Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/July 2016

Discussion location

Where is the discussion about reform ideas supposed to be? There are trees of bullet points that outline ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/Governance and Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/Content. Should the discussion be on those pages? Should it be on the talk pages? How should it be organized? Should we set up a place for discussion about each bullet point, or should normal talk page sections be created whenever someone wants to discuss an idea in more detail? KSFT^C 16:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe that it would be best to handle all discussion on one unified talk page. Makes it easier to keep track of discussions. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

We could just use this page? Or we could try something like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/Ideas. Omni Flames (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we keep some standardized system of notes next to the points listed at the pages I linked to above to indicate the status of that idea? It would be useful to be able to see there where the discussion about an idea is if it exists. I'm not sure I like the idea of archiving discussions about possible reforms when they're inactive. If someone wants to start the discussion up again, there would be a lot of work done twice. Also, where would discussions like this one about the running of this project go? I think we should at least put the discussions on the talk page of a subpage, like the one you suggested, and maybe, later, if this project becomes much more active, set up a system to create a subpage for each proposal that gets a certain amount of support. KSFT^C 02:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• My opinion is that we ought to keep discussion on this page and redirect the other talk pages to this one. I agree that it is much better to have discussion in one place, rather than scattering it over many different pages and causing confusion. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 02:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think that having most discussions on one page would be good too, but I think think this page should be for discussion about this project. Also, multiple very long discussions can make it hard to use a page, so maybe some can get their own subpages. KSFT^C 03:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• For a simple non-bureaucratic solution: I suggest that proposal discussion can go on the proposal's talk page, but all other discussion should go here. Anything more complicated, and you've got irony for a "reform" project. — Esquivalience (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Couldn't the proposer of a certain reform just link to their proposal page and discuss it here? My concern is that there is not likely to be much discussion on nested talk pages for every specific reform. Such pages would have few watchers and discussion would probably cease rather quickly. It would be better to have all discussion on the central, more widely watched talk page. I think that is about as simple and non-bureaucratic as possible. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 04:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea, as it will prevent archiving complications. — Esquivalience (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Expert peer review

I have started drafting a proposal to implement expert peer review for the more tricky topic areas (e.g., science and mathematics); any feedback would be appreciated. — Esquivalience (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I support any kind of idea like this, but I am a veteran of a few failed attempts. Peter Damian (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Expert retention

Not the first time this idea has been suggested, though. Peter Damian (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

PC protection

Hi everyone. I have been thinking of a way by which we can protect the quality of our most important articles while still remaining open to new, good-faith users. The problem is that the quality of some of our recognized content (FAs/GAs) erodes over time—the prose is gradually edited by a host of different users, unsourced content slips in unnoticed, etc. It only takes at simple look at WP:FAR and WP:GAR to see this, and such cases are not uncommon at WP:GOCE. Our most important articles (many of which are listed in various places: see WP:VITAL, the Core Contest's listing, and the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's listing) obviously receive thousands upon thousands of views per day. Many of these are unprotected, leaving them open vandalism targets. Our reversion systems do not completely solve the problem, though—even if the vandalism is reverted in two seconds, that does no good if the article receives several views per second. Some readers will still see it, and they will not leave Wikipedia with a good impression. I have personally seen unreverted vandalism at least two or three times on the TFA, which is supposed to be the most heavily guarded articles of all.

Therefore, I propose that we implement PC1 protection for (1) all GAs/FAs and (2) Wikipedia's most important/heavily viewed articles. Of course, we will need to develop a list of important articles that merit protection. I specifically chose PC1 because it simply subjects edits to review, not an outright block. I'll start drawing up a proposal shortly. (I also need to organize our Content and Governance pages.) Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 02:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: This would save so much stress caused by frequent vandalism of quality articles (oftentimes I do not see even one productive contribution by a non-autoconfirmed editor to a GA/FA). However, one possible problem is our treatment of the pending changes right: the biggest problem isn't vandalism, but verifiability and reliability, and we currently hand PCR out like candy (sometimes to borderline hat collectors), which may compromise this proposal from achieving its goal of improved GA/FA reliability. — Esquivalience (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Esquivalience: I realize this is a problem, and I have thought about it before. However, it will require balancing to ensure the quality of reviewers while avoiding elitism. If only there were some method by which applicants could take a basic test to determine their knowledge of our content policies. After all, anyone can say that they read something. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 18:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Template Standardization

As you may have noticed Wikiproject Templates differ from each other. At this point some Wikiproject Templates use a 6 point, B class criteria system, others shun the Accessibility criterion, only using 5 points. Some Wikiprojects do not use the B class criteria system at all. At the same time WikiProject Africa covers the whole continent, instead of using separate Wikiprojects for each country. I would like to propose the mandatory standardization of Wikiproject Templates, all of them have to use a clearly visible, B class criteria system.--Catlemur (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What problem would this standardization solve, other than a lack of standardization? MPS1992 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is user friendliness. It would become much easier for someone to assess the quality and notability of an article, as well as point out any possible flaws. The difference in the templates complicates the assessment process and confuses people who have no prior experience with certain Wikiprojects.--Catlemur (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Have you found it difficult to assess the quality of articles due to these differences? It would be useful if you could give an example of an article where this was the case for you.

Personally I only occasionally rate articles -- I have done so less than sixty times. But I have never spent time wondering what criteria system the relevant WikiProject uses when doing so.

I also do not understand how mandatory standardization of WikiProject templates could make a significant difference to the ease of assessing the notability of an article. MPS1992 (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I assess articles on regular basis as part of the MILHIST project, some articles as exemplified by Maji Maji Rebellion, Vietnam War, East India Company belong to multiple Wikiprojects and since the templates look different and there is no unified assessment request board, things can get a bit complicated.--Catlemur (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you consider the article is C-class, rate it as such. If members of the WikiProject consider this to be inappropriate, they will revert it. Leave the assessment of B-class or A-class status to the WikiProject concerned. This should solve any such difficulties. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is another problem, some WikiProjects are dead or inactive. Shall we not assess their articles?--Catlemur (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is fine to assess their articles. Go ahead. MPS1992 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Draftifying

Hi everyone. This is just a notification that I am working on a new proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/Draftifying. Basically, the proposal is that we should move articles of insufficient quality to draft space rather than outright deleting them, as we currently do (unless, of course, the article has such severe problems that it doesn't even qualify as a serious article). This would hopefully make the environment less hostile for new editors and increase editor retention. Additionally, I believe implementing this proposal would largely resolve the dispute between inclusionists and deletionists, as it addresses the concerns of both sides in a way that does not cause any harm to the main encyclopedia itself. In summary, there is much to be gained and little to be lost were this proposal implemented. I'm currently working on expanding this, so I will try to post updates as I do so. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 02:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Biblioworm: One huge problem is that, unless newbies actually commit or are routed to create their article in draftspace and willingly face scrutiny at AfC or a similar process; most, if not all except a few, newbies that create articles are hit and run: once they create an article, they assume that it is eternal and do not come back and respond to any queries patrollers give them, let alone give any wit of attention to their draftspace article. If we move even a small fraction of articles, there will eventually be lots of cruft in draftspace, there will be problems with the more stubborn newbies begging and pleading to move it back (or get autoconfirmed and move it themselves) into article space, and it may not fully resolve the problem of "biteyness", making articles equal but with some more equal than others. A conference has already been held at Wikimedia with some WMF staff revisiting ACTRIAL (which passed) with plans to try to finally implement it (and which the RfC will probably disrupt), see also Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Combining of NPP and AFC. — Esquivalience (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The solution is actually very simple. If an article is abandoned after being moved into draft space (we could make the moving process painless by creating a simple script), it will be deleted after six months per G13, just like every other draft. To ease the load on admins, I'm sure it would be rather easy to create an admin bot that could auto-delete drafts after six months of non-activity. This would keep cruft from infinitely accumulating. As for the implementation of ACTRIAL and the merging of NPP/AfC, I do not at all see how this proposal would ruin the plans. It could actually be integrated quite easily—the only major change would be that instead of tagging articles for deletion, patrollers would mostly be tagging articles for draftification. If the article is abandoned (as many probably will be), a bot will take care of the rest. But at least we are leaving the door open for the rescuing of articles and reducing the biting of new users. Moving the article to a state of incubation is far more friendly than just eliminating it outright. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 04:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)