114:, with the figures for articles being deleted as a result of NPP intervention being placed at approximately 80%. NPP itself had a few dedicated users, but the rate of article creation even back in those days was high, resulting in the new pages feed becoming backlogged consistently once the more prolific patrollers were offline for the day. NPP was understaffed for its purpose, and was struggling to keep up with a firehose of new articles.
201:. The proposal involved consolidating all existing drafts (with the exception of userspace drafts due to that proving to be too controversial) into this new namespace and making it the default location for working on draft articles. This proposal also received support from within the WMF, and ultimately ended with support for creating draftspace.
31:
343:
316:
153:
204:
After the RfC, two different bugzilla (now known as
Phabricator) threads were opened to implement the RfC. The first, by Steven Walling in his capacity as a WMF employee, was to propose making adjustments which would lay the groundwork for a draftspace to be created in wnatever MediaWiki project that
217:
For the next few years, things largely remained quiet as far as article creation permissions and tools went. However, in June of 2017, a face-to-face meeting between WMF employees resulted in the WMF finally working towards implementing the article creation trial, primarily as a research experiment.
188:
was created proposing that AfC be made a requirement for new users. While most of the RfC's proposals would ultimately be rejected at that time, there were signs that a new namespace and/or userright would be acceptable, provided they were supported to a more in-depth RfC first. Taking this result,
80:
The reason these are brought up as examples is in part because the user mistakenly assumes every article on
Knowledge had to go through the same process as their draft currently is, mainly because these users haven't the time or inclination to seek out the various requests for comment on the topic.
171:
While the first two could (and ultimately would) be largely dealt with on
Knowledge proper, the third one required an edit to the underlying MediaWiki software itself, something that the Wikimedia Foundation at the time baulked at, citing that this would essentially require a major overhaul of the
145:, laying out the situation and proposing two solutions: Getting more people to assist with new pages patrol and/or requiring autoconfirmed status in order to create articles directly into mainspace. An informal discussion showed overwhelming support for the latter option, which in turn resulted in
98:
in 2008. During these days, it was assumed that if you created an article, than you accepted whatever consequences arose from that action, whether it be the article's deletion, being relentlessly edited, or even your account being blocked for egregious or persistent issues. In addition, the only
146:
89:
From the inception of the project until about 2011, there was no formal drafting process. Userspace sandboxes being used to draft articles were very much a thing, but there was no actual formal review process. Knowledge operated more on a "Publish and be damned" system, especially after the
180:
Meanwhile, other technical developments were going on around the actual article creation process itself. The
Article Wizard would receive a major overhaul and re-coding, merging it with a similar wizard that created Articles for Creation entries to create Article Wizard 2.0, which would be
106:, a faction that still exists today on Knowledge and serves the same function now as it did then - patrolling articlespace for new articles and making sure they're up to standards. The usual result of an article not meeting their standards prior to 2011 was deletion of some stripe, either
319:- "I really don't like the option to allow creation with the article wizard. The idea behind the wizard is a good one, and when it works it works brilliantly. Unfortunately it has also led to a lot of new articles that look more like proper Knowledge articles but are still junk." -
411:- "The proposals for a requestable user right or a new namespace did achieve significant support. However, these changes are both in and of themselves a bit too far-reaching in their implications to simply be enacted as a result of the somewhat limited discussion here." -
238:
were that it had no effect on editor retention and kept low-quality material out of mainspace (and thus off of Google), but that the burden shifted from NPP to AfC reviewers, who were (and at times still are) trying to keep up with a firehose of new drafts. Nonetheless,
181:
implemented in 2010.. Articles for
Creation itself shifted from a pipeline for unregistered users to make suggestions to a means to allow them to create their own drafts, initially done as talk page subpages (as IPs would be able to create those without any issue).
209:, was strictly about creating the namespace. Both wound up facing some pushback, with Walling's falling into the same issues as the initial trial proposal (i.e. limiting by userright or registration status), but would be implemented within a month.
292:- "...I've been attacking around 200+ pages a day to try and keep Special:NewPages from flooding again; the other day, I patrolled about 350 pages. It's obvious when neither of us are doing NPP because it backs up very quickly during that time." -
149:
on the topic opening in early April of that year. After the standard month for requests for comment, the closer noted that there was a consensus to trial this change, with length of both the trial and the evaluation period to be determined later.
95:
235:
226:
to thrash out the minor details. After a few brief delays, the trial began on 14 September, and would run for six months, during which time autoconfirmed status would be required to create articles directly in mainspace.
156:
determined the trial should last six months, with a one month evaluation period before determining if it should permanently be implemented. However, during the duration RfC some issues were noted. The
165:
438:- " seriously discussed proposing this idea ourselves all the way back to 2011-12. Barring any disagreement over the particulars, it has wide support within Foundation engineering." -
487:- "e're interested in running ACTRIAL as a research experiment, so tmhat we can look at the impact on new user retention and productivity, as well as the impact on page creation..."
304:
168:
during same). Page creation was all-or-nothing in MediaWiki's codebase and did not allow for specific namespaces to be set up to disallow article creation while allowing others.
408:
185:
484:
219:
289:
259:
138:
435:
194:
346:- "Currently MediaWiki's settings would only allow us to prevent non-autoconfirmed users from creating pages in any namespace, including their own userspace."
63:
234:, with the WMF focusing on new-editor retention and the quality of articles that went through the drafting phase during this time. One month later, their
297:
231:
91:
142:
107:
293:
134:
374:
502:
450:
355:
46:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
47:
423:
331:
118:
111:
67:
243:
was overwhelmingly in favour of making the trial restrictions permanent, and in April 2018 that is precisely what happened.
277:
122:
344:
Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration
317:
Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration
103:
161:
17:
367:
157:
125:
as opposed to a formalised drafting process, and wouldn't start resembling its present form until mid-2010.
495:
443:
230:
After the trial ended on-time on 14 March 2018, the data from the trial would be analysed via the lens of
223:
532:
416:
324:
190:
363:
51:
222:
about the implementation that lasted for a couple of weeks, after which discussion was moved to
290:
Knowledge:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 31#requiring autoconfirmation to create articles
262:- "Some little tests I did show that around 80% of the pages created by new users is deleted."
260:
Knowledge:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 31#requiring autoconfirmation to create articles
491:
439:
514:
270:
240:
198:
39:
412:
320:
121:
technically existed during this time (the page was created in 2006), it behaved more like
206:
526:
81:
This essay thus seeks to summarise the history of the drafting process on
Knowledge.
54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
358:- "his isn't just a switch to be made. It's a core change to underlying systems.
266:
164:
was, at the time the duration RfC started, still being litigated (and would be
436:
Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 107#Proposed new Draft namespace
515:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Afc_submissions_per_day_2014-2017.png
71:
96:
WP:Requests for arbitration/Editing of
Biographies of Living Persons
356:
User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 3#Help with implementing a trial
462:
99:
restriction on creating a page was having a registered account.
473:
160:
was seen as not fit for purpose and would need an upgrade. The
25:
102:
At the time, the only sort of "review crew" that existed was
386:
294:
The Blade of the Northern Lights
397:
409:
Knowledge:WikiProject
Articles for creation/RfC 2013
205:wanted one, Knowledge or otherwise.. The other, by
485:Knowledge talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Archive 4
360:This change is not as simple as you make it sound.
77:I find that usually, the answer is, "It wasn't."
232:m:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial
241:an RfC held immediately after the trial's end
8:
463:https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59315#c15
474:https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59569#c3
70:are brought up is, "Well, then, why was
252:
62:A common argument used on pages where
7:
195:an RfC on creating a new namespace
52:thoroughly vetted by the community
48:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
24:
398:Public logs for WP:Article Wizard
135:The Blade of the Northern Lights
92:WP:Biographies of living persons
29:
143:WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)
129:Autoconfirmed creation proposal
1:
197:- what is today known as the
147:a formal request for comment
387:Relevant Phabricator thread
549:
104:the New Page Patrol (NPP)
119:WP:Articles for creation
213:The Trial and Aftermath
162:Pending changes "trial"
123:WP:Requested articles
50:, as it has not been
364:Philippe (WMF)
133:On 10 March, 2011,
18:User:Jéské Couriano
176:Wizard 2.0 and AfC
154:The subsequent RfC
492:DannyH (WMF)
453:) 8 November 2013
440:Steven (WMF)
426:), 23 August 2013
60:
59:
540:
517:
512:
506:
482:
476:
471:
465:
460:
454:
433:
427:
406:
400:
395:
389:
384:
378:
377:), 5 August 2011
353:
347:
341:
335:
314:
308:
307:), 10 March 2011
287:
281:
280:), 10 March 2011
257:
90:introduction of
64:article creation
33:
32:
26:
548:
547:
543:
542:
541:
539:
538:
537:
523:
522:
521:
520:
513:
509:
505:), 26 June 2017
483:
479:
472:
468:
461:
457:
434:
430:
407:
403:
396:
392:
385:
381:
354:
350:
342:
338:
315:
311:
288:
284:
258:
254:
249:
215:
199:Draft namespace
191:TheOriginalSoni
178:
131:
87:
56:
55:
44:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
546:
544:
536:
535:
525:
524:
519:
518:
507:
477:
466:
455:
428:
401:
390:
379:
348:
336:
334:), 2 June 2011
309:
282:
251:
250:
248:
245:
218:This led to a
214:
211:
177:
174:
158:Article Wizard
130:
127:
86:
83:
58:
57:
45:
36:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
545:
534:
531:
530:
528:
516:
511:
508:
504:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
481:
478:
475:
470:
467:
464:
459:
456:
452:
449:
445:
441:
437:
432:
429:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
402:
399:
394:
391:
388:
383:
380:
376:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
352:
349:
345:
340:
337:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
306:
303:
299:
295:
291:
286:
283:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
256:
253:
246:
244:
242:
237:
233:
228:
225:
221:
212:
210:
208:
202:
200:
196:
192:
187:
182:
175:
173:
169:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
144:
140:
136:
128:
126:
124:
120:
115:
113:
109:
105:
100:
97:
93:
85:Early history
84:
82:
78:
75:
73:
69:
65:
53:
49:
43:
41:
35:
28:
27:
19:
510:
499:
488:
480:
469:
458:
447:
431:
420:
404:
393:
382:
371:
359:
351:
339:
328:
312:
301:
285:
274:
263:
255:
229:
216:
203:
183:
179:
170:
152:
132:
116:
101:
94:in 2005 and
88:
79:
76:
74:approved?!"
61:
37:
533:User essays
72:<foo>
38:This is an
413:Beeblebrox
321:Beeblebrox
247:References
224:WT:ACTRIAL
220:discussion
166:terminated
137:started a
207:MZMcBride
186:a new RfC
184:In 2013,
527:Category
503:contribs
451:contribs
424:contribs
375:contribs
332:contribs
305:contribs
278:contribs
236:findings
193:started
68:deletion
494: (
442: (
415: (
366: (
323: (
296: (
269: (
112:debated
108:summary
498:
446:
419:
370:
327:
300:
273:
267:Yoenit
172:code.
139:thread
117:While
40:essay
16:<
496:talk
444:talk
417:talk
368:talk
362:" -
325:talk
298:talk
271:talk
141:on
110:or
66:or
529::
500:·
490:-
448:·
421:·
372:·
329:·
302:·
275:·
265:-
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.