Talk:Article Creation Workflow/Landing System

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Probably worth setting up an independent work-flow for red-links since they are generally an indicator of fewer notability issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talkcontribs) 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


I've made a start on the editintro HTML/CSS. --Yair rand 08:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Account creation[edit]

I don't understand, are you creating a new account creation page/system? How does that interact with the normal one? I ask also because there are several issues about it and seeing them duplicated would be very depressing (e.g. bugzilla:25815, bugzilla:30442). Nemo 19:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not at this time. Those screens and flows are meant to illustrate an "ideal" situation.--Jorm (WMF) 19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi at En:village pump, we were requested to come and make suggestions[edit]

In creating a new article, encourage the user to look at similar articles, perhaps through a category and word search function.

Eg., "Wikipedia tries not to be hidebound but as with anything its good to know what came before (especially if you like examples). If you want to create an article on a new ______ type words related to _________ or categories related to ________, to see how articles like that look and have worked out. Note, not all the articles you find will be great examples but look at several and try to pick some good examples (while you're there fix whatever you see needs improving)." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Misguided and out of touch fantasy[edit]

  1. Inviting the user to create an account if not logged in and making it an extremely easy process defeats the reason why article creation was restricted to accounts only in the first place.
  2. This will only improve quality of new articles at the margin. Those that want to add crap will charge through this process and continue to do so.
  3. Where's the search functionality?
  4. Is there any way to opt out of the tracking?
  5. This extension gives a false impression to new users that creating a new article is an easy task. It isn't, not by a long shot. We are already doing this, but this extension makes it worse.
  6. I thought we're supposed to be emphasising quality over quantity. Wikipedia has more than enough crap articles as it is, and it goes without saying we don't want any more.
  7. The editing community does not have enough resources to deal with the predictable surge of crap that comes with the implementation. This will cause an increase in burn-out and a decrease in useful editor retention.
  8. There absouletely must be an abuse filter type thing that keeps out obviously bad pages before they are saved (this addresses some points above). I'd really like to see attempts to create first person spam and attack pages denied.
  9. Many userspace drafts end up as crappy WP:FAKEARTICLEs that should be deleted anyway.
  10. Where's the community consensus? If you're calling this one of your "experiments", you'd better have clear and strict termination criteria, timelines and goals.

This has all the hallmarks of the fantastic, idealistic and out of touch bullshit that has been coming out of the WMF as of late. WP:COMPETENCE is an essential read -- the authors of a good fraction of new articles show no regard for WP:ENC whatsoever. No amount of "education" or hand-holding will change that. I am open to changing my mind if the "create an account" bit is dropped, but what I see here does not convince me this is a benefit to the encyclopedia.

In the meantime, let's play New Page Patrol Bingo!. How long does it take you to fill the entire card? MER-C (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal at the village pump[edit]

There's a proposal at the village pump regarding this landing page design. It makes the case that new users should be explained the expected contents of a Wikipedia before they create an account (i.e. at the Anonymous Users screen), not after it. I don't know if this talk page is still active and comments on the design are being heard? Diego Moya (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. --Nemo 17:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia disclaimers at user creation and login screen[edit]

A frequent complaint by new users is that they weren't aware of the content disclaimers about spoilers, objectionable pictures or profanity; too often these disclaimers have to be explained by experienced editors, when they ideally should have found them on their own.

The landing page for login and account creation is the perfect place to inform new users. It should include a visible warning notice, with the summarizing title of the content disclaimer ("WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE") and a link to the disclaimer page. Diego Moya (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Messages for new-article creators[edit]

An RfC is currently taking place at the en.Wiki Village Pump here.

Users interested in new-article/new user retention are invited to join the discussion.

--Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous reactions to Article Creation Workflow/Landing System[edit]

I am not presently a Wikipedia author/editor; the workflow issues being addressed by this present effort are the reason. Here are a few suggested principles that could guide the effort of reconceptualizing the Article Creation Workflow/Landing System.

Timestamp your work -- Not clear what is the age of this project specification. Exposing dates for project schedule and work-in-progress is basic.

Leverage the goodwill of those wanting to add articles -- I've attempted to respond to the lack of articles in Wikipedia before being beaten down by the overhead of creating a new one (and I'm a career software technical writer). Your site's onerous article creation overhead was/is a surprise to me, given that your site is dependent upon contributions by persons motivated to contribute and typically possessing relatively narrow subject-matter expertise(s), thus presumed to be persons who would not contribute massively (and potentially abusively) to Wikipedia now that it has reached a mature degree of coverage of very many generic topics. I think any new workflow must be based on the important notion of conserving the goodwill of those who want to contribute new articles, especially on narrowly focused topics. Of course, this can be abused, but that scenario can be addressed as described below.

Article creation should use Wikimedia's standard editing workflow -- I've been surprised that your system has not incorporated this workflow/interface simplification up to now. Avoid "article creation" as a notion. It is problematic as a distinct user-visible task because (1) for online content creation, it is an unnecessary artifact of (low-level) file-system-type thinking, (2) it can readily lead to semantic error (article topic collisions or redundancy) due to the contributor's likely less-than-comprehensive knowledge of Wikimedia topic coverage and topic names/identities, and (3) privileged Wikimedia users should be (?) the gatekeepers for approving/submitting new articles for publication. Present this task as one of editing a "draft" article whose required metadata or attributes are already populated with helpful/meaningful/relevant default values. Perhaps before article content creation begins, present a preliminary form to the contributor into which he/she enters information that the Wikimedia system uses to produce in the next form (that is, the article editing form) a relevant initial set of attribute values.

Make Wikimedia account creation optional and, if elected by the contributor, perform it late (at the end) in a new article's initial editing session -- Your system should encourage new contributors to provide as much substantiated article content as possible, without interruption, in the initial editing session, then point that contributor to (optional) Wikimedia account creation.

Workflow of system receipt of new article contributions -- New (draft) articles can be placed in "limbo/pending" status for subsequent examination/culling by a Wikimedia user with higher privileges. Perhaps after the privileged user picks up a "work ticket" associated with the end of the contributing user's editing session, the privileged user examines and manually proofs the new article's content for Wikimedia acceptability, that is, beyond what can be proofed automatically when the system accepts the "saved" draft content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:21, 18 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your feedback. Unregistered users may present their draft articles for assessment through the Articles for creation system which either rejects or accepts new articles. The system is currently severely backlogged and concerns are occasionally raised about the quality of the decisions, many of which, like at New Page Patrol are made by users who need no special 'privileges' and are not required to have any special experience or length of membership.
Registered users may use the Article wizard that presents some forms of basic meta page elements, but generally the explanations provided are walls of text.
New pages are not assessed by 'privileged' members. They may be patrolled by any user who has a registered account for at least four days and has made at least ten edits to the encyclopedia irrespective of their experience as users. Suggestions for creating a team of 'privileged' users to monitor new pages were met with a comment from the Foundation that 'We do not want a whole priesthood of gatekeepers'. A November 2011 survey (a community initiative) showed the page patrolling community to be divided on the suggestion that minimum qualifications or a 'privileged' user right should be introduced for this function. A new tool for page patrollers is currently under development and is due to be released for general use at the end of this month. Concerns have been expressed that this tool will not address the issues concerning inexperinced patrollers.
Creation of new pages by non registered users was discontinued early in Wikipedia's history and is most unlikely to be restored. In 2012 in an attempt to reduce the flow of creation of inappropriate pages, the English Wikipedia community voted to further restrict the creation of new pages to 'conformed users' i.e. those who have been registered for at least four days and made at least ten edits. A trial for this proposal was declined by the Wikimedia Foundation amidst their fears that such a limitation would contravene core Foundation policy and would result in a significant loss of users and a decline in the creation of new articles. The Foundation responded around August 2011 to its rejection with its launching of the this Articled Creation Work Flow project. At this moment in time, it is understood that the Foundation does not regard this project as a priority, but is currently 'revisiting' it.
Most initiatives for the improvement of Wikipedia, especially in the reception of new editors and the creation of new articles are conceived by the volunteer community. If and when these proposals are adopted by the Foundation, funds and human resources are generally allocated to further development and as a result, community participation occasionally recedes in the anticipation of the development of the new process(es) by the Foundation.
I hope this answers your comments. If my response is not accurate or not up to date, I'm sure a representative of the Foundation will also reply here with corrections and updated information. Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)