Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/The DGG discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Back to Main page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFC redux

[edit]

Rather than clog up ANI, I'd like to offer some responses to your last post there, specifically the Some things can never be done section:

  • Consistency in reviewing standards, any more than there is consistency in AfD. Every editor at WP is basically free to do what they like, and we have no way of asserting authority except in gross deviations. I fundamentally disagree. Without some consistency, we might as well pack up the AFC project and go home. We should not need to assert authority to ensure some consistency: this isn't a schoolroom. Editors who see reviewers diverging too much from a standard ought to be able to raise a concern in a collegial way, and discuss it. It works for CSD, closing discussions, etc.
  • Since we make the rules, we can interpret them however a consensus may please ... The only alternative is deciding content by a top-down hierarchy, or a dictator. Both can be done, but neither would be Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines, many of which have been sufficiently refined to admit of little interpretation - no local consensus will prevail against those in the long run. As for top-down/dictatorship, WP:FAC was run like that for years.

More importantly, we somehow need to get greater engagement of reviewers with new editors if AFC is going to be successful. I just saw an exchange between a new editor and a reviewer that prompted me to look at the history of the draft in question. The draft is about Music rehearsal spaces, a topic that will never be a huge article, but ought to be sufficiently sourceable to either create a new article or to make a decent section of a parent article.

The draft starts with a load of references and not much content. It is declined for the first time because "You have added too many references for a short paragraph. Read WP:CITEKILL for more details. Also, you need to demonstrate notability of the subject involved".

So the editor sets about trimming out some of the references and adding more content. Eventually it is declined for the second time because "This article seems to branch out to too many topics. Listing individual rehearsal spaces is definitely out of scope. What it means to musicians does not belong here because that is WP:SYNTH. Music education is an entirely other topic. Think about what you want to say about rehearsal space and only the space."

First, too little content; now too much. So the editor asks the reviewer for help: "I have recently edited my declined submission following reviewers' reasons for not accepting it. I am new to wikipedia so hope I have done the right thing. I was wondering if reviewers could simply remove passages they felt did not meet the criteria."

Here's the response: "Bandspace, sometimes it is possible to just remove some extraneous paragraphs and "fix" an article, but often it would require a whole re-write. Given that there are often around 600-800 articles waiting to be reviewed, we wouldn't get far if we spent hours on each article. So the work reverts to the creator -- it's discouraging, but we hope it also is a good learning experience."

But the editor isn't learning anything, good or bad. They chop the draft down by 90% to address the "too many topics". It is now declined for the third time because "Submission is a dictionary definition".

How is the AFC process intended to terminate? As far as I can see, the 600-800 draft backlog will just recirculate the same drafts among reviewers when the editors aren't given sufficient help to improve the draft, either by a reviewer or by other editors who may have the expertise to help out. The only way that terminates is when the editor becomes so discouraged that they give up. Surely that's not the experience we want for new editors? It's little wonder we have had so much difficulty in recruiting them. I wonder if I could ask Kudpung, who was one of the originators of AFC, and Dennis Brown, who has spent so much time looking at editor recruitment and retention, if they concur with my concerns here? --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I've published a version of it, at Music rehearsal space, so that the community can work collaboratovely to develop it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • I could have said it more briefly: reviewing articles requires human judgement. All humans are imperfect, Therefore there will inconsistencies and errors.

To elaborate on this: My estimate of the current error rateat AfD is about 5 % in each direction (this doesn't just mean ones I disagree with, but probably erroneous results) Any process for accepting articles based on whether they will passA fD, even if done perfectly, will have at least an equal error rate. But if it is done as imperfectly as AfD, the error rate will be double, presumably 10% in each direction. But reviews are done by individuals not group consensus, so the rate will be higher yet. I would be surprised if we could ever do better than 20%.

Fortunately there is already in existence effective ways to reduce that rate: articles improperly accepted should be caught at NPP just like article inserted directly. Article declined incorrectly, if submitted multiple times, get different reviewers. I think we are already at about 10% error in the overall process, and there no real possibility of ever going below 5% , because that's the error of our final decision making process.
Anyone can easily find individual errors; I find some every time I look (but when I review I am primarily looking for errors). They do not prove anything about the overall process. Their analysis however can often correct specific faults. The purpose of my checking reviews at AfC is both to rescue or delete individual articles, and to identify reviewers who are not doing it properly. Many simply need help, or reminders, and I provide it. Some need a warning, and if necessary to be told to stop working on the project until they know more,. This usually works: I do it, and so does Kudpung. Instructing people is a slow process and can take years. People improve slowly, not by a radical conversion. The difficulty is when experienced people insist on doing it wrong. It is very difficult here to challenge them on this, but even a challenge where they are defended usually does influence them to change a little. WP has no real defense against stubborn experienced people who do things wrong but with technical skill.
  • As for other points.
It is not a circular process: eventually a draft will either get accepted, get speedy deleted for a reason other than G13, get deleted for G13, or submitted so many times without improvement that it will go to MfD, where it will either be deleted or get some attention. I can prove it works: we did clear out a backlog 10 times the current size, so we will eventually clear these also.
It does not take hours to rewrite an article so it passes AfD. For anything ordinary, it takes me between half and hour and an hour, provided I can find references in available sources. What does take hours is bringing articles to G, let alone FA., which is why the overwhelming majority of our articles are not at that standard. The justification for fixing them just enough to pass afd, is that they will get improved further in mainspace, as does any other article, , unless they are too obscure to interest anyone. This is the normal and desired method of working on articles in WP.
The problem of giving advice to new users will be greatly simplified when we remove those giving bad advice to new users. To clear that up--to explain to the user, to explain to the reviewer, to rewrite the article because the user is getting pretty frustrated by that point--that;swhat takes the time.
There's a related problem making this all worse: the majority of incoming AfCs are from undeclared promotional editors. If we could deal with them effectively, there would be much less trouble. This will take multiple approaches: one is to get agreement about what articles are not worth rewriting or defending, so we don't have to fight over marginal situations. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a comprehensive reply, DGG. I must say I don't disagree with your observations, but I'm not sure I can be so optimistic about the efficiency of AFC. Perhaps some 'blue sky' thinking might help? What are the chances of building in a 'second opinion' referral system for the reviewers (not the submitters)? What if a reviewer had a way of quickly alerting an active WikiProject to an article that they could help with? Anne Delong regularly drops a note to WT:WikiProject Medicine by hand, asking for advice or help on a draft she's found. I hope she would tell you how useful that has proved to be. Could we semi-automate that and roll it out to reviewers? What if a reviewer could call on another experienced editor - maybe an admin - to confirm a decision to delete a draft, if it was judged irretrievably lacking in notability (like Dr Ashwin Porwal above). That could potentially short-circuit the "eventually a draft will either get accepted, get speedy deleted for a reason other than G13, get deleted for G13, or submitted so many times without improvement that it will go to MfD, where it will either be deleted or get some attention". There's always REFUND if the submitter found some new sources. Can you think of other ways we could involve more reviewers in the process? Categorise drafts by subject area (like GA?) and invite subject specialists to join in on the reviewing process? --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, Andy and anyone else following here, I didn't actually have any part in the creation of AfC. I registered in 2006 but didn't start actively editing until I retired in 2008. I got interested in NPP when one of my very early articles was wrongly deleted and WereSpielChequers and I were discussing the monumental 70,000 backlog at NPP. AfC was started in 2007 ostensibly as a reaction to the January 2006 rule restricting the creation of articles in mainspace to registered users (proving, BTW, that WP is organic and that future necessary controls are theoretically possible).
DGG and RexxS are both correct from their different angles. I've worked for years now with DGG on the issues surrounding AfC and NPP, where his focus is more on the problems of AfC and mine more on NPP, but the two systems overlap significantly. I also share RexxS's experience in didactics and therefore enjoy every opportunity to facilitate or co-facilitate editathons. We all realise however, how challenging it can be to instruct new users whether on or offline, and to do so without losing one's patience. The fundamental difference between NPP and AfC is that NPP with aroud 1,000 articles a day is front-line triage where AfC with 150 a day is more of a field hospital. I won't say that at NPP we are callous, but the 'patients' at AfC get a bit more LCA - at least until they just become exasperating. A couple of years ago, DGG and I also worked on the project to rewrite all our warning and deletion templates in a move to make them less bitey.
Knowing RexxS's interest in editor education, I was disappointed that he could no come to Esino and share my efforts to convince the WMF that it is time the Foundation agree to investing in engineer time to complete and perfect some core MediaWiki systems that were already under development 5 years ago, but which the Foundation now regrets having not followed through. Unfortunately the Foundation has (or had) a policy of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted but the volunteer community is now sick and tired of cleaning up after their mistakes for them.
The good news is that (tentatively) the foundation is now looking at ways to improve the methods that are used throughout the movement to control the quality of new content, but obviously we can't expect anything to happen overnight. Very basically, the goal is to merge the functions of AfC and NPP and demand higher levels of knowledge and judgement of those who do he reviewing. More detailsaAt recent threads at WT:AfC, and I may be soon offering the Signpost an op-ed on the broader subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I was pinged...... I still see the one of the problems of draft and AFC is that they are not mainspace and therefore they don't attract the collaborative editing that can make Wikipedia enjoyable. This is exacerbated by AFC patrollers being able to decline articles in effect because in their judgement they would fail AFD. This is the equivalent of making "in my judgement would fail AFD" a speedy deletion criteria and then unbundling deletion to everyone who is autoconfirmed. My solution would be to combine draft, AFC and NPP together and have unpatrolled being "no index", better still make unpatrolled articles only visible to those who are logged in. That way you take the urgency out of New page patrol, reduce the speedy deletion criteria to just G3, G7, G10, G11 and G13, but you can reasonably start requiring every new article to have an independent neutral source before it gets patrolled and is visible to those not logged in. ϢereSpielChequers 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood the WMF response to ACCTRIAL -- Kudpung please confirm if I have it right -- they insisted that all new logged-in users must be able to immediately create articles. I do not know whether this implies that the articles must immediately be visible to to everyone, even if not logged in. I hope they did not mean to prohibit limiting new users to creating articles in DRAFT space, where they would be NOINDEX, because this is exactly what Kudpung and I intend to propose.And your suggestion of combining the NPP, AFC, and DRAFT processes is also our intention, though I do not know which of us came up with this obvious idea first. There's also a problem with userspace drafts, where all sorts of junk is hidden. (Personally, I'd eliminate them or automatically move anything that looks like an article to DRAFT space) )
As a separate issue, The community in the past rejected requiring new pages to have a reference, except for BLPs, and not even they are now required to have an independent neutral source--and I do not see how we could enforce that before patrolling, rather than as part of patrolling. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Also Kudpung) The ticket in question. My experience with Phab indicates that to tell the difference between a WMF veto and a developer veto is not straightforward. Some of the concerns raised would be adequately addressed by an auto-redirect of the added article to AfC space and some may not. Probably the best way would be to establish clear community consensus and then see if the developers are willing - we probably won't land in trouble for merely asking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jo-Jo, and all the others who are perhas now asking rhemselves the same questions, WP:ACTRIAL, to give the Phabricator (Bugzilla) ticket its more widely used code name, was probably one of the most contentious treatments of Wikimedia/MediaWik/WMF policiy ever handed outby the Foundation. The proposal was the result of months of careful reasearch and preparation for the RfC by a team of experienced volunteers whose aim was to address a very critical situation. Although they never retracted their decision, the Foundation ended up being so embarrassed by it, they hatted parts of the discussion at Bugzilla where they had been most rude, condescending, and patronising to the volunteers, and even today refuse to discuss it. At meet ups and conferences, even though there is no one left among the staff who had anything to do with it, mention 'ACTRIAL' and people suddenly have another 'pressing engagement' or a need for a natural function. One just does not unilaterally dismiss one of the most heavily attended RfC in en.Wiki history, and an overwhelming consensus, with 'I'm not doing this bug - I don't see a clear consensus.' The fact of the matter is, that we the community should be interviewing candidates for their jobs in San Fransisco and not the Foundation itself.

5 years further down the line the situation is far worse and exacerbated by the fact that competing factions among he newcomers in the MFF want to start all the research all over again instead of listening to the empirical evidence and taking a heuristic approach. Although it was my own, one of the key comments at Bugzilla was the one I reproduce here to save looking it up and searching for it:

Wikipedia is indeed the encyclopedia anyone can edit. There has however, never been a policy that anyone can create new pages. If the trial delivers the expected results, it will solve a far greater number of perennial problems than simply that of over 1,000 pages per day (80% of all newpages) that have to be deleted through one process or another, and which are largely patrolled by a loose group of extremely inexperienced, and partly very young and/or non native speakers of English - NPP is already widely recognised as a broken process.

I believe there is every urgent reason to implement this trial now without further delay. The consensus was reached by a debate involving around 500 users and a clear majority in favour, and based on examination of the problem rather than straight subjective 'support' or 'oppose' !voting. A further centrally publicised RfC on the actual terms of the trial has also received practically unanimous support.

I realise by now that the WMF may not in favour of this new user right change, but they should accept a decision arrived at by the very kind of consensus that they insist is the way to get things done at Wikipedia. By questioning the authority of the self governing Wikipedia community, any devs who would refuse this request for a trial, will be rocking the very foundation of a pillar of Wikipedia policy.

[...] Rather than protecting a perceived user right for anyone to create new spam, attack, autobio, and copyvio pages, ultimately such action will result in the loss to the project of mature, established users and administrators who dedicate their free time to striving for improvement in the quality of Wikipedia, and its credibility as a universal knowledge base.

As a result, we did lose some mature, established users and administrators over it and what we got were the IEP catastrophe, Orangemoody, and a few other disastrous hiccups requiring monumental clean ups that the volunteers are getting sick and tired of having to do. Hence the two reasons why in spite of its excellent softare, NPP performs badly: the tiny handful experienced patrollers such as I dream of horses and montanabw see it as a never ending battle due to the Foundation having refused to provide enough ammunition, the apathy sets in (don't I know it after spending 60 hours on it this past week) and the rest are newbies who see yet another unrestricted opportunity to play MMORPG and SN with the world's 6th biggest web site site which isn't really a web site a all, but a webserver based reference work.

The fact that in 2006 authority for creation of live articles was removed from IP users clearly demonstrates that Wikipedia is organic, change can be made if and when it is expedient to do so, and now is the time to do it again. And if the community is allowed to have a hand in the development (as ther actually were with Page Curation), we'll get it right. Although the list of tweaks is long, they don't need community consensus (except for the right to patrol new pages), they are mostly minor but together they build a powerful package of measures that will give us all more breathing space, fewer needs for complaints such as the one RexxS as obliged to make at ANI, fewer need for me and DGG to ban another 200 users from NPP, fewer paid editing crises, and above all, fewer good faith newbies being bitten. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really NPP much anymore. I mean, I'll inevitably go through a spat of patrolling a lot of pages in the future, and I do patrol pages I see on Huggle, but after a while, it seems futile. The backlog is neverending.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I'm starting to feel about deletion/AfD – nearly every day I come across another actor BLP of questionable notability, and I simply can't take them all to AfD (PROD'ing them is usually pointless, because drive-by editors will stop by with a "Hey! I saw this person on TV! So OF COURSE they should have an article!!1!" and DEPROD it. [sigh...]) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, You can write content or patrol content. There are only so many hours in the day and WP is a very big place. I'm hearing a lot of fatigue (ironically, IJBall and I seem equally tired, but for opposite reasons; I get tired of challenging bad PRODs and bad AfDs) Frankly, I sometimes wonder if there's something to the idea of implementing 30/500 before being allowed to create or move articles. Don't know if that's yet been proposed, but people could earn the right. If they aren't there, such as at a class or an editathon, they can sandbox articles and ask a more experienced editor to do the move. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, IJBall, et al, WP:ACTRIAL which we proposed almost exactly 5 years ago to the day, was a lot less radical than that and even came with a set of features to help the new users. As we all know, the Foundation summarily dismissed the massive consensus without even properly investigating what it was in fact all about. With an almost 100% turnover in WMF staff since then, there might be sense in asking the new Foundation line-up to implement it now. The situation requiring it has gotten so much worse since that it certainly doesn't need re-debating.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny – I just suggested that unrestricted new article creation should be limited to Extended confirmed users over at WP:VPP! As to Kudpung's point, I'm dimly aware of what happened in the past with ACTRIAL, but I make it a habit to try and avoid thinking too much about the WMF and the ways they fouled up (sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally) the project – it's just too depressing to think about... As for "fatigue", it depends – I am tired out by PROD/AfD, but luckily I still love referencing content and generally sprucing articles up, and I'm going to be entering a busy working period from about now until Christmas, and I suspect simply referencing and article cleanup is all I'm going to have time for over the next few months anyway! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:Unfortunately IJBall, when we have to go to MediaWiki for any core software changes, it means going through the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, one question is what can be done withoutcore software changes. I think we need another round of looking at the AfC templates, just to start. Another is wether we should push for ACTRIAL, or for Draft space Only, or invisible except to registered users, or even just for NoIndex. DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me joining in this discussion. I would say that AfC definitely demands a level higher than simply "good enough to avoid being deleted at AfC" before the article is passed- which means that we lose some editors who simply can't be bothered to jump through these hurdles of the AfC catchphrase "needs more third party reliable sources". There's also editors who resubmit drafts that will never be notable enough for a Wikipedia article again and again trying to meet whatever generic template message is given, and so the cycle ends when they give up- but reviewers need to be more willing to simply state outright- "subject X is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia at this moment in time, sorry" to avoid disillusioning editors, as AfC is probably their first look at "behind the scenes" Wikipedia. Then there's the case of the reviewers getting tired- as said, editors fall into this culture of demanding too much, and rejecting drafts that are very much AfD-survivable, or just needing a little work or copyediting- like LaMona at that rather saddening ANI thread. So how do we fix this? Talking about combining NPP and AfC (perhaps incorporating ACTRIAL) is very much the ideal thing to do in the long term, but in the meantime, we do need more userfriendly templates. By virtue of the AfC helper script, reviewers often only expand beyond the generic templates with a short comment, and so the end user (the editor) simply sees a wall of rejections saying the same thing. We need to personalise the generic templates and encourage reviewers to leave more meaningful comments. Perhaps within the AfC script, there could be an easy lookup tool, where editors could search notability guidelines from a dropdown list or something, so the newer editors that tend to do AfC reviewing are more accurate, reducing the number of disillusioned editors? Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me focus on where we agree: Certainly we need to say "Subject X is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia at this moment in time, sorry" -- unfortunately we need to say this outside of the system, which make no provision for saying the right things directly. I do this by modifying the "decline" template after it has been placed, to change it to a non-routine color so it doesn't look like the usual, and say some variation on "Please do not resubmit the article again until you have some really good 3rd party substantial reliable sources. If the sources aren't there, there is no chance of an article. To get the draft deleted..." and I add something specific to show I've actually read their draft. I've notice many reviewers don't seem to have actually read it, so the contributor takes whatever they say as so much boilerplate to be ignored. (You can see some of the similar necessarily discouraging advice I give to people who ask here after I've deleted their articles). I've learned that if I say the right thing strongly but politely, people do take advice--even if they are a COI editor. So I also agree about templates: after many years struggle, people can in fact add comments, but they don't show up on conspicuously on the draft, and they don't show up at all on the usertalk.
But I do not agree about the quality necessary of a submitted article, because quality is improved best in mainspace--there are many editors, including myself, who would rather fix articles than write them. But the standard I use for accepting is in fact much more than the minimum--at least about notability,I doubt more than 1 or 2 of my acceptances have ever been deleted. What I don't insist on is categories or reference format or section headings or sufficient links, because I know for sure that there are hundreds of editors who like adding these things--and they can mostly do it better than I, and some of it is rather hard to teach except by example. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP

[edit]

There must be some reason for the sudden huge and steady increase in the NPP backlog over the past few weeks:

NPP backlog July, Aug, Sep 2016

It's my assumption that the regulars have gotten fed up of being the only regulars. SwisterTwister has also significantly reduced his patrolling. The thing is, this just can't go on; in a few weeks we will be up to the levels that precipitated Scottywong, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and me to launch WP:ACTRIAL as the only (what we thought at the time) way to limit the deluge of thoroughly inappropriate new articles, thus giving patrollers time to breathe, on the premise that serious contributors would not be discouraged by having to wait 10 edits and 4 days to publish , or going through the non-indexed Draft namespace from the Article Wizard (or the new landing page that was promised), and trolls and spamers would think again before wasting their own (and their client's) time

However, we are having to address this problem on three clearly defined fronts: 1) the apathy towards wanting to work at NPP, 2) the low quality of the work of many of those who still do it. If we could could convince the community to agree to a merge of AfC (which also has its problems) and NPP, we might get more patrolers as a result; and 3) The reluctance of the WMF to understand the damage that is being done to the encyclopedia. That said, I'm more than convinced that a suitably worded lobby to the newly formed Foundation may make them rethink WP:ACTRIAL which after all was one of the most heavily subscribed debates in Wiki history and an overwhelmingly clear consensus. Please take a moment to read this fairly recent thread and let me have your thoughts because I'm getting tired of being practically the only motor behind these initiatives and as you can see from the current related RfC, in spite of my efforts, I sometimes get things wrong.

It's really time we got the WMF to finally engage with en.Wiki because in spite of my talks with Quiddity in Italy and the exchange on his Foundation talk page, and the 1-hour Skype with someone in the Foundation, to all intents and purposes, it appears that the WMF is still prioritizing non urgent gadgets instead of addressing the quality that Wikipedia tries to base its reputation on (you can't watch UK television these days without someone commenting negatively about Wikipedia).

What we need right now is that landing page Jorm was working on, it would have saved all the bad faith that I'm getting slammed with from some of your Arbcom colleagues and a lot of very time consuming hard work. So I'm pinging Robert McClenon, MER-C, Esquivalience, Boing! said Zebedee, and vQuakr for their information, and I'm also pinging Mdennis (WMF) who usually has a kindly ear for my concerns and is best placed to find out who is ultimately responsible in SF for pushing things forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Head, meet brick wall. While those responsible for this mess have been moved on and the WMF is starting to be (at least minimally) responsive to community concerns, three things remain true:
  1. the WMF is still full of naive, idealistic dreamers, and/or people who have difficulty understanding the concept of encyclopedia (this being a recent example);
  2. there are one-way community "liaisons" who do not effectively communicate our concerns to the WMF (if at all); and
  3. there's 10 years of technical debt, neglect and software rot to catch up on (our CAPTCHA is totally broken, for instance).
Yes, I agree both extended confirmation for article creation and a landing page are warranted. It's proactive, the best form of abuse prevention. But I'm afraid we'll have to wait in line with everyone else -- I'll propose this at this year's Community Wishlist survey... along with five or more other things. My suggestion is to bypass the WMF whenever possible -- ACTRIAL is something we can do with an abuse filter or MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. MER-C 11:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Added reference to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. MER-C 13:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kudpung. Having seen your impassioned plea, I went over to Special:NewPagesFeed, but I couldn't access the Page Curation tool at all. When I click on the "Review" button, all I get is the article with no tool in the right-hand side bar, and no apparent way to mark it as reviewed, although it can be done manually via the [Mark this page as patrolled] link at the bottom and clicking that does seem to remove the page from Special:NewPagesFeed. However, that link doesn't appear on all the pages in the feed, especially the older articles. For example, Montell Cozart shows up on the feed, if set to show oldest first. It was created on 10 June 2016‎. Its logs show it as neither patrolled nor reviewed. It also fails to display [Mark this page as patrolled]. But it was tagged for clean up several months ago and even visited by an administrator who corrected a typo [1]. So it was clearly de facto patrolled. I'm wondering if that backlog list is being artificially inflated by these instances and if other editors are also experiencing difficulty accessing the page curation tool, which may make them decide to just give up. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I can help you there, Voce, it works perfectly for me (OSX 10.11.6, FireFox 48.0.1). In fact, ironically, it's one of the few things dished up by the groaning, creaking, steam and fire spitting WMF servers that actually takes less than nearly a minute to load.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, the key numbers are 1/ the proportion of new pages from non-autocpatrolled editors that do make it stably into WP and 2/the proportion of new pages from non-autopatrolled editors that could possibly make it into WP; this could be higher because not all rescuable articles are worked on, but might be lower, if not all hopeless articles are actually deleted. I cannot immediate see a way to measure the first except to take a snapshot manually and look at in a few weeks later,but there ay be a possibility for a report. To measure the 2nd obviously takes guesswork.
I looked at the first measurement about 6 years ago,and it was about 50%:2000 articles a day, half kep thalf deleted one way or another. (from memory--I'll try to find my actual data) . I can do a guess at the 2nd, and cross check it against other people's guesses.
My guess is that the workload is not higher than it was then. AfC is rarely more than 100 article a day, and I think considerably more than half get rejected.
What takes time is not going through the list--its the auxiliary work that this produces--dealing with the good faith authors, following up on the likely sockpuppets, checking that speedies and prods get deleted, taking articles to afd and arguing them there.
We need to get more people. I wouldn't advise the existing patrollers do much more work themselves, because if one does to much, then the extreme impatience at dealing with them leads to errors; that was SwisterTwister's problem, and is why he was requested (tho not required) to stop patrolling. I make the same sort of mistakes myself if I do much at a time. There's not really any technical solution that will completely solve the problem--the irremediably bad articles still need to be removed andthe removal explained; the bad but not hopeless ones need to be improved and corrected, which is much harder. We've had to delete thousands of articles on potential encyclopedic topics because no one capable of doing the necessary rewriting wanted to do it. But there are man small changes, some within our power, some requiring the WMF, that can improve it.
I understand why its not a priority for the WMF. The WMF is not directly concerned with the content of the encyclopedia , nor should they be. Their role is to improve the basic functionality of the site, with emphasis on the parts outsiders see. infrastructure that people see. they do not fundamentally care about whether good or bad content goes into the encyclopedia. But, fortunately, the do care that the community of users grows and the size & reach of the encyclopedia increases , and the only way to do that is to encourage people who will write and improve good articles, and stay with us for long periods. This does require making their work easier and more satisfying, and its here that we need to make the appeal.
But we also need to see what we can do without them. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As several of my close colleagues know, I would (and frankly I believe a lot of others would too) patrol again but, if anyone else has actually noticed, WP recently has become quite heated, not simply because of one thing or another, but various things, and this has noticeably caused a lot of motivation-removal; I've even noticed longtime or otherwise experienced users exiting because of it; unfortunately what happens (something we'll all know), and it currently has, is that new users with no knowledgeable experiences, are then patrolling. As I mentioned with the last thread about this, we will certainly get through it, and fortunately there's a number of users, including DGG and myself, that specifically go through patrols to ensure quality. Something that would be beneficial by the WMF is to at least improve the overall WMF environment, fixing the longtime troubles such as the continuously overheated people, to quote DGG "they do care that the community of users grows and the size & reach of the encyclopedia increases" but I believe this would best happen if they ensured the beneficial people stay, and are not affected by the unpleasant environment caused by uncooperative people that come (because if an excessive number of beneficial people go, then it certainly affects the encyclopedia deeply and overall). SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the causes may be that the number of articles created is increasing, while the rate of patrolling may stay relatively constant. With Wikipedia Zero and other initiatives to increase Internet usage in the developing world, there will be more users and more article creators. But this theory may not hold, as the rate of new articles outpaces the growth of notable topics.
But currently, NPP is a relatively dysfunctional system compared to other review systems. The work is repetitive; without a good system in place (such as an AfC-like system where reviewers communicate with users), all NPP boils down to is the dichotomy of delete or don't delete. It gets tiring after a while, and the 99% of articles whose creators ignore instructions are not particularly inspiring.The instructions are vague: would many serious newcomers understand the hodgepodge that is "Content that violates any copyrights..." yada yada yada? Our article creation system attracts the newcomers who don't pay attention to instructions.
We can easily improve this system; if we subject new article creators to a review process based on feedback that they have to respond to if they want their article to be "published", then I am confident that our backlog will not only be cut, but populated by newcomers that actually care about what they're writing. I can assure that a fully-staffed team of programmers can develop such a system to a stable condition in less than a year. The WMF software department, despite solid funding, more than many other software non-profits that can actually develop more software that furthers their mission (e.g., the Internet Archive actually improved the interface of their website and grown their Wayback Machine considerably with $5M), primarily focuses on projects that do nothing to further the encyclopedia, almost like they are going to sell the projects they create. For example, 12 years to develop a system that provides only marginal benefits to newcomers; a year on the Knowledge Engine (trying to compete with Google?), and the list goes on and on. Yet, MediaWiki is outdated (I'd rather use Subversion or even CVS to maintain a wiki!), examples including no configuration panel on a stock installation, and the complicated process to swap articles; Wikipedia's interface looks like it comes from 2006. Also, many components use questionable coding practices (e.g., I'm not sure now, but AbuseFilter initally at least forwent using a parser generator and included its own homebrew parser for its own domain-specific language). In fact, NPP is not the only technical issue that plagues Wikipedia. As an example, look how grainy this equation looks: .
In fact, it is embarrassing for the most widely-used encyclopedia to give such vague instructions to new article writers, and for patrollers to use such outdated tools. Until the WMF can develop better technology, or accept that technology can be created if they refuse to create it, the backlog may keep growing. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged, I will comment. I will start with a question. There continues to be mention of somehow combining AFC and NPP. I don't really understand what is meant by that. AFC and NPP are different, although partly overlapping, functions. AFC is in draft space, while NPP is in all spaces, primarily in article space. Would combining mean that the option of taking drafts through review in draft space would be lost, and that drafts would be in mainspace? The merger talk presumably doesn't just mean merging of the two groups of volunteers, which already overlap. What is meant by combining AFC and NPP?
I know what some wrong answers are to a growing backlog at NPP. One is to offer NPP as a way for new editors to gain experience with Wikipedia and work off the backlog. Another is to lower the standards of quality for articles in order to work off the backlog. Another is to worry too much about biting the newcomers; unfortunately, a large percentage of those newcomers who wish to add new articles (rather than contributing to existing articles) need to be bitten. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll address a couple of the many valid points made by Esquivalience, and DGG (whose comments are perfectly accurate):
  1. 'The WMF is not directly concerned with the content of the encyclopedia', but it should be very concerned in the quality of the content and how it is controlled and maintained, The donations depend on it. That money should be being spent on developments to do this especially where Wikipedia is exponentially becoming a platform for paid editors at the expense of our volunteer time.
  2. Instructions to new article creators: This embarrassing absence is indeed the greatest enigma of all time during Wikipedia's history. What most people who joined Wikipedia post-2011 ACTRIAL are not aware of however, is that development of the Page Curation system was only half of the project. In 2011 an excellent landing page for new uses was concurrently being developed by the WMF that would have filled that gaping hole and completed the triangle, replacing Article Wizard, replacing AfC, and giving the regular editing community something to talk about which would have resulted in the same vibrant, coherent, collaboration that AfC has among its reviewers and more patrollers. Kaldari can tell us why that project was quietly shelved and why he NPP issues described on the recently created list at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements were not completed.
    @Kudpung: Article Creation Workflow (ACW) was shelved for a couple of reasons. First, we wanted to concentrate on finishing the PageTriage Extension (aka Page Curation) which was considered a higher priority. We only had a limited amount of time to complete both of these projects, since my team (Editor Engagement) was slated to start working on Echo (aka Notifications) at the start of Q1 FY2012 (July 2012). We really, really didn't want to leave both of the projects (ACW and Page Curation) unfinished, so we concentrated on finishing Page Curation and never finished ACW. The other reason we didn't finished ACW is that there was talk in the community of creating a Drafts namespace, and this would have required significant refactoring of the ACW workflow (See Article Creation Workflow diagram). As it turns out, the community did decide to create a Drafts namespace the next year, so this was probably a good decision in retrospect. As for why the WMF has never revisited Page Curation or ACW, I think it basically boils down to limited resources and the fact that neither of these tools scale easily to multiple wikis (since they are tied to wiki-specific workflows). Kaldari (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NPP does not actually 'boil down to a dichotomy of delete or don't delete.' That's the state it's in however, due to the lack of competency of those who are allowed to do it without control or supervision. In the period covered by the graph above, I have been patrolling as often as possible, for 2 or 3 hours a day and within the first few minutes of every session I already have to revert several mis-taggings, and 'friendly' ban at least one newbie from patrolling. Unfortunately, we can't even get the WMF to include in the New Page Feed header something like: If you are new to Wikipedia, please do not patrol new pages until you have significantly more experience. Instead, please consider a simpler task such as reverting obvious vandalism, and oddly there are still plenty of volunteers who still firmly believe that NPP should be the experimental ground for all wannabe maintenance workers.
  4. What it does boil down to and which will eventually drive seasoned editors away for good, are the relentless accusations - sometimes even from holders of high office (as Arbcom) - that people like me and DGG don't know what we're talking about. Such detractors have never done a proper stint at NPP. They've looked at it but they do not have any experience that holds a candle to that of established editors who have done 1,000s of patrols over many years.
  5. Statistics: The WMF considers itself primarily as a web app and server company and and like all IT people, it bases all its working knowledge on stats under the premise that if there are no stats for it, it doesn't exist. Hence the dichotomy: stats vs. empirical experience. Fortunately and miraculously, the decision to go ahead with Page Curation was based on findings drawn from live streamed NPP sessions by experienced patrollers to an audience of very senior WMF staff.
  6. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit referred to the contributing of content; it was never implied that no conditions can be imposed on how and when that content can be published; indeed in 2006 the WMF removed the right from IPs to create articles, thus proving that the project is organic, which contradicts their refusal to implement ACTRIAL.
  7. Within the WMF, nobody appears to accept responsibility. They overlap each other's work but no one, including the three or four 'community liason officers' can tell us who is really in charge, and that's why this issue of encyclopedic quality is sufficiently critical to involve the CEO, and Ryan Kaldari who still knows all about mw:Extension:ArticleCreationWorkflow (the landing page project). Nick Wilson was being of some help but he appears to have stopped responding.
  8. In the absence of any help from the Foundation, MER-C's suggestion to bypass the WMF may become the option. Otherwise within less than five years Wikipedia will suffer the same fate as MySpace while the WMF is complacently telling itself 'it will never happen to us'.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#3: You don't need the WMF to put that in the header. Any admin can do it at MediaWiki:Newpages-summary. (Or MediaWiki:Pagetriage-welcome for the curation tool version.) —Cryptic 07:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bad as we are, still the enWP has much stricter rules for quality (including notability, documentation, and freedom from promotionalism) than almost all other WPs. Rgwue doesn't bother the WMF, so why should we expect them to care about our problems in these areas? I've consistently advised that we should do what we can on our own. To the extent we ask for something ,it should be the tools for doing additional things on our own. The principle of the entire system is that people in informal groups will do things on their own, and that the central facilities are only a service. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the WMF likes to interefere when things don't go their way. If a volunteer adds some code, for example, that implements proper quality control to Common.js, the WMF will quite possibly nuke the page out of existence, or implement Superprotect again. The only problem is: the WMF has little organization into a unified organization so while a part of the WMF won't care about what happens to the encyclopedia, another part will overreact. — Esquivalience (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Hi, I haven't heard from you in a while, hence my quietness. I see you pinged my volunteer account above, which explains why I didn't get a notification for that edit (I don't always check that account's email daily). I'll take some time now to read the above discussion and links. Let me know what other pages I should be looking at? Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, Nick, and which has precipitated all the ensuing discussions on en.Wiki, that we are all still waiting since 10 August for you to reply on your MediaWiki account talk page at mw:Topic on User talk:Quiddity (WMF) and act on it or let us know who is, or should be, responsible for the immediate topic under discussion, and for feedback from Jonathan Morgan WMF (Jtmorgan) who called me on Skype to discussed these issues for an hour nearly two months ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Ah, sorry, I think we both misunderstood who was going to take the next step. You had mentioned "probably the easiest thing to do would be for me to send you my minutes of that meeting." so I was waiting for that, in order to get clarity on what you (and everyone you had consulted) wanted in your own words (rather than from just Jonathan's notes, which I have read), so that I could then continue. I should've pinged you soon afterwards, when I didn't hear back; sorry. Please do email them to me (or share however desired).
You said at Wikimania that you primarily wanted: (1) to get the user-rights sorted out, and (2) to adjust the list of options in the curation toolbar, so that they more closely match the list of options that Twinkle provides - please also send me that list, if you've compiled it now. (3) You did also say that wou'd be requesting 1 or 2 small tweaks to the general PageTriage software - I now see you've compiled a massive list at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements. Egads. Can you prioritize the top 3-5 items that would have the most benefit for everyone? Then we can start creating phabricator tasks for those at least, and getting exact details where missing. Thanks!
As Cryptic suggests above, one good and immediate step would be to amend the MediaWiki:Pagetriage-welcome message, giving clearer instructions/guidance/warning/etc at the top of the feed. You or any admin can do that.
As suggested above, some part(s) of this might make a good candidate for the m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey, as long as it is very clearly defined, whilst also applicable to all language projects. (They'll be asking for the proposals in November, and I can probably help you draft something before then, if desired?) Those additional Article Creation Workflow/Landing Page details look particlarly intriguing. Kaldari's reply above is also helpful to know.
In the meantime, I wonder if we could make the link to the Article Wizard more prominent (or even unavoidable?) in MediaWiki:Newarticletext (as seen at e.g. example redlink foo) - It's currently linked at the end of the 3rd line, which seems very obscure...
Re: #7 above, the Collaboration team is the logical inheritor of the PageTriage extension, along with 6 or 7 other extensions, and a large number of core features. That's the team who requested the research-interview that you participated in! Sadly there are only 3.5 developers on the team, and a few thousands tasks (including many epic/herculean tasks) to work on. They're currently working on mw:Notifications and mw:Edit Review Improvements - the latter (what the interview with you was intended to focus on) is aimed at helping all types of RecentChange patrollers, and editor-mentors in particular (i.e. experienced editors who want to find (separate out) the newcomers who are making good faith edits that are problematic - people that need and will benefit from friendly mentoring) - I hope this will give everyone who collaborates on the possible changes, a clearer understanding of how we can improve both this more general aspect of reviewing all edits, as well as the more specific use-case of reviewing new pages, and thereby enable more comprehensive work on that, in the future.
Best wishes, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quiddity (WMF), the massive list at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements was again my initiative after one user simply created the blank page without attempting to expand on his initiative or to even make the page visible anywhere. The list is nothing more than a compilation of all the items that various users have brought up which are mainly things that the WMF 'forgot' to do during the development, some things which neither of us thought about at the time but which have revealed themselves through use of the system as being essential, ans some items which the Foundation's messenger unilaterally decided were not sufficiently important to pass on. I do realise that in making that list I will be accused by some yet again of running a one-man show, not involving 'a larger community' and creating more 'idle talk' (per Robert McClenon who I nevertheless invited along), but someone has to prime the pump to get it it started.
I'll try to make a short list for you, and I'll send you (again at the risk of being accused of running a private cabal) the minutes of the Skype meeting with Jonathan. Perhaps it would also be good if some people here would also look at that list and comment on it - the only person who has really taken an active interest in it so far is WereSpielChequers who at the time was also one of the active forces in our community work group that convinced Erik Möller in 2011 following the ACTRIAL kerfuffle to get the Page Curation / Landing page developed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read all of the above, but I have two ideas about this: I think it would be worth giving serious consideration to re-proposing ACTRIAL. Most of those in the WMF who rejected it have moved on, and I think there is less of a "increase editor numbers at any cost" attitude there now.
But I believe there is something we could do locally. Much of the new-page rubbish comes from newbies who are not malicious or incompetent, but simply do not understand what an encyclopedia is for. There are two main classes: those who think it is a social-networking site and want to write about themselves, and those who think it is a free notice-board for promoting their company, good cause or tiddlywinks club. A suitably-worded notice on the sign-up page, explaining what Wikipedia is for and what it is not for, might deter a proportion of those, and I understand that MediaWiki:Signupstart could be edited by any admin to provide such a notice.
It would need an RFC to agree to do that, and no doubt a long argument to agree wording; but I think this is a practicable way to make some reduction in the torrent of no-hope articles. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The set of newbies who utterly defy instructions are not the newbies who will follow whatever is on the signup page. Just like until I added a dashed-line notice, there were still numerous NOTNOW nominations; or the users that defy the instructions for new pages patrolling. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Esquivalience that no signup page or landing page or whatever you want to call it will deter many of the completely clueless good-faith new editors (let alone the bad-faith editors) who have no idea what an encyclopedia is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, many would not be deterred, but if even a quarter of them were that would make a significant reduction in the NPP/CSD workload, including time spent explaining to aggrieved newbies why the "article" they have put a lot of work into never had a chance, because Wikipedia is not for what they want to do. JohnCD (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restated Question: What Is the So-Called Merger of NPP and AFC

[edit]

I haven't yet gotten an answer to my question. Some editors continue to talk about the planned merger of AFC and NPP, but I haven't yet gotten a statement as to what that will involve. Is that because the talk of the merger is just idle talk that hasn't been definitized, or why haven't I gotten an answer? If it is just idle talk, then maybe it shouldn't be referred to as a plan or anything like that, but just as idle talk. If there really is a plan, what is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not idle talk, and it's something that has been under serious consideration for quite a long time. However, like all major restructuring at Wikipedia, one has to make baby steps. The current RfC to first make patroller permission a policy is one of those steps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DGG, User:Kudpung - I hear and read that it is not just idle talk, and that it has been under serious consideration for a long time. However, when I see the comment that baby steps must be taken first, and I do not see a description of what the overall plan is, I become cynical (especially since I know that the primary interest of the WMF is increasing its donations and increasing its cash rather than the actual service of the existing communities such as the English Wikipedia). I haven't gotten an answer to what the ultimate plan is about the merger. Will AFC articles still go in draft space and NPP mostly be in article space? If so, what is meant by the merger? Where is the RFC? What are any other steps? What is the overall plan? As long as a plan is mentioned, in a way that seems to me intended to sound grandiose, I will consider it to be idle talk unless I can see at least parts of the plan. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, most of all the best ideas in the history of mankind began as idle talk or a shoebox with wires coming out of it in someone's dad's garage becoming the world's richest company. Dismissing what gets discussed as simply 'idle' just because you are not in the loop, is, well, dismissive - we've kept you in the loop with a ping because we considered you to be one of the people who might have had something positive to offer.
Some of us have been working on this project on-and-off for five (5) years and you can be sure that the most interested and motivated parties will be invited to help draft an RfC proposal statement as soon as we know what we are going to propose and to what extent we can ask for any required coding to be done by those who are paid to it. The disadvantage with our consensus gathering system is that it takes 30 days for each successive proposal - when one fails, we try the next one. It's well known that RfCs that try to discuss too many issues or options in one sitting wind up way off topic and die out without even reaching a formal closure. As you can see from the current RfC, very typically those who won't make suggestions are happy to heckle from the sidelines and make condescending remarks about those who work in the background in smaller task forces without all the background noise.
This quadriga: AfC—Draft—NPP—Landing page is going to be, hopefully, one of the best advances in quality control since Wikipedia's creation, and because all the while we have to appease those who are resistant to change, it won't be rushed Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that often idle talk does come to fruition. I have seen the original RFC, which will authorize standards for New Page Patrollers, and which hasn't yet been formally closed. However, from my standpoint, I am just being told that something good will happen, and it appears that no one wants to tell me or can tell me more than that something good will happen. It isn't obvious to me how a merger of AFC or NPP will address the fact that both are understaffed, and both are criticized from both sides. If you ask me to expect great things in the future, please in turn expect me to be cynical and to think that I am being made empty promises and expected to rely on them. Or please answer my specific questions rather than just referring to a plan that cannot be stated in detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the basic idea is that people creating new articles will be directed to a landing page, and then to one of two appropriate places, depending on whether they are new editors. Those needing to work in draft will be told that. Approval from draft and approval from direct creation we be unified, and organized in such as way that patrollers can focus on their areas of interest, and so their work can be audited. There will not be much less work overall (except for adding the absurd cycles of resubmission at AfC), but the work will be comprehensible and rational, and will try to involve the larger community. . As for the details, good ideas will be very welcome. DGG ( talk ) 13:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing an explanation rather than more empty talk. Does this mean that new editors will be sent to work in draft? You mention adding "the absurd cycles of resubmission at AfC". Are you implying that those cycles are absurd because the AFC reviewers are too demanding, or because new SPA editors persist in trying to resubmit over and over? What thoughts are there so far about how the larger community will be involved? What forum is the place for further discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link again (already posted above), Robert, to the WMF project that was shelved which was the other half of the Page Curation / Landing page project. Please check it out. Together, they would have solved not only the technical problems of quality control and made AfC redundant, but in doing so would have saved Wikipedia's reputation which by now is on a downward spiral. Community engagement rests on those who are prepared to get involved instead of criticising those who are at least trying to do something. At present, other than perhaps WT:NPP (or a dedicated sub page of it) there is no official forum for discussing these issues. Again, a user initiative could create one - it's time we gave DGG his talk page back - but earlier efforts to involve the 'larger community' have failed. Unlike AfC, New Page Patrolers are largely incommunicative. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC/The_DGG_discussion&oldid=1089558287"