I have moved this page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users as I was unsure if where it should go. Somewhere in wikispace. Better ideas welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This location looks fine (someone will probably capitalise it at some point). I'd suggest publicising it far and wide if you haven't already. WP:Publicising discussions has some suggestions. I'd say definitely centralised discussions and the Signpost, and lots of other places as well, including the various policy and essay pages on this topic. Carcharoth (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am hopping off for a few hours. Have done some of those (check my contribs). If someone else wants to chip in, they are more than welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it live, can editors comment? Ikip (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr, assumes bad faith on the part of those you're attacking, making things much too bureaucratic. Deal with all of this crap on a case by case basis, don't try to make this a stultifying bureaucracy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh "bureaucracy", the number one concern editors state when they don't want change. Ikip (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second. "WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY" is intended to prevent WP turning into a massive set of hard-and-fast policies. It is not intended to prevent reform simply because such reform may introduce policies or guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...continued from main page...

"The US novelist Nicholson Baker...explains how Wikipedia...is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself...The Political Quarterly, a venerable UK magazine...was just a stub, so I tried to add a proper entry for the magazine.

I wrote a roughly 100-word...history of this 75-year-old periodical, mentioning that early contributors included Leon Trotsky and Benito Mussolini. Sure enough, within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content, is only about my friends (some friends!), lacks citations or corroboration and has been put up for "express deletion".

I was permitted an appeal, but it was disposed of in about two minutes and then the piece was gone. The executioner's online name is provided...So Baker's concerns would appear to be merited..."

Along the same vein, the newspaper the Age writes,

"Mzoli's Meats [created by Jimbo Wales] was deleted in 22 minutes..."The Wikipedia that Jimbo (Wales) originally created takes short stubs like the one he created and turns them into articles; stubs should only be deleted when there is no reasonable hope that they will ever cease to be stubs. Unfortunately, in the past few years Wikipedia has changed; it now takes short stubs and throws them in the trash can, and excoriates those who have the temerity to create them. This stub is being saved only because it was created by Jimbo."[1]

A fitting bellwether of what wikipedia has become is article 2 million, which was put up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/El_Hormiguero.

I believe that the reason why wikipedia edits are falling is partially because of the caustic way we treat new contributors. But I am not going to waste my time emperically proving this, because of the reaction I always get whenever I evidence other trends on wikipedia.

I respect Casliber's efforts here, but real change must come from the top, preferably Jimbo Wales. The "company culture" on wikipedia is not by accident, it is by design, by the choices that those at the top made or didn't make.

The entire way we handle what should or should not be on wikipedia has become incredibly hostile. As The Age wrote: "The old timers remember the early days when we used to say 'ignore all rules' and 'assume good faith', but people tend not to emphasise that now" Ikip (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that correct search, navigation and linking, as well as the interpretation of edit-summaries in Histories and Watchlists, become impossible if there's more than one section or subsection with the same name, e.g. "Yes", "No". See where the table of contents or a history search takes you from a lower-level "Yes" or "No" to see what I mean. If the search or navigation was hierarchically or sequentially organized to search first for the question and then for the answer, this wouldn't be a problem, but that's not how Wikipedia's currently organized. I could take the time to think up and enter more-specific subheads myself, but I'm a bit lazy and the questions' constructor(s) would probably come up with much more accurate subheads. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done about half the page. Your turn. → ROUX ₪ 05:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done.

Resolved

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is a debate going on at User_talk:Hesperian#Re:_Blacklisting, where Hesperian has some issues with Nezzadar's patrolling of new pages. This is an interesting litmus test of how patrolling works and what is best for the 'pedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We will be having a Wikivoices podcast on this RfC on Saturday the 17th. Please sign up here if you would like to participant. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember our early days

It would probably do us all a WikiWorld of good to remember (each on our own) our individual early days at Wikipedia. How bright-eyed we were. How exciting the place was. OMG...The challenge of your first edit. Probably just a minor edit...punctuation, more than likely! But you were hooked. You had joined a World-wide phenomenon. As you wandered WikiWorld your awareness of the enormity of the place grew. You got a sense of what a free-flowing, ever-changing, stimulating project it was. It looked friendly. And you wanted to be involved.--Buster7 (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Buster7, just trying to trim the page a bit for navigation. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting:

How Wikipedia regularly treats new editor's new article contributions

Ikip (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which relates to the new user experience. Ikip (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Netmouse signed up for the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members he mentioned this page: Strategic Task Force on increasing reader contributions

Also see User:Balloonman/CSD_A1_survey for the beginning of a select study on speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Overturned_speedy_deletions Ikip (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've posted some questions regarding new Wikipedia users on the talk page of the Welcoming Committee. If you have the time to help us out, please go have a look, much appreciated! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]