Page Curation

'''This document is a work in progress. Comments are appreciated but this is not a final draft.'''

This document describes the design of a new interface for "New Page Patrolling". This document is a work in progress. Feedback is welcome on the talk page.

This project is envisioned with multiple phases. By necessity (both of resourcing and change control), the project has been split into sections.

The design as published is incomplete and has many holes. This document is intended as a starting line for discussion about improving the overall experience of New Page Patrol.

Notes on Nomenclature
This document will refer to "New Pages" as any page that has not been marked as "Patrolled". Edit count on the page is not taken into consideration.

Further, pages that are marked for speedy deletion will be simply referred to as "marked for deletion"; these pages are also technically marked as "patrolled".

For the sake of verbiage, this document will assume three states of an article:


 * Unpatrolled - The article has not been marked patrolled.
 * Marked for Deletion - The article has had one or more speedy deletion criteria applied.
 * Patrolled - The article has been marked as "patrolled". Zero or more tags requesting improvement may have been applied.

Rationale

 * New Page Patrol is a complicated process that is poorly supported by the MediaWiki software itself.
 * No two patrollers seem to utilize the same process.
 * Users who perform New Page Patrol report high levels of frustration and burn out due to feeling overworked:
 * Because young/inexperienced patrollers aggressively over-template, requiring work to be rechecked;
 * Because young/inexperienced patrollers often don't identify or fix major problems with new articles, requiring work to be rechecked
 * Because too few users choose to become patrollers
 * Because education about the patrolling process is difficult
 * Because optimizing a system for page patrol is a "Power User" job, requiring greater-than average computer savvy as well as (oftentimes) downloading of third party software

Hypotheses

 * Providing a native, easy-to-use interface for New Page Patrol will increase the number of users who choose to become patrollers, reducing workload
 * Providing a native, easy-to-use interface will help to establish better education about the process as is, resulting in lower "false positive" rates
 * Providing a native interface will allow future expansion and modification of the system to support different backend systems and logic screens
 * Providing a native, easy-to-use interface may prove to serve as an engagement point for mobile and tablet users, for whom editing is currently not feasible
 * Providing a native interface that utilizes positive messaging features will reduce new editor bite, thus promoting editor retention

Feature Requirements

 * Provide a list view of New Pages.
 * This list must be filterable.
 * Provide a pageable, easy-to-use, and intuitive "zoom" interface that allows page examination and tagging in situ
 * This interface must provide meta-data about the article
 * This interface must show the article in the interface
 * This interface must be pagable without leaving the interface
 * Ideally, the interface's "paging queue" will be smart and modify itself according to behaviors of other patrollers and their work.

User Experience: Zoom Interface
The "zoom" interface is a close-up, actionable interface for New Page Patrolling. It is heavily AJAX-dependant, so Javascript is required.

Note on Queue Direction:This interface is intended to load from the back of the queue by default since this is the area that is most "at risk" and is the suggested starting point for New Page Patrolling.

In the Zoom interface, the user is presented with a dynamic screen that consists of three primary elements and several secondary, context-sensitive elements:


 * Interface Filters and Meta Information - this section (at the top) includes controls that allow the user to change the filters surrounding the list of pages that have entred the queue as well as providing additional meta data that is of use.
 * Article Viewing and Tagging Pane - this pane is context aware and associated with the article that is being reviewed. This section has several sub-components:
 * Article Metadata - size, create date, incoming links, etc.
 * User Metadata - creator, information about that user, etc.
 * Article Viewer - displays the article itself
 * Patrolled Tagging Pane - provides an easy-to-use pane for tagging articles for improvement
 * Deletion Tagging Pane - provides an easy-to-use pane for tagging articles for deletion
 * Pagination Controls - Two sections, one at the top and one at the bottom, where the user can simply skip to the next or previous article in the stack (which are shown to the user)

Workflow
Currently, it is assumed that there are three possible actions a Patroller can take when viewing a page in the Zoom interface:


 * 1) Ignore the article - the User clicks "next" or "previous" and skips this article.  The article remains unchanged.
 * 2) Tag the article for deletion - the User selects one or more of the common tags for deletion and then clicks the appropriate "Mark and Next" button.
 * 3) Mark as Patrolled - the User can select zero or more of the common tags to mark the article as needing improvement and then clicks the appropriate "Mark and Next" button.

Ignoring an Article
If the user opts to ignore an article, the currently viewed article will not change state. The article viewing pane will be replaced with the next or previous article, depending.

Nominating an Article for Deletion
The user will select (via checkboxes) all appropriate "Deletion" tags. Some tags are multi-leveled (e.g., there are child tags for more specific cases). The system will be smart and only select the correct tags if they exist within the tree (done as flyouts), but the root level checkbox will remain.

The system will then insert the tags onto the page and mark the article as patrolled.

Attempting to tag an article for deletion without selecting one or more tags will result in an error.


 * The system will automatically inform the creator of the article that the article has been tagged for deletion. It will do this both by leaving a note on the user's talk page as well as sending an email to the user.

Marking an Article as Patrolled
Marking an article as patrolled will do just that. Selecting additional tags for improvement is not required: some articles are fine just the way they are when they enter the system.

If a tag is selected, the proper template will be inserted upon clicking the "Mark and Next" button.

Future Phases and Thoughts
I think we should aim for the following goals:


 * New users would be gradually taught to patrol correctly and could work with what they feel comfortable with, eventually graduating up to areas of additional difficulty
 * Includes automated systems to aid in patrolling
 * Includes a more crowd-sourced, moderation-queue like process
 * This will increase work-load overall, but probably decrease it per-user
 * Has multiple flags other than simply "patrolled" vs. "not patrolled"
 * Allows for the re-viewing and flagging of an the article in situ
 * Could easily be used on tablets and mobiles
 * Gesture support would be awesome

For initial phases of the implementation, the tool can work within the existing template/tag system by automatically adding templates to the article

Currently:


 * No way to tag an article for improvement but not mark it as patrolled. Is this even desired?