to object to the FA/GA article requirement. There are a number of content editors who do not wish to participate in the GA/FA process at all but who nonetheless do excellent work.

GA/FA participation is one aspect of "confirmed to do good content-addition work" - but creating new articles that stand up, adding references to existing articles (!), rescuing articles, there are plenty of other worthy activities we can use in addition that should be qualifiers in that manner. Expanding out that in a manner that isn't discriminatory against other content editors who don't like GA/FA politics is fine with me (I don't want to reverse-discriminate against GA/FA participants, either; good work there would seem to meet the more general criterion I aim to describe here). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would best to divy them up between areas. X% going to FA/GA contributers, X% going to article reviews, X% going to DYKers, X% going on a first come first serve to users with X number of edits over X period of time. I'd just hate to see the content builders (like myself) get all the accounts because I really feel that these accounts would be of much more value in the hands of reviewers the like. I think the content contributors will be disappointed to find the information more limited than they have been led to believe. Side Note: Do any of the other current CREDO account holders have a different experience than myself, have you found sufficient source material to write high quality articles? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

GA is not a high hurdle, George (only one reviewer has to think an article is GA and it gets promoted), and we say there only has to be an intention to nominate an article for GA within the next 12 months, which is almost no hurdle at all; and we now include reviewers too, Charles -- see above. If we want to have minimum criteria so we aim the accounts at good content contributors, they can't be so minimal that the list is in effect open to all, otherwise we may as well just do that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• My experience is similar to Charles'. For example, I was most recently looking for sources for Taiwan teas. When one uses Credo to search for sources, they are often too broad-brush for our purpose. The best I find in this case is Cambridge World History of Food which just says "Lapsang Souchongs come from Taiwan". Another recent case is Diligence. Here I turn up Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance but I already found that using Google Books. The latter is usually best for an initial search - Credo is only useful at a secondary-level if it holds the full content of a source which is otherwise inaccessible. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could I add in editors who reference articles others have created as well as FA/GA authors? The team at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue seem particularly deserving of this. ϢereSpielChequers 20:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd added BLP Rescue, along with Article Rescue and DYK, though that now opens up things quite a bit, so I've upped the article edits to 3,000. If anyone thinks that's still too low, please say. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think your current minimum standards are good. There is no point throwing away accounts on editors without a track record or promise of continued participation in the project. My primary goal has been to make sure we don't advertise these accounts as something they are not, but instead for what they are, that way they get into the hands of editors where they will be of greatest value. Heck though... Do we even have 400 very active editors anymore? hahahaha, our numbers have declined alot the last couple years. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed "or you'll commit to nominating an article/list for FA, GA, or FL within the next 12 months," because now that we've added DYK and the rescue projects, we've opened it up a fair bit. I'd worry that we'd be left to judge whether to AGF. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more comfortable with this version, I think - my concern initially was that were were using article rating processes as a way of identifying "good, responsible contributors", which was reasonable enough, but doing so in a way that didn't really fit with the resource in question. (It would have been more appropriate for, say, prioritizing access to something like JSTOR). Shimgray | talk | 01:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I just happened to see mention of this page and can't say that I've heard of Credo before, so I have to ask (and hope this isn't in a terrible place): Does its search function allow for searching for a particular phrase over multiple resources at a time? I ask because the resources I'm familiar with (e.g., ProQuest, JSTOR) have to be searched individually and so aren't much help in copyright review unless you already know what source you're looking for and are just trying to verify copied content. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does allow that, Verno. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Might there be a chance of including copyright cleanup as another possible qualifying membership then, or just make a special nomination? I haven't mentioned it to her yet since I just saw this today, but if she doesn't have access already I imagine Moonriddengirl might find it a handy resource given her daily WP:CP cleanup where sources aren't always listed and the number of articles she rewrites. I have to admit I'd personally enjoy such a membership, but I'd probably get less use out of it than she would. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, Verno, I'll add that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So would I be disquailfied based on my around 2600 article edits, 3GAs and 6 DYK? It seems to me that these criteria are getting quite ambiguous in terms of edit count/content. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wherever we draw the line, people will wish we'd drawn it elsewhere, that's the problem. I see you've got 2833 edits to articles, so you're very close, and if you were to add your name, you might well be seen as eligible. I'm hoping we can use common sense, but it's going to depend on how many people want them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Time zones

You could be right about the numbers. :) So now all we need is to work out the logistics. We have to give people some notice, I would say 48 hours is enough. We should post on the PUMP, English mailing list, Foundation mailing list, talk pages of FAC, GA, FL, DYK, and the two rescue projects we've mentioned. Also somewhere on Meta, though I have no idea where. And how, other than Meta, to reach out to the different language Wikipedias?

Also, do we open one page where people can sign up, or more than one to reduce edit conflicts? Finally, what's the fairest time to open it, in terms of global timezones? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one page should be ok. I think a longer period notice would be better, maybe a week, that way hopefully the Signpost could pick it up, that would get coverage out to alot of people too. Maybe we should alert the signpost directly on their story suggest page. As for the time of day, that tough. Maybe release half the accounts at 1200 UTC and the other half at 2400 UTC. There are large English speaking populations in pretty well every quarter of the planet. Otherwise sometime probably around 1600 UTC would be fair, that would give a western hemisphere advantage though. Thats my thoughts. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be during the night in Australia (or at least in Sydney), where we have a lot of editors. 22:00 UTC would reduce the number of editors located where it's the middle of the night:

• Cairo midnight
• Beijing 6 am
• Frankfurt 11 pm
• London 10 pm
• New York 6 pm
• Sydney 9 am
• Tokyo 7 am

Would that work? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking just of that, the smallest percentage of editors are probably in the Australian quarter of the globe (just a guess though). It would be most fair to try and get them released at time when both European and North American editors are awake - which is about the opposite of the time Australians, Indians, and South Africans are awake. A single time is going to always favor one hemisphere over the other. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

10 pm UTC manages to cover things fairly well -- late for Europe, early for others-- but not outside times when people could reasonably be expected to be awake. I played around here with various times, and this was the one that seemed to capture the largest spread of people between 6 am and midnight. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think thats fair. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is still the middle of the night for most of Europe, Middle East, Asia and Western Australia. Why not split the allocation 300/100 and open up a second batch of nominations at 1100 UTC? We should be trying to counter systematic bias, not propagating it. 203.171.196.127 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where in Europe or the Middle East it would be the middle of the night. You're right about Western Australia. No matter what we plump for, there will be people who would have preferred something different, and the notices are now out. So long as everyone has a few days notice, it should be okay, and I think this time covers the bulk of our editors who would have an interest in this kind of database. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Midnight or later in Sofia, Moscow, Joburg, Dubai & India is irrelevant? Why not simply hold back 100 for a twelve hr delay? If you don't get 300 in 5 hours it will be moot anyway, but it at least gives ths side of the globe a chance.202.124.89.102 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The time was chosen to give us the maximum number of editors between 6 am and midnight. Editors in Western Australia have been alerted so they can make arrangements. It's too late to change this one now. If there's a third distribution, we can choose a time that favors a different group. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Description

Charles, re your description, are you sure it's right? Glancing through the list, it offers for example the Bloomsbury Guide to Art, described on Amazon as containing detailed entries and a series of contextualized essays. I'm worried about misleading people (in either direction), or even appearing ungrateful to Credo. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No it was pretty right on. Do you have access to check? I suppose I could give you my login info if you would like to use it to see what Credo is like. :) 95% of anything you search returns almost nothing. There are a few areas with more coverage, but its all pretty well encyclopedia type information. I certainly don't want CREDO to think us ungreatful, because it is a wonderful gift of excellent value. I have not found a single editor with the account though that has been able to speak very positively about its content contribution potential, and really not exgerating when I am saying 95% of everything available from Credo is probably already on Wikipedia. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind using your account for half an hour to take a look around. You could change the password again afterwards, though I wonder if they'd cut you off if they saw a different IP address. :) I could ask Credo directly for a temp one, but I feel a bit awkward requesting it. But say no if you think it's not a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am emailing you now. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Since receiving my Credo account, I've written seven DYK articles and done preliminary research on at least five others, all on historically significant visual artists. In all cases but one, Credo found nothing. The successful search returned two results: one simple mention in a list, and one three-sentence description of a project. I certainly don't want to seem ungrateful, and I definitely assume that this will prove to be a valuable resource for some of my future articles, but people just shouldn't have overly high expectations. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles, that was helpful. I found it pretty good actually. I wasn't in long enough to do lots of searches, but I did find a lot of interesting material, particularly bios, just by looking around. Perhaps one good way to use it would be not to use search, but just to browse and write about what's there. I think Charles is right that it would be helpful for DYK. I saw quite a few women's bios too that we don't have on WP.

We can always write to Credo suggesting other reference works, so we shouldn't assume that what they have now is what they'll always have. I was hoping for the ODNB, but no joy. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful applicants from last time

Should we start this list with the people who didn't make it last time, i.e. 101–107? Or should we just make sure they're aware that it's about to open again? Or neither? They were (see Wikipedia:Credo accounts/Archive 1):

1. Karmela (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (primarily at hu:user:Karmela)
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Dandv (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Lithoderm 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
5. bamse (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
6. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
7. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not positive all these editors are still active. I know some are though.. Probably best to let them reconsider if they still want it and apply again. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am still active and interested in a Credo account. Hope to make it this time even though the timing is not ideal and I don't know whether I'll be close to a computer in two days. bamse (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Verification of eligibility

So I was thinking about verifying the eligibility. We have to rely on applicants self checking themselves for library access, we can't do that ourselves. Edit count and activity will be easy to check through tools, but verifying activity in the specific areas probably won't be so easy. We should probably make them include a link in their request showing where they meet one of the criterion (i.e. a link showing nomination of a GA, or link showing where they work in content review) That should make the process much easier.

Something like this:

1. Charles Edward (talk · contribs) [1]

We could probably review 400 applicants in one day pretty easily if they give us a plain link like that. Since I already have an account, I won't be an applicant, so I would be glad to review applicants for qualification. I was thinking me, and other editors, could over them one by one like this:

Applicants who don't have a link showing their area of qualification will be disqualified. Ones with questionable links will be contacted on their talk and given a chance to explain. As many people as want can apply, because potentially some of the top 400 won't qualify, so we will award the accounts to the next in line. What do you think? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing this part, Charles. I'll probably try to apply for an account, so I can't be involved in checking eligibility of other people. I'll add to the criteria that people not presenting links will be disqualified; and also the part about questionable links. Yes, I agree about the numbers; we should keep it open for the week even if we have more than 400. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Where when and how does one apply? Tks.  – Ling.Nut 16:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Date not decided yet, but we'll give 48 hours notice of the list opening, so people have time to gather their links and be available. Instructions on WP:CREDO. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've pencilled in 22:00 March 23, and I'll start putting out notices on mailing lists over the next day or so. One thing: do we definitely only want one sign-up page? I'm worried there will be horrible edit conflicts. Having more than one page will make it more complicated to set up, but might be less chaotic. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I imagine there will be edit conflicts no matter what we do. We will need to check the page history before running through the verification process I guess. Wikipedia probably don't support a form-submit solution. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it would help to avoid edit conflicts if we create several sections on the page for names to be added? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of edit conflicts - someone's going to have to go through and look for errors - like this one which removed Aschmidt (talk · contribs) from the list. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I put myself on the list again. However, I would like to say that the article count on the toolserver only seems to show my contributions to English Wikipedia, while I mainly write in German WP... so, this should be re-checked for non-English editors, please.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer?

Does being a reviewer count?Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A reviewer of what? Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, not peer review, i mean reviewing to prevent vandalism per WP:RG#Reviewing process. Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, do the demi-gods with that flag generally check on the accuracy of whatever it is that they're reviewing by looking for sources? Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

k, i thought so.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a reviewer, I was just asking. I've got very little idea of what it is that reviewers do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well its pretty clear per WP:RG#Purpose of reviewing. I actually wanted to ask those editors responsible for deciding who gets it.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you do when you're reviewing? Do you look for sources? Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Me, sources? well when its obvious vandalism then no. If im not sure and a little suspicious about the edits, then yeah sure I do. Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor who will be judging eligibility after the sign-up is over. To me a reviewer is anyone who has actively reviewed content at GAN and GAR, FAC and FAR, FLC and FLR, etc. That is they offer comments and advice, support or oppose nominations, etc. If you look at the critiera, you only have to be in a wikiproject to qualify, and have 3000 article edits over, and been active at least 12 months. That covers 75% of our active editors, IMO. Its not like these are hard requirements. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I qualify under that criteria and should be disqualified by virtue of having a userbox that declares I live somewhere where one can get Credo via the library. Lots of our editors have less than 12 months tenure and someone with 2,500 manual edits adding a lot of content may have done far more than someone with 10,000 of the gnomish edits that are my stock in trade. Also as wp:Reviewer is a defined term in WP jargon it is probably best not to use that term in either that sense or the one you were using. A record of adding or checking referenced content would be a better criteria IMHO. ϢereSpielChequers 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Eligibility links

I am an FL, GA and DYK contributor. To which page (article, review, or something else?) should I link in order to "establish my qualification"? Don't really understand the link in the "Example entry" of Charles Edward which links to this edit. bamse (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you just link to one of your GAs, or to evidence of involvement in whichever project it is, that'll be enough, bamse. This link would do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. bamse (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

lack ofdiscussion of the criteria

I do not think there has been adequate discussion of the criteria. I'd object to two parts of this.

1. Quite a number of active contributors deliberately avoid the article review processes, in some cases because of active disagreement with the way these processes are conducted. Quite of number of contributors also make a point of working with marginal articles, not ones that are already being well tended, and these need attention also. I recognize that the wording for alternatives makes some allowance for this, but it does not make allowances for those who work on articles, but outside of formal groups.
2. Much of the most important article writing is done by relatively new editors. A requirement for some significant time is possibly necessary to satisfy the donor, but 12 months is ridiculous. I suggest 3 months, but 6 would be a start at rationality. (If it is the donor who is insisting on 12 months, I'd be glad to help convince him otherwise, and I'd also suggest that the WMF has a policy about restrictive gifts.

(this is not meant to apply to me--I have access otherwise; I may possibly be on the original list, but if so, I should be removed from it as I do not need it.) More generally, there needs to be very broad consensus indeed before we start rationing resources on any basis other than random or first come first served. Everyone can edit is meaningful here also. I would suggest an alternative way: any bona fide editor can sign up, with access to be removed if not used for 2 consecutive months--the turnover should be sufficient as my experience as a librarian is that for resources such as this, about 20% of those with access will actually use it. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We couldn't discuss them endlessly, DGG, because a decision had to be made. We include involvement in FA, GA, FL, Peer review, DYK, Article rescue, unreferenced BLP rescue, the content-oriented wikiprojects, copyright clean-up -- and other-language equivalents. That covers an enormous number of editors. The involvement in these projects doesn't have to be overly formal. We just need to see evidence of steady content contribution.

The donor has insisted on nothing; the criteria were decided here, and the feeling was to provide an alternative process to the last donation, which was first come, first served only. There may be another one in future, where we can decide different criteria again. But people have already been informed of this one, and we can't change horses mid-stream. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I do, however, think DGG has a good point about turnover. Is it possible to remove people who are not using their access and substitute others? It may be it will prove difficult to work out who is using it and who is not, but a start would be asking everyone who has access if they still need it, and repeating the question at regular intervals. Also removing anyone who's not been editing in (say) three months.--Scott Mac 10:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

With the last distribution, we've not been able to find a way to reassign accounts from inactive editors to active ones. This is why we are trying to make sure they get to active long term editors. I do agree it would have been nice to have a longer discussion about the criteria, but this topic was ongoing for over a week, and published on the appropriate irc channels, but no one else seemed to get involved - and I know this page is on the watch list of many editors. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also in response to DGG - the content review process is just one entry, being a member of a WikiProject, or article patrollers, etc, is also a form of eligibility. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ask Credo after this distribution how we re-assign inactive accounts. I know that during the sign-up process for the last distribution, editors were told by the company in an email what to do if they stopped using them. We have to be careful not to make any process so time-consuming that the company wishes it had never made the donation. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder

why this availability has not been communicated to other projects than the English wikipedia. When something is requested, the WMF hurries to ask for translations. When something is available for increasing the quality of the contents of whatever project... no communication at all. Sad. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It was posted at least at meta:Wikimedia Forum and meta:Meta:Babel that I know of. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes efforts were made to publish it elsewhere. The source material is of course in English, so that does diminish it value to non-English speaking editors.. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

well, as last time, it had been announced on de.wp (see) and there were, of course, debates about the english-centered character but no substantial criticism, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of English-centered criticism. It's just a question of whether the WMF works for all the projects or just for some (or one) of them (of course I'm not critizising the organizers of this page here, as no equivalent in meta exists). However, the true fact is that as far as we know, the availability of the accounts was made public on March 15. Since then, no serious effort has been done (beyond the German Wikipedia) to make it sure that as many as possible interested wikipedians (regardless of their mother tongue) are aware of such an availability (being in English is not an issue in itself; all the projects regularly translate content from the English wikipedia finding sources in English that cannot be verified).

IMHO, it's not a question of Anglocentrism, but a pure Wikimedia governance issue. To make a comparison, when translations are requested by the WMF (for the donation campaign) a sustainable effort is done to guarantee that all the village pumps receive a communication. Has it been done now? No. There's only one day left and nobody is able to say which projects have been noticed about this. However, the process continues. Moreover, I don't see why this page is hosted in the English Wikipedia and not in meta (with appropriate notices to as many as possible projects). --Ecemaml (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All projects can subscribe to the IRC channel for the subject. I don't think there is any purposeful attempt to deny the other languages access. Given our limited resources, I think we (SlimVirgin) made a fair attempt to get the word out. I don't know all the details behind the donation, but I suspect Credo expected the donation to be to the English Wikipedia. Things don't start until tommorrow, so if we are concerned the word is not out, what you guys doing to help get it out? I certainly am unaware of any universal wikimedia forum to post the notice other than the places it is already placed. If you have a list of places you think it should be advertised, then lets advertise it there. There is still plenty of time. I also suspect Credo will likely continue to make a regular donation of accounts, seeing that this is not the first time they have done so. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Several central mailing lists were alerted, including Wikipedia-l and Foundation-l. The hope is that editors there will spread the word further themselves, as I see happened on the German Wikipedia, and which I assume is happening elsewhere too. Bear in mind that this is an English-language resource, so most of the editors interested in it are likely to be active to some degree on the English Wikipedia. But if anyone wants to suggest further places to alert, please post the links here and I'll do my best (and any help with that would be much appreciated). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, when donations are needed, there are plenty of resources to visit every village pump in order to get volunteers for the translation work. I suggest that next time, just IRC channel and mailing list is used for such requests. On the other hand, I've left a message in the village pumps of the Basque, Catalan and Galician wikipedias. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just notified the French speaking village pump. --Anneyh (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for doing that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled

I was one of those that signed up to this first batch. I don't recall ever hearing anything about it subsequently until now. My email is, and always has been enabled. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You were number 13, so you should have received an account. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts/Archive 1. Do you still want one? If so, I can ask what happened. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. I do a lot of mainspace work. --Dweller (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that and let you know. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the fact that I just missed the 100 (IIRC) cutoff point for the last free handout give me any points for this one?  – Ling.Nut 00:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Life sucks. Unfortunately it's too early in the day to drown my sorrows in beer. However, I can still look forward to a sundowner this evening. :-)  – Ling.Nut 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure you're on the ball for 22:00 tomorrow, and that you have your diffs ready (link to article contribs, and link to FAs, or whatever evidence you want to use). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's late here, so I'll have one for you. Cheers! (Nice to see you back Ling.Nut) Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Malleus: I like to throw a splash of whiskey in my beer, whenever the wife isn't looking. Remember that if you ever see me in a pub anywhere... As for Credo: The problem is this: If people accept that I'm Ling.Nut, then I'm well qualified. See me at WP:WBFAN; check my edit count, see my many many many crits at FA and fewer (but still many, if you look over the past 3 or four years) crits at GAN. But... if people don't accept that I'm Ling.Nut, then I am a poor sad sack n00b who needs to go home and learn how to make a wikilink. :-(  – Ling.Nut 00:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles Edward will be checking eligibility, so he's the person you need to convince. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks. I'll ask him to email me from the Ling.Nut acct. That still works, even though the "email new password" button doesn't.  – Ling.Nut 00:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is a Credo 250 account?

Right now, their site only lists "Credo 100" and "Credo Premium" subscriptions. Checking the Google cache, it seems they used to have the "Credo 250" on there. That type of account lets the user pick 250 titles and gives them access to those.

But as I can't find any mention of that now, are we sure these are still 250 accounts they're donating? Also, do these ever expire? Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of them expiring—though we're going to explore how to transfer accounts not being used—but I don't know the answer to whether it's a different kind of account this time. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had my account over one year, so they at least last that long. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sooners

So are the 5 people who jumped the gun and signed between unprotection and the actual start time still eligible? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• My clock said it was Go time. All done in good faith. • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed, happy to AGF. Hope a couple of those folks remember to add links to their contributions like the instructions asked, though. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, I admit, I was one minute early, and then, to make matters worse, came back a minute later to make sure my sig said I was bang on time. My mistake, my problem with the clock on my Mac, the news on my TV starting a bit too soon, etc, my apologies for all of it. If this causes my application to be overruled, that's fine by me and I apologise unreservedly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
      • This was an attempt at levity, not a serious suggestion that there was a problem, just in case the smiley in my comment doesn't give it away to all concerned. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Certainly worked in drawing out the guilty conscious amongst us! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Hey, I was raring to go and when I saw the "edit" button I jumped! :p --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

refactoring the spaghetti

• Oh, someone will have to wait until the early rush dies down, then refactor all that mess, paying attention to the article history. Pain in the neck. :-) • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It says "sign up has ended" at the top. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Managed to fix that. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Joe. I was afraid to jump in. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's already settled down. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't refactor until hours from now. There's a chance you'll erase someone's bid if they add it while you are editing. In fact, speaking very strictly, there isn't really any need to refactor at all: just use the history as your list. But.... probably... refactoring eventually would be a Good Thing. Eventually. • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• You could do it as simply as removing the subheaders, ordering within the first 400 entries won't matter in the least. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• No you can't. I was #2, but #1 is many people below me. Adding the Breaks before they were needed didn't work out that well... oh wait, you said ordering the first 400 doesn't matter. Mmm, you are probably right, although it may matter for 390–400 when disputes arise... • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, you have to refactor before there are 400 total entries, likely, but that looks like it's not going to be trouble. After you refactor this way, then people have to add to the list one at a time, but new entries have already slowed down a bunch. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I just removed the first break, but now I regret it. I'm not gonna disturb it further... • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  Just blame me.  :) Seriously, I'm pretty sure it's fine. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I added the breaks in case there was a mad rush and lots of edit conflicts, but maybe they weren't needed. Once things settle down we can restore chronological order using the page history. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd imagine the exact chronology only matters for entries in the high 300s or low 400s.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I mentioned it above in #Verification of eligibility, but so it doesn't get overlooked: even with your breaks someone does need to check the early edits for odd results of edit conflicts - I happened to notice one which removed an editor from the list (they readded themselves since, but there may be other occurences). I suppose that could be done at the same time of reordering everybody chronologically. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah well, then (my form of) refactoring doesn't actually help. C'est la vie. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please DO remove those breaks

If the removal of breaks were done properly it would leave a single numbered list. (If the joined numbering somehow turned out not to be chronological, that could be managed in later processing.) People would then know where to add themselves, and they could see at a glance how close the total is to 400. There is NO explanation of the breaks on the page as it now stands!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for fixing it SlimV. (I was wrong: there was an explanation; but I didn't find it myself, and others were confused also.) –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Done. I added the breaks because I anticipated more demand and edit conflicts, but they've turned out to be annoying and unnecessary, so they're gone. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a bit confusing, it's much better now. Just draw a line after it reaches 400. Then there's no need to worry about the first 400. You only have to make sure that anything after 400 is first come first served (should there be any leftover from the first 400). – SMasters (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Lost entries?

I added myself just before 'Break 3' at 22:08 yesterday but my name is not in the current list. Was there a slip in the refactoring or have I been deemed ineligible? I could simply re-add myself now but I'm concerned that other entries may also have been lost. --Qwfp (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I counted 63 before the line breaks were removed, and there were still 63 after. So, I don't think any were lost, but I'm not sure what happened to your entry. – SMasters (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it was accidentally wiped out in an edit conflict on the next edit. I've restored Qwfp's entry to its original position, but the list should be checked for other such incidents. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just looked through the first two hours of signup and didn't see any lost entries except this one and the other one I reported earlier (which has also been rectified). That should take care of all of the high-likelihood edit conflict damage. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I looked as well, creating two tables that compared edits in hist to signups. I didn't spot any problems. • Ling.Nut (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on criteria

Did I get the criteria right? Do only edits in the main of all language editions count? --Anneyh (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it very tough that the criteria moved from 500 last year to 3000 this year (I'm about 600 below, but I need 4-5 months to get there)! Will somebody check the contributions later or should we already warn people? --Anneyh (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will go over all the entries and confirm eligibility after the signup closes. If there are less than 400 eligible, then the remainder will go to people on the secondary list. Because there is no known way to reassign the accounts, we are trying to get them to our longest term and dedicated users, since it is most likely they will continue to remain active for a long period of time. However, signup is slowing down. I personally believe we may not have 400 very active contributors on this project anymore.. Side note: it seems fairly likely to me that Credo will donate accounts again, and more editors will be able to apply then who don't qualify now. :( We shall see. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I checked, two users in the "main" list do not fulfill the criteria because they have more than 3000 edits but not in the main. Can somebody crosscheck [2] and Cuerden?

My comment was also heading into the direction that at the stage Wikipedia may need more editors, the criteria are not very welcoming. --Anneyh (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid our editor retention and attraction problem runs is due to problems that are a lot more ingrained into the very fabric of the project rather than this purpose of this page. :) I will go over all the applicants when the signup closes to verify eligibility, and anyone is welcome to double check my work. Editors who do not meet the criteria will be moved to the secondary list. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wikimeda

Right now it's a requirement that you only qualify, if you intend to use Credo for Wikipedia. In my opinion, access to credo will also help active contributors in other projects, like Wikiquote. It would be great to have access to quotation-dictionaries and add to the quality of the projects.

Therefore, may I suggest to open the application to users who intend to use the Credo access for any Wikimedia Project? As there seem to be plenty of licenses left, I thin a "change on the go" would not harm much. Best regards --Hei ber (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• This doesn't effect me personally, but I support this proposed change. (Not sure if there's value for Commons contributors, but I definitely see value for Wikiquotes, Wikisource, and probably other projects). cmadler (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• • I am partially involved in both of those projects, and I have a Credo account. I don't think Credo would be of much use for Commons. I think there is only very limited value for wikiqoute of wikisource. (There is also very limited value for wikipedia). The majority of information available from credo is already on wikipedia. There are only narrow areas, IMO, that will be useful for creating new content. The primary value of this donation will be to content reviewers. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

When...

...do the tell if you got the account or not? Are they going to send the people who got it an email? мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can check back here when done to make sure you confirmed eligible. In the last donation, it took about three weeks before Credo emailed account information to all the recipients. It just depends on how quickly we can go over the list and get the foundation to send the data to Credo. But yes, you will get a email notification with account info at some point. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

the last twelve months

• Just noticed the "last twelve months" bit and am very strongly tempted to cry foul. Looks like the qualifications were added all in one blow here. Why was this item added? Was this bit discussed at length anywhere, or just kinda accepted with a shrug because it seems harmless on the face of it? What problem is it attempting to address, or what problem population is it attempting to target? Does it directly address the perceived problem? Looking forward to further posts. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the criteria was discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts#Suggested_criteria. As we have discussed at a several points on this page, I understand the primary reason for this to be that there is no known way to reassign accounts. So if we grant the accounts to a user who then leaves the project or is rarely active, then that account is lost to us. By establishing a requirement for long term editing patterns, we are ensuring these accounts go to our most dedicated users, who have the best potential of remaining here for years to come. I have also stated that I personally believe Credo will continue to donate accounts one a somewhat regular basis. It was about one year ago that they last donated accounts. So editors who may not qualify now, may quality later. Additionally, at present rate, it seems unlikely to me that this list is going reach 400 entries by our deadline for signup next week. If that is the case, then we will be pulling names off the secondary list for editors who do not meet the criteria. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

Ling, the point was to make sure the accounts go to editors who've been active recently (not counting short wikibreaks, which are fine), to avoid giving accounts to people who were active for 12 months five years ago. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo cat

Possibly creating a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library would be useful here? sonia♫ 08:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes thats a pretty good idea! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Created as Category:Wikipedians who have access to Credo. sonia♫ 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

This sounds really useful, especially to me as I am going to need this for all the Insect orders and other insect related toics I work with. However, how long until I get an e-mail? Maybe someone can elaborate for me. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging from #When... above, it will probably be a few weeks. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But am I eligible? I was also inactive for almost a year, and only started editing a few months ago again (editing a lot, with 300 edits in some days). Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As of right now we are no where near 400 applicants, so far every person on the page is going to get an account. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Any plan on what to do with the excess? Extend the deadline of one week, relax the requirements or ...? bamse (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Find more editors whose focus is on writing articles instead of drama-mongering to get their admin badge might be a good place to start. What this exercise has demonstrated quite well I think is that rather few of wikipedea's hundreds of thousand of editors are interested in adding content, so they don't see the need for access to reliable sources. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, this is one heck of a eye opener to anyone caring to see it. We are basically offering free candy to children, and we have less than 300 takers.. I think this demonstrates just how few truelly active and regular editors we have. :( A direct result of our declining numbers and the refusal of the community to come to grips with some of the long standing cultural and governance issues (IMO). I am not sure what to do with the extras. I guess we can discuss that afterwards. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we aren't getting the message out, I only found this out because a saw it on someones talk page by random. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the message was not put out very widely. I'll put a link at some WikiProjects I frequent, now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it up on mine. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do the same on mine. bamse (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It was in the village pump, meta forums, irc channels, the signpost even carried an article, it was published on all the content review pages, mainpage content processes.. Anyone involved in a serious area of wikipedia should have been able to see a notice about the accounts. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, not sure whether I am "involved in a serious area of wikipedia", but I don't usually follow these wikipedia (general) news channels but rather discussion pages of articles and wikiprojects (which are more focused on what I actually do on wikipedia). Possibly that's the case for other editors as well. I only knew about the present round of 400 accounts since I had watchlisted the old (100 accounts) round. bamse (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly believe those who are most important are the regular-everyday, Wikipedians who need these refs the most, and none that i know use those are go on there. And all those are part of Wikiprojects, as they specialize in certain areas. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, my point is that there are just not that many regular-everday editors anymore. Anyone whos been around here awhile must surely see the decline. A large number of the wikiprojects have gone inactive, participation in all the review processes is way down, the rate of article creation is continuing to decline, average daily edits are continuing to decline, etc. And here we are giving out free access to source material, and we can't even turn up 200 editors!? Scary. [3][4] [5]. 90% of editors make only marginally useful contributions. Almost all content comes from 10% of our editors. At present, the average new editor will only be active for eight months. We are loosing editors somewhere around 1.2 for each 1 gained. We are looking at this project being down to a bare skeleton editor and admin force within the next year and half, that is to say the tipping point will have been reached, and at that point, the gradual but accelerating collapse of Wikipedia will occur without radial reform. I digress though, this discuss is for another forum. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I only found out about this because someone dropped a note where I happened see it outside of Wikipedia, and I consider myself a "serious editor". Just my two cents. - PKM (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It was advertised widely -- on several mailing lists, wikiprojects, community pages, IRC, Signpost, Meta. People who see it are then expected to tell others, including their own wikiprojects, so that the news spreads. It can't be left to one or two people to do this, because then we're asked "why did you post here, and not there?" The idea was that we'd get the ball rolling, then it's up to others. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it would get more attention if a notice was put on the list of important stuff on the top of people's watchlists. I have no idea how that is done, but that's how I would have expected to find out about this. (Instead, I saw the MfD for this page). --E♴(talk) 02:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can perhaps look into how to do that; or if someone else does, that's fine too. One thing we have to watch is that the more the people who organized this advertise it on the English Wikipedia, the more we're criticized for excluding other languages. So it's better if individual Wikipedians are spreading the news themselves. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I first spotted this on the Signpost, then put it on my Twitter/Facebook, then blogged about it, then notified some Italian wikiprojects about it, but only a few users showed up until I wrote about it at the local VP. So, it.wiki knew :) and nobody is to blame. You just have to find the right place, which might be highly different from one wiki to another. Also, I think the requirements played a role in that they left out students and other people who already have access from their library, university and so on; without it, 400 would have not been enough. --Elitre (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting people know about it, Elitre. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I plugged this at WP:GOCE and WP:GAN. Perhaps you want to put something at FAC as well. – SMasters (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading contribs link for non-English Wikipedians

I notice that many Wikipedians who are mainly active in non-English Wikipedias are using the {{user2|User name}} template when signing in the list, which gives their contribs in the English Wikipedia, which is not helpful in such cases... Gestumblindi (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be better for them to link directly to their edits in the edit counter here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed (the counter link provided by the template is also for the English WP). By the way, I was never a friend of edit counters or giving much weight to edit counts (in any context), as they don't reflect people's individual editing style. Some people are in the habit of carefully preparing whole, long, very good articles off-line, on their own computer, and then uploading them - the result is one edit. Others create the article online, starting with a stub and expanding it through lots of edits - 100 edits for the same result. This makes edit counts not very meaningful IMHO. I know editors with tens of thousands of article namespace edits who have contributed a lot less substance to Wikipedia than some with only a few hundred. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit counter's for all languages. You fill in the shortcut for your language (e.g. fr), which are listed at the end of the page. Then your user name. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know :-). What I meant is that the direct link provided by the template here leads to the English counter. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to link to the edit counter without there being an example language. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, English seems to be the default language. No big matter, anyway, I suppose... Gestumblindi (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It should not be an issue if further links are provided: please check my request and see if I'm right. I also agree with Gestumblindi about the number of edits requirement. --Elitre (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Deadline today - Questions

Since today is our deadline for sign-up, (which is just a few hours away), and we only have about 250 takers, how shall we proceed? Perhaps someone should contact the foundation for guidance. Would they prefer we wait until we have 400 takers to move forward, or are they willing to work with two separate batches? If they will not, then we should probably wait until we have 400 takers to proceed. We could go ahead and start verifying eligibility of the current group of applicants immediately though. Thoughts anyone? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

People have had plenty of time to respond, and the deadline has been clearly noted since the page was opened. It seems to me that it would make sense to proceed with those that have applied within the time period, and then deal with the rest later. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are another about 50 potential takers in the last section of the page. Regards SoWhy 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one week was enough: I also thought they would be all over in a couple of days, and was so wrong. Nobody can't be sure that extending the deadline would make sure that all the 400 accounts are requested, surely not in a predictable amount of time, so I guess 300 is fine, but don't know anything about the actual "deal" between Credo and en.wiki. --Elitre (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My thinking is that we should close it and keep the remaining 100 accounts for another time, with different eligibility, or simply first-come, first-served. That's assuming Credo allows us to do that. I'll check to make sure. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Based on the comments, I've closed sign-up. I am working through the list here: Wikipedia:Credo accounts/verification to confirm eligibility. Since we didn't assign all accounts, I beleive we will give everyone who applied an account, unless they are grossly underqualified. (ie a new editor with few edits). I will post back once I've finished, hopefully later today. Anyone is welcome to double check my work. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo advises that their preference is stick with the 300 applications we have now (or had at closing time). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, one week was just for en.wikipedia users or few more wikis. The advertisement appeared on it.wiki just 3 days ago (and for this I have to thank Elitre, because without her interesting no people from it.wiki would have been informed about this occasion and nobody would have signed on the list). --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 17:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are users from the it wiki who applied on the first day, at least two that I've came across so far. So word did reach someone there from the beginning. The first couple days also had editors from the spanish, german, french, basque, and gl (not sure what language that is), wikis.—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Galician language. Regards SoWhy 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

May be they heard it casually. :-) --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 18:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I heard it casually and warned the Spanish, Catalan, Basque and Galician wikipedias. At the same time I complained (see above) about the lack of interest of the WMF about spreading the news about the availability of CREDO accounts (in sharp contrast with the efforts put when donations are required). --Ecemaml (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I got the first 100 verified, I noted a couple odd ones. I've been busier today that I anticipated. I hope to check the rest within the next day or so. If anyone else who is not on the list would like to assist in verification, you are more than welcome to do so! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles, I'm not sure how you have it set up, but it appears that there is an entire range missing from Wikipedia:Credo accounts/verification. You have 1- 100, then a duplication of 1-100, then it skips to 201-300. 101-200 is missing entirely.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Already reported ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I have verified eligibility of all applicants. I have removed those who applied after closing. We have exactly 300 applicants to submit to Credo if we include the 50 additional. We will have to wait for more word from Credo before we can offer accounts again. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Charles. I'll send it off. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just seen this - am I too late?

joopercoopers (talk · contribs · count) and mcginnly (talk · contribs · count) Responsible for, among others, FA's such as IG Farben building and Deconstructivism. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jooper, sorry you missed it. If there's another distribution, I'll make sure you're told about it directly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What would be the point of excluding late-comers when even after all those in the "Additional names" section have been considered there are more than enough accounts left? I hope we haven't become a bureaucracy that wastes donated resources for the sake of process. Hans Adler 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no wasted resources. Everyone who signed within the deadline will get an account, and for anyone who said here that they narrowly missed it, I'll make sure they know about any future distribution early on. In addition there are people from the first distribution who aren't using their accounts, or who would like to hand them to someone else, and I'm hoping we can arrange some redistribution there. There's quite a lot to juggle, so the fairest thing is to stick to whatever deadlines were announced. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am more than happy to share my Credo account with JC. Giacomo Returned 19:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very decent of you Giano, thanks. When I stop wandering the cyber-wilderness, I'll give you a buzz. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So will you now review the additional requests section?

By my count there are still about 100 available accounts after all the qualifying requests were awarded. Will there now be a process for evaluating the 50 or so non qualifying requests? Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the comments above correctly, those 50 were included in the mail to Credo (since those were all experienced editors as far as I can see). Slim wrote that they sent 300 names to Credo but only 250 signed as qualifying. Regards SoWhy 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad. It is not my fault though. I was a math major in college so I shouldn't be expected to be able to do difficult things like counting and adding :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Has the account detail emailed?

I haven't gotten any emails regarding accounts. Have they been sent out? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how long it will take, but I understand the Foundation has started the process, so it shouldn't be too long. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The following users don't appear to have email addresses set: User:Dysmorodrepanis, User:Jrcla2, User:Libertarianrule, User:Panotxa. All the remaining users should get e-mails (unless their addresses bounce) later this week; I'll send off the list to Credo for processing now and will post here about any bounces. SV, can you help notify the aforementioned users and any others I'll list here? Thanks,--Eloquence* 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik, I'll let them know, and ask them to set an email address in their preferences. I'll do the same for any others you list here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Credo president John Dove tells me that it may take another two weeks or so for the accounts to be emailed out, due to a lot of book fair activity right now. I'll ping him in a couple of weeks if I don't hear an update before then.--Eloquence* 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

Thanks for the update! --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will those that are ineligible but would like access to Credo get an account? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:44pm • 07:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As per SV above: Everyone who signed within the deadline will get an account. --Elitre (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Eloquence, was starting to worry as I haven't had an email yet!--5 albert square (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was starting to worry too, thanks Eloquence.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Have the details been emailed yet? I haven't received mine and am starting to worry.--5 albert square (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not received them, and am watching this page for an indication that someone else has received theirs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto here. I suspect there will be posts here when the emails do arrive. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering of there are any updates. It is now May and I have not had any emails about this. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

See SlimVirgin's comment below ("by the end of the first week of May"). Maybe just a couple of more days patience. bamse (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that, thanks. – SMasters (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

400 Accounts? List closed?

On the front page I cannot see registrants from 301 to 399. Why is the list closed now? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Only 250 registered who were eligible signed up. There is no 301–399. The list is closed because there was a timeframe for applicants to sign up. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The list was open for seven days (as announced several days before it opened) at the end of which there were 250 applicants, and 50 names on the secondary list in case there were accounts left over. The company chose to close the list at that point as arranged, and distribute 300 accounts. I'm hoping we can also re-distribute some of the accounts from the first round last year that aren't being used anymore, but I don't know whether it will be worth the trouble to the company. I'll ask about it once this batch of accounts has been allocated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I had conjunctivitis for a week, did not even know this was available, any chance we can get a list going for people who did not get the chance to apply due to not being around when it was announced? (Plus I had a blown graphics card and have only just found out about it a month later!) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can try to redistribute some accounts from people no longer using theirs (from last year), but I'd like to get this distribution out of the way first, so as not to burden the company further. Once that's done, I'll ask them about it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Update

Just a note to let everyone know that Credo have been busier than usual because of the Spring Book Fair, but say they expect to have the accounts set up by the end of the first week of May. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, it's appreciated :)--5 albert square (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, yep, no rush. Thanks to Credo for being generous, thanks to SV for the update, thanks to everyone else for their patience. Oscar moment over. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Retired thing on my Talk page is only mostly true. I'm still here and will use the acct for on-wiki stuff, although it's true that I probably will only be marginally active for a good long while (several months). • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, you may want to update your talk page to {{semi-retired}}, so the impression that you're occasionally editing actually is true. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just saying, no rush, I have not received anything yet. --Elitre (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's not just my ISP being silly and "protecting" me from e-mails I want; I was worried for a moment. I could really use this, especially if it lets me see RIBA materials . . . Yngvadottir (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is a charitable donation, I'm reluctant to try to rush them, and setting up such a large number of accounts may be quite a bit of work, but I'll ask again in a few days if we've heard nothing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't! The email is here at last! --Elitre (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)