Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2012-02-20/Special report

3516:

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation in the State of Florida, USA." - exactly. Now I'll roam around that place and see if I can find out more. I had a horrible awakening this week when I realized that anyone with (WMF) after their name can't help on en:wp, and if I've contacted an (WMF) editor, I'm not eligible for help from that same person using their en:wp account. My problem was that your overall top Online Ambassador for the educational initiative for US and Canada didn't know that close paraphrasing/plagarizm is not allowed in a GA article, (she was trying to get her article passed) and still doesn't get it - though she's working with university professors and also student editors, according to her user page, and is some sort of top supervisor - goes on those travel junkets and stuff. And WMF on en:wp only deals with copyright violation issues, and if the top supervising on line ambassadors are ill informed, and close paraphrase/plagiarize in their own articles, there's no recourse for me. No one to contact that's related to WMF because they don't cover that. She said, well it passed dyk, so what could be the problem? I'm disillusioned no end. What kind of damage is this top supervising online ambassador going to do as the US and Canada on line courses move forward?

1985:

placed in the way of anyone wishing to write an article"; it's that Knowledge (XXG) (as the motto goes) is a 💕 that anyone can edit. This is comprised of three pillars; that we be free, that we be encyclopedic, and that anyone can contribute. Any change that impacts on one of those principles has to be (1) justified as promoting one of the other pillars and (2) the smallest possible restriction necessary to promote that pillar. So, in the case of ACTRIAL, proponents would argue that this is balancing "encyclopedia" against "anyone can edit"; I think the WMF agrees that this is what editors were looking to do: restrict the ability of people to contribute in order to cut down on the amount of junk contributors are forced to deal with, and improve both the quality of the project and the quality of the editing experience. Where the WMF and those community members who supported ACTRIAL differ is on the second point - the Foundation loves, in principle, the idea of promoting quality and making this a better place to be. But the restrictions suggested in ACTRIAL were thought to be too wide, and most definitely not the "smallest possible restriction necessary".

2353:

You state the very argument I was betting you were going to use, that the Foundation has to somehow protect the next generation of editors, with its policies of empowered kitten distribution, university pilot projects of various shades of success, and the whole bulwark about making Knowledge (XXG) more open. Ya'll fail to realize that Knowledge (XXG) is not simple. When I joined I spent a good two days reading through policies, amazed by their sheer multitude. Knowledge (XXG) is a complex place and as the Indian program lunacy showed, a fragile one to uneducated meddling. The policy that the Foundation shot down would have built a low wall between us and said masses, making it easier for us to deal with the crap flying by, and the Foundation shot it down on its own ideological ideals. The Foundation is out of touch on its lofty pedestal of "editing for anyone!", when it should be, as the community knows, "editing for those that can." Sorry, but we lack the Foundation's evangelical views.

2568:

that this was just a temporary trial. So, while the WMF was determining that bold notes on landing pages aren't sufficient to inform new editors of the situation, they simultaneously determine that the solution to the problem is to design new landing pages to inform new editors on how to create their new article. Genius. The WMF decided that instead of turning down the knob labeled "Shit Articles" in the sink of Knowledge (XXG), they would rather waste their time creating a tool to slightly increase the efficiency of those volunteers who waste their time directing a full 75% of the output of the aforementioned faucet directly into the drain. Genius. The WMF have affirmed their belief that new editor retention is maximized by allowing new editors to create new articles freely, and then forcing those new editors to watch (Clockwork Orange style) as their beloved article gets nuked. Genius.

2881:

unsupported concern", for example, it's clear the WMF is not effectively communicating its research and numbers on this problem. I would agree that the easiest way forward is simply to not make bad decisions, or not make decisions that overrule the community, but I can't promise that this won't happen. First, staffers are human. They screw up. Second, the community is human. We screw up. It is inevitable that there will be a situation where the WMF feels the community is wrong, correctly or incorrectly, and has to step in. What I think we should be doing is trying to open a dialogue to talk through the relationship between the community and the Foundation on a more strategic level, but that's probably a conversation for a different venue. On the clickthrough point I'll poke Brandon; he's the designer, and fantastic at UX/UI, so I'll find out what his motivations are for the landing pages.

1989:

replace the "Everyone welcome, come on in and edit!" sign with one that says "This is a project to build an encyclopedia. If you would like to help with that, you are very welcome; but if you looking for somewhere to write about yourself, your friends, your company, your band, or anything you are closely associated with, this is probably not the site for you: Myspace is that way".' The new landing pages seek to do precisely that: warn new editors trying to create pages that if they want to write an article on the band that performs out of their garage, or their company, or some new meme they've heard of that's been around for ~30 seconds, they're better off trying to do other stuff. In turn, New Page Triage is an attempt to improve the quality of the editing experience, by making sure that patrollers have to deal with less junk, and can more easily boot out the junk they

1478:

suspect anyone who complains that Wiki markup is "too difficult" is making a disingenuous excuse for not contributing.) Adding links, both internal & external, is trivial to learn. However, the more advanced pieces -- viz. tables, images, using templates -- is daunting, & sometimes a nightmare. I've been editting articles longer than 99.999% of all of the editors, & the way I go about using any template I'm not intimately familiar with is to find another article which uses that template (or the effect it creates), open that section of the page in edit mode, copy what was done & fiddle with it until I get it to work. But instead of tackling the tangled mess of templates -- say, create a dictionary or thesaurus for users to find the template she or he wants -- resources are wasted in creating unneeded things.

1997:

answer to the board, not to the community - although the community (in various ways) elects members of the board. A WMF employee, regardless of the strength of consensus, cannot just say "I know the board resolution says X but we're going to say X isn't an important principle" - it's asking to get fired. I'm not a Foundation employee, and I wasn't really associated with the WMF at the time when the ACTRIAL decision came down, but I genuinely feel for the staffers who are having poop flung at them for, well, not getting fired. I appreciate we can debate how the proposal was treated (as said above, I think the WMF seriously screwed up on this issue) but staffers cannot just ignore resolutions by the board of trustees, and it's unfair to expect them to do so.

1941:", the idea that people so out of touch with the reality of the New Page list could refuse, for what appeared to be ideological reasons, the considered request of en:wp for a change in its internal procedures made me stop reading and bang my head against the desk. When that was followed by the Indian train-wreck, many of us thought that, if the WMF was indeed on the same planet, it was certainly not pulling in the same direction as those who were trying to build an encyclopedia. It is regrettable that the volunteers should see the WMF as the enemy, but it will take a long time to rebuild trust: next time a similar situation arises, think very hard before using your ownership of the servers to over-rule a project's decision about how to run its affairs. 3613:

a good portion of my fall cleaning up plagiarism after student editors, who appear to be getting no guidance from ambassadors. Based on what you found, it's no wonder. These problems brought upon us by these WMF programs have caused me to unwatch several hundred articles and give up. So instead, just this week, I started patrolling new medicine articles and found that the problem is even worse. It is very hard to understand what the WMF is thinking; based on what I'm seeing, I'll give up on that as well, and it escapes me why the WMF ignored the community proposal. If there are future efforts to curb these problems, I hope someone will ping me, because my days of working for a futile project that encourages quantity over quality are winding down.

1265:

to re-establish it permanently. But you're worried about new editors? Me too! And one of the nastiest tricks we play on new editors is to say "You can create this article!", followed a couple minutes later by "...and now we're going to nuke it from orbit!". THAT'S a reason for a new editor not to stick around—and the vast majority don't. It would be much gentler to say "Our article creation rules can be complex, and we don't accept articles about everything. Before you can create an article, we ask that you spend a little time editing existing articles, to get a feel for our community and our expectations. If you're certain you know the rules well enough to create an appropriate article and don't want to wait, you can submit it to

2843:

we proposed didn't violate the Board's resolution. We already restrict new article creation more heavily than we do existing article editing (must be registered). We already (semi)protect pages when necessary. "Anyone can edit" doesn't mean an absolute free-for-all, even now. The community should absolutely be free to fine-tune that balance according to its needs. We did that, we presented very good cause to do that, and we got told, in essence, "It stays like it is, and if you don't like it, go away." Several editors—existing, good editors that already were part of the project—took Erik up on the second part of that offer. Continuing to dance around the issue is just going to frustrate yet more.

2308:

are theirs to take the lead on. Technical changes are the Foundation's ballgame. Now, as said above, the community needs to be far more involved in technical changes, but this shouldn't be confused for having control over it. I don't think at any stage the Foundation was saying "we will tell you what you can and cannot do in terms of culture, policy, internal guidelines" - all the things that are the community's bailiwick. But ACTRIAL was a technical change, and one that clashed with a resolution of the board of trustees. Technical changes are the Foundation's thing, and staffers cannot supersede or undermine board resolutions. Things just aren't structured like that.

598:-distribution, with 89% of the work done by 25 percent of the patrollers. The report states that "we clearly need to make involving more users, and involving patrollers to a greater degree, a priority". 64 percent of new page patrollers spend between 1 and 3 hours a day reading and editing Knowledge (XXG). 46 percent of patrollers have made 10,000 edits or more; this is a marked difference from the Editor Survey 2011, in which only 20 percent of editors had reached this count, more evidence against the belief that many patroller problems come from inexperience. In terms of user rights, more than half of patrollers were 1270:

instead of speedy bait. An improved UI, while welcome and appreciated, will solve exactly zero of those issues. Not to mention, it seemed after having a reasonable discussion and coming to a genuine consensus, the community got a handwave (or really, another type of gesture) from WMF. No engagement with the community, no "We have concerns, you sure you want to do this?", certainly no understanding of the concerns that led to the consensus (since the proposed solution doesn't address any of them), just a "Nah, you got no idea what you're doing here. Now run along and speedy some more articles."

1965:

who are not here to build an encyclopedia from becoming editors at all: replace the "Everyone welcome, come on in and edit!" sign with one that says "This is a project to build an encyclopedia. If you would like to help with that, you are very welcome; but if you looking for somewhere to write about yourself, your friends, your company, your band, or anything you are closely associated with, this is probably not the site for you: Myspace is that way". Stop trying to lure in the maximum number of new editors, and focus on recruiting ones who are able and willing to help build an encyclopedia.

2157:

this goal in their own ways; editors are certainly a hugely important part of the movement—a crucial "cannot succeed without" part of the movement. Donors are also part of the movement, as they contribute in different ways. Staff, too, are part of the movement, even if they are not also editors. And readers are a huge part of the movement, as we are constantly trying to find new ways to get this material into their hands--for instance, with a major drive at the moment towards mobile access. They contribute when we engage them directly to provide feedback on their experiences with our work.

1754:

that patrollers are generally young and inexperienced, but that leaves two theories in play - one that the patrollers are fine and all the problems are with the article creators, and the other that it is mixed, many, perhaps most new article creators need more help than they currently get to understand our processes; whilst many of our new patrollers go through a heavy handed phase. What I'm not sure about is the proportion of patrollers whose tagging quality improves, and the best ways to guide them. One thing I've tried is encouraging patrollers to install Hotcat and adopt a policy of

2769:, one of my childhood idols (my favorite, Mariano Rivera, is too perfect for this). A few years ago, people using some isometrics "proved" he was the worst shortstop in the league. This was based on all sorts of data gathered by a few statisticians, and it was trumpeted as The Truth. However, any baseball fan who's watched him play knows that's patently ridiculous; even at his age, Jeter is still one of the better shortstops out there, but many of the things he does don't show up in the stats or the box score. One of his most famous plays, the Flip Play (see 782:. Based on the results, the survey concludes that "it seems clear that some variation on 'X edits and Y months as an editor' is likely to be the most acceptable criteria, but ... any attempt to get firm consensus on this point, whether made by the community or by the Foundation, is likely to be drawn-out and gruelling." Finally, 60 percent of new page patrollers wanted to see technical changes implemented, while 20 percent wanted to see cultural and policy-based decisions. The remaining 20 percent did not comment, or felt that the current system basically works. 1119:); I'm just asking where you're quoting from with "cherry picked". The link you have just provided does not include that phrase. Quoting talkpage discussions is all well and good, but rather unfair if you don't consider the rebuttals. Kudpung's concerns are entirely without merit; I have told him six or seven times now that if he wants me to provide any additional analysis, he should simply contact me with details. He has repeatedly failed to do so, all the while insisting we're out to screw him over. Quite frankly, while you may feel editors : --> 3422:

globally according to the strategic plan of 2009, and en:wp is just a part of it's volunteer work force laboring under idealistic aims. WMF tolerates much of what wp:en does because "so what?" But if en:wp does something that doesn't fit with the global strategic plan (as WMF sees it), then they squash it, as in the NPP issue. WMF is "surprised" that en:wp is outraged (if they even know it is), and en:wp is outraged because they labour under the illusion that they're a self-determining "community". But when WMF uses the word "community" (e.g.

647: 562: 550: 675: 730: 1784:

change. But studying the "problem" of overworked NPP volunteers and wringing their hands about that problem — that they're good at. NEW VISITORS TO WP SHOULD NOT BE CREATING PAGES. Page creation should be an earned user right. Anybody can edit Knowledge (XXG) — not anybody can delete pages. Neither should anybody be allowed to create pages. But that interferes with somebody's pie-in-the-sky vision in San Francisco... So we have a study and hand-wringing. Whooopie!!!

3567:"I am an Online Ambassador, member of the Ambassador Selection Team, and member of the Ambassador Steering Committee. I have worked with university professors and students through the Public Policy Initiative over the past year and attended the Knowledge (XXG) in Higher Education Summit in July 2011, to assist with expanding the project to the global community. I am now part of the Knowledge (XXG) Education Program, with an emphasis on the United States and Canada." 1814:

creation right and specious to argue that making them get up to speed just a little in that way deters the future participation of new editors more than having them blindly launch a bad page and see it speedily deleted through cold, semi-automated tools. Quite the contrary. In fact, if anything, the page creation right should be more like 3 months and 300 edits, truth be told. WMF is out of touch on this matter, protestations that "we have a plan" notwithstanding.

3425:), they mean the WMF community. They're really not interested in en:wp, except how they can exploit it through using it to do the grunt work for their "educational iniatives" etc. That's why they learned apparently NOTHING from the copyvio recent scandal in course work done on line in wikipedia. And why they're not conserned that by expanding this use of en:wp, it will cause editors here more work. These are the conclusions I've come to in the last few days. 574: 350: 2563:

planning its implementation, and at the last step of implementation (i.e. asking the devs to flip a simple switch), it is rejected for ideological reasons. In other words, a handful of WMF staffers believe they know better than 500 editors. They believe that the ability for brand new editors to create shit articles (nearly 3 out of 4 from non-autoconfirmed editors are deleted) is so important, that they're not even willing to entertain a

663: 879: 716:

deleted/if something should be deleted" was the most stressful part of the job, with the rest listing a slew of other reasons. An overwhelming majority have read the various relevant deletion guidelines, and very nearly 100 percent have read the speedy deletion guidelines. About 45 percent of editors reviewed from the front of the Special:NewPages buffer (the newest articles), just under 30% from the back, and 15% chose "Other."

117: 107: 456: 2508:" may be a Board resolution, but it is clearly not an absolute: we already restrict it by requiring them to set up an account before being able to create articles, and there are other restrictions like being autoconfirmed before uploading images or moving articles. That being so, it can't really be argued that moving article creation up one notch from "registered" to "autoconfirmed" is a fundamental breach of principle. 322: 188:, aimed to collect information on current patrollers to base improvements to the NPP process. The results: Most new page patrollers are over 18 years of age, most have at least an undergraduate degree, and most are very much clued into what they are doing. The report – while providing a better view of who the average page patroller is and what the average page patroller does – substantially refutes some stereotypes. 274:

userrights than in actually patrolling productively and helping improve new articles" (NPP survey). Many critics consider the underlying issue to be that patrollers were overwhelmingly young and inexperienced editors, much more likely to act immaturely or without regard for new editors or new articles. Others believe that it is the stress of the process that drives the perceived errors among its users.

310: 2053:

cannot just ignore resolutions by the board of trustees" - that is true in one sense: resolutions set Foundation direction and policy. But sometimes policies need to change. If there is clear community consensus to do something that seems to go against current policy, the best course is to bring this up and discuss whether the matter has highlighted an area where policy should change.

742: 3592:

how the Ambassador program works, as I've not worked much directly with them and the program predates my employment, but I know that none of us are immune to dispute resolution processes. We're all still community. :) If you have concerns about somebody, I would really urge you to follow the proper processes for having those concerns evaluated, to help avoid any further issues. --

2001:

Foundation has no interest in existing editors, and only wants to focus on this mythical utopian future where Ethel, an 82 year old retired nurse from Swansea, can write articles about her lovely grandchildren without being troubled by any of these pesky rules or standards. Now, this isn't what the Foundation wants, but what the Foundation wants is secondary to what the community

33: 2593:

using their veto power to override the community's clear consensus to implement that misguided ideology. The new landing pages and the Zoom interface aren't going to make any progress towards repairing that damage (or fixing the problem). A real discussion about how to reduce the rate of shit article creation certainly would, but you won't catch me holding my breath.

127: 1300:

too many details of the engagement plan for Zoom and associated things, but trust me, it's going to be a lot more cohesive than the standard routine of "dropping tiny notices at the bottom of noticeboards and telling editors that if they want to comment on the designs they should go over to mediawiki.org, where their messages and ideas may or may not be addressed".

754: 388:. It has a dynamic construction that allows users to mark a page with any of several specific templates, both for maintenance and deletion, before saving their changes and continuing on to the next article. One other change that is currently under consideration by developers is the addition of a patroller user-right to control who can access the interface. 87: 270:

shortage of reviewers. Coupled with the pressure to "get it right the first time" (because once an article is marked as reviewed, other patrollers no longer see it), the process has been characterized as stressful by some patrollers. The front of the queue can also be stressful if an individual patroller tries to keep pace with the flow of new articles.

137: 377:", an initiative that Möller hoped would "reduce the work involved in patrolling new pages by simplifying and smoothing out the process ... a system that is self-explanatory for newer editors; someone who hasn't done New Page Patrol before can look at it and gain an instinctive understanding of what they're expected to do and how they should work." 1481:

peeve) that they honestly don't know how to research a given topic so they can provide information matched to a reliable source? All I know is that public schools didn't do a good job of teaching kids how to do research, & after reading many articles on Knowledge (XXG) I see they still don't do a good job of it more than four decades later. --

849: 832: 2809:

felt that if the Deputy Director, the Head of Reader Relations and the Lead Software Architect are all saying something, and the Deputy Director is investing resources in a new project to pull that something off, the opinion of the Foundation is clear. As hard-working as Sue is, she is not the only person permitted to speak on behalf of the WMF.

97: 286: 2729:? The purpose of it is to protect the privacy of those individuals who responded to the survey. It wouldn't stop you from sharing the results. I'm also a bit confused by the evident concern that there is data not being presented to community. While I have not been part of this work, I was contacted a week or so ago by 3462:

editors and chapters. They are the ones who direct the activities of the WMF, including directing the staff of the WMF to develop the strategic plan, which included input from editors from English Knowledge (XXG) and around the world and also (at their direction) from parties not part of the Wikimedia community.

3612:

Matthew, you've hit upon an enormous problem, they get through DYK all the time (unless Nikkimaria checks them, at the rate of more than one a day), and that same online ambassador is in charge of the single class that has given me the most headaches (although there are quite a few of them). I spent

3515:

which is a place that allows me to log in at least. It does say though: "In many respects WMF is like any small business; in others, it faces unique challenges unlike any other online organization in the world. While there are many Knowledge (XXG) projects, at their root, they are all the work of the

3264:

Pointing out episodes of sub-optimal communication could be valuable if the purpose is to find a way forward; if it's just to say "this didn't go well", I'm not sure it'll help that much. Community know things haven't always gone well; so does staff. :/ Personally, I think the ACTRIAL situation would

2987:

Generally speaking, if the question is "why have the staffers not come over to discuss it"; staffers tend to have pretty packed schedules. My role is to act as a conduit between the community and the Foundation, and so that's what I'm doing. If we're going to discuss wider issues of the WMF/Community

2842:

new editor retention. Very few people read a nag screen if there's a clickthrough. The only way to get their attention is to say "No, not yet". As to the decision-making process, was this the Board? If so, why is Sue not a part of this conversation (or another one elsewhere, at the very least?). What

2408:

In my (admittedly few) dealings with the Foundation I had come under the impression that they answer to us editors. This bit about the Board and delicate balancing comes as a shock and is very troubling for me. If the Foundation can toss out community consensus and doesn't even answer to its editors,

2393:

Now, clearly this is a wider discussion that needs to be had at some point, but this Signpost article is (narrowly) about the survey and (widely) about where we go with new page triage. This is not the place for a conversation about the general roles of the Foundation and Community, and who takes the

2389:

RM, I've been an editor for six years. It is rather unfair to suggest I don't realise "Knowledge (XXG) is not simple". Now, as said above, the Foundation does not answer to the community: it is a delicate balancing process, and always has been. In the last year or so, the balance has swung rather off

2322:

I see nothing in the ACTRIAL proposal that clashes with a resolution of the Wikimedia Board. It was aimed at improving the interactions between new page authors and reviewers, and a proposed tool to improve usability. The only clash was that proposers differed with developers in their beliefs about

2307:

What percentage of the next generation of editors have edited? Well, none: they're the next generation. And agreed; the Foundation exists to oversee the community, not to command it. But the community does not command the Foundation, either. Each "entity" has its sphere of influence, and things which

1960:

A policy of "Welcome everyone in, no barriers" means that people sign on who think it is another Myspace or LinkedIn or a free advertising noticeboard, and are here only to post their CV or write about themselves, their garage bands, their self-published books, their companies or their school netball

1936:

First, I do think it's important that the WMF understand the depth of feeling, the lack of confidence and trust, that the ACTRIAL refusal aroused. When I read in the discussion one of the Foundation representatives saying that the sort of crap articles that ACTRIAL would have helped reduce were not a

1723:

Who responded to the survey? Those editors who have been around awhile. Survey didn't pick up all the new editors who tried doing NPP, made a mess of adding Speedy Deletions to legitimate articles, and then left. I know of five new editors that have created problems over the past three days. They

1453:

That's an interesting question. I know the user testing the usability initiative did found a lot of people have trouble with the barrier to contributing - I'm not sure if they were subject to the same phenomenon or not (I assume user testers are experienced at noting when people are telling porkies).

1134:

As for cherry-picking, I'll pose you one question. Having run a comparative analysis on both the full (unreliable) dataset and the smaller (reliable) dataset, I found that the results were incredibly similar - to within 2 or 3 percentage points. If I was cherry-picking data to come up with a result I

3764:

Then it should have said " a 10-year-old with a doctorate". "The term "from Africa" adds nothing to it. (Or would the claim that someone, age unstated, was a PhD from Africa be disbelieved?) A presumption that an individual African is unlikely to have a PhD is an offensive stereotype. I hope you

3234:

We need subdividers on this talk page. :) I would love to see some thoughts from the community on how to improve communication and collaboration between WMF and community, as this is one of the things I'm here to do. If you run an RFC, Aaron, I'll certainly watch with interest and contribute where I

3131:

There certainly needs to be a higher-level discussion of WMF - WP relations, the fact that the issue keeps bubbling up in inappropriate places like this shows that there is a fair head of steam under it. I am not optimistic of any easy resolution, because I think the en:wp community (in so far as it

3113:

Yes, we should stop shouting at Okeyes, though I think some of us were really shouting past him. If I have a final shot here, it's because I am about to go away (not pursuing the Möller Option, I will be back in mid-March) and may not have much internet access. I think the real issue is even further

2825:

OKeyes, to be quite honest, I don't think a thing has changed here. Reading through the discussion that's ensued, I think a critical point is still being missed and is not being addressed: The issue is not how the Foundation communicated its decision—though that was poor, that was not and is not the

2641:

As for reworking the survey data, I don't think anyone is asking you to waste your weekend with such a task. I'd rather see you release all of the unsanitized raw data and let me come to my own conclusions (and no, I'm not signing an NDA to get it). Furthermore, if you believe that there is only a

2156:

While I think the definition of "movement" is fairly nebulous (some people use it to refer to people and others to the mission; some to both!), the mission is the end goal of a "world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". All communities are working towards

1933:

It's not a case of what's "best for editors", it's a difference of opinion about how best to build an encyclopedia, where those actually doing it feel they have been over-ruled by people who do not understand and do not listen. I'm sure you're tired of us flogging the dead ACTRIAL horse, but I have

1828:

I find it strange you should reference San Francisco utopianism when A) the staffer ultimately responsible for the call to say no to the trial is German and B) the person responsible for this study is British and works remotely. Please do not stereotype or assume everyone who works at the Foundation

1813:

Another unread page on the already-too-long reading list isn't going to do what needs to be done, which is shutting down the spigot of bad articles about non-notable topics produced by neophytes. It is not unreasonable making people stick around for three days and a dozen edits before EARNING a page

1438:

Something I have wondered about for years on the issue of "user friendliness" is just how many people who complain Knowledge (XXG) is too hard to edit are actually saying "I don't want to contribute, & I say it is too hard to edit because that excuses me from feeling obligated"? I know I've used

1330:

page and found no reference to the Zoom tool in the main page or the talk page (only in the talk page archive which no one looks at). There is only an outdated link at the top of the talk page to an inactive 2010 development discussion. How do you expect to gather as much useful feedback as possible

1152:

My point of view: I saw the reversal of community consensus happen, and rose an eyebrow. When this showed up, I saw the shrinking data pool and raised another eyebrow. On querying the users—volunteers, mind you, who don't get paychecks from the Foundation—on asking those users that had suggested and

715:

Activity is unevenly distributed, with almost 40% of patrollers spending 1 hour or less on New Page Patrol per week. How long it took to patrol an article was more evenly distributed, splitting half-and-half at the one-minute line. 28 percent of patrollers found that "trying to decide what should be

406:

e can confirm that the common stereotype of patrollers as young, poorly educated and ignorant is almost entirely without basis. The vast majority of patrollers are over 18 and have undergraduate degrees or above – in some cases, actually exceeding the average for editors overall ... They are largely

278: 3591:

that's wrong, I'm completely and fully accountable to the community for it. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the WMF would take a long, hard look at my appropriateness for my position if the community found issues, especially if they brought into question my competence to do my job. I'm not 100% sure

3534:

on en:wp, it's that we can't manage or control content for legal reasons that are important for us all (happy to explain, but this might not be the best page, as it doesn't really directly relate--has to do with the difference between being an "online service provider" and a publisher). When I took

3452:

What you've learned in the last few days may not reflect a full understanding of the history of Knowledge (XXG) and the Foundation, or of current activities. For instance, you say "they learned apparently NOTHING from the copyvio recent scandal in course work done on line in wikipedia", but I'm not

3269:

thinking there as participants, rather than dropping in at the end. I think we need some better mechanisms for keeping WMF aware of emerging trends; I'm working on this. Since I started, I've been closely watching village pumps, central and noticeboard, and I try to raise staff awareness in part so

3011:

I'm very curious about what the WMF people do. I've been over to the Meta place today and looked around. There really isn't anything about wikipedia and its problems that I could find. Could someone explain, or show me where I can find information about how WMF is addressing the concerns of editors

2992:

article about a research report, and discussion should be concentrated on the research report. If you want answers to specific questions or arguments, I can ask staffers to provide them, either directly or through me. If you want to discuss new page triage, I'm happy to have that convo - on the new

2880:

pissed at the situation ;p. Trust me, I'm fully aware of how angry people are at this, and I've been communicating it to the staffers (not, it has to be said, using entirely polite language, but it gets the point across). I disagree that communications is not a problem; when you say "some nebulous,

2787:

And one other question. Why has Sue Gardner said nary a thing on this subject? One would think that ACTRIAL was a sufficiently momentous desire to change that she'd want to be involved, and when Foundation people shot it down one would think she'd want to opine, if for nothing else than to either

2623:

A landing page will have a minimal effect on actually stopping people from creating articles. No one is required to read or obey a landing page, and most editors likely won't do either unless they are forced to. Even if the 75% figure goes to 70% because of a landing page (which is optimistic, in

2592:

The WMF have seriously damaged their reputation and capacity for trust within the editing community by deciding that it's more important to increase the efficiency with which we can delete new articles rather than reducing the number of poor quality articles that are created in the first place, and

2567:

just to see what happens as a result of the change. They believe they're so smart, they already know what would happen. They believe that the "gestalt mind of the internet" would never forget that the trial happened, despite the fact that the landing pages designed for ACTRIAL spelled out in bold

2513:

I'm not sure there was a way of handling it that would have been any better: I don't think that either more consultation, or saying to en:wp when they began to think about it "Don't bother to ask for this, you can't have it", would have improved things much - the shock was to find that this (to us)

2427:

As said, the survey was not "phony". Please either stop using inflammatory language, or justify it - with facts, not by pointing out that other people have also used inflammatory language. On the who-answers-to-who front; the WMF has never been an entity that the community can command to do what it

2268:

In terms of membership: editors are people who primarily edit to contribute to the goal of producing a 💕 for all. The movement, in my opinion, includes not only current editors but anyone who contributes to the goal in any other way, or potentially will/should contribute. So we've got editors, and

1964:

Many of the people who complain that Knowledge (XXG) is unfriendly, and the "unretained" editors, are of this type. Painting the site pink and decorating it with fluffy kittens will not make these people happy. If you really want to increase percentage editor retention, you should discourage those

1706:

Well, hopefully Zoom will address concerns on all sides by providing an easy opportunity to see what other patrollers are doing and help each other out. Patrollers win - people can be corrected easily, by people who understand their POV - and people worried about the nature of patrolling get to see

1303:

The Foundation has not always done things right. A lot of the time, they've done things wrong. But hopefully that should change. I'm staking my reputation as a contractor and as an editor on the idea that how we approach new page patrol over the coming months will mark a paradigm shift in community

1281:

I actually agree on most of these points. What I'd disagree with is the idea that once you just turn off a six month trial, things can go back to normal. If you turn off easy page creation for six months, the gestalt mind that is the internet is not likely to notice when you turn it back on; it has

1264:

on a major structural change. Not something permanent and irreversible, just a six-month trial to see how it works. If it ends in massively lower new editor counts, then we say "Oops, we screwed up!", and do not continue once the trial expires. If it works as proponents expected, we'd get consensus

531:

More than 60 percent of patrollers have been editing since 2006 or earlier, the antithesis of the stereotype of inexperienced editors. But this creates a new concern: the absence of new editors, accentuating an emerging wikigeneration gulf and the recently highlighted new editor retention collapse,

443:

template. Of the editors asked to fill in the survey, 1,255 did so, but after removing surveys with incomplete answers, errors, and obviously fallacious data (e.g. 10-year-olds from Africa with doctorates), and making adjustments because a number of editors had been mistakenly asked to participate,

2856:

The Board was not part of this decision-making process. As you say, the trial proposed was not in opposition to any resolutions or policies. (Speaking only for myself, I don't think the trial would have had the positive effects predicted ; but I would be glad to see a short trial to find out, and

2808:

We are taking subjective evidence into account; we've asked for screencasts, and had several rounds of interviews. You'll also note the survey itself contained subjective questions. As for Sue, I cannot speak for what goes on inside her head, because I don't live there ;). I would suggest that she

2733:

about this. Since I'm trying to get up to speed and understand that he has possession of data, I asked him in an email of February 16 what data he was lacking so that I could try to help him get it. I haven't heard from him since, but will be happy to work with him if I do. If you change your mind

2352:

The technical part of the trial was attaching an action to a flag, and nothing more. There was very little "technical" to it. It was first and foremost a community changer, of the kind that had been executed before; the Foundation's opposition was based on its mentality and nothing more then that.

2273:

us: Knowledge (XXG) is imperfect, and Knowledge (XXG) will never be finished, so we need to not only build an encyclopedia that is decent now, but also an infrastructure and culture that will be acceptable 1, 2, 5, 10 years down the line to the next generation of editors - or at least fluid enough

2186:

If you think of the "movement" as mission, then it's all about reaching the end goal; editors also debate the directions we take in reaching that end goal, for instance resisting efforts to subvert Knowledge (XXG) for other purposes (politics, promotion, socialization; of course, we see it all the

1996:

It's also important to note - you mention the axiom/belief idea above, right? Well, these things are formalised: the board passed a very clear resolution that says "we shouldn't be restricting the ability of new people to contribute" (paraphrasing to the max). WMF employees, at the end of the day,

1988:

New Page Triage and the new landing pages are evidence that the WMF and ACTRIAL proponents have the same principles; you bring up, above, 'If you really want to increase percentage editor retention, you should discourage those who are not here to build an encyclopedia from becoming editors at all:

1906:

said it pretty well, although about a different tool; the WMF is responsive to editors, and has to take us into account, but they have a wider remit and role than exclusively supporting editors. Sometimes there will be situations where what is best for editors is worst for the movement as a whole,

1798:

As said above, we're creating an entirely new Special:NewPages interface, and also a new menu given to newbies when they go to a redlink which tells them what we require of new articles, and advises them to go to "requested pages" or whatnot if they don't meet the requirements. I wouldn't describe

1629:

think that a more accessible user interface is a worthwhile goal. It may not be the most important step to take (and in fact, it most definitely is not), and while anyone with a bit of intellect can certainly learn the Wiki syntax in short time it is just another small barrier that all stack up. I

1366:

don't know that they can edit articles? And I think the WMF has learned from 2011, but there is a definite trap for the unwary there, especially those who were active in the community in the past, and assume that things are still as they were - that is that while the community is not always right,

1299:

editors wasted months of their time trying to agree on it. That's partly why I was hired; to act as a go-between on tech issues, and to tell Engineering when they're doing something godawfully stupid. If I'm doing my job right, that means the engagement situation is going to change. I can't reveal

794:

According to the survey's conclusion, "the next step for the Foundation is to use this data to continue developing the Zoom interface. We have already identified a representative sample of patrollers, and contacted them for detailed interviews and to provide "screencasts" of their patrolling work.

372:

Instead, the WMF proposed that there be improvements for the interface that managed the new page backlog, with one goal being to better welcome constructive editors into the community. The refusal to accept community consensus was extremely controversial; many editors considered it damaging to the

269:

of unpatrolled articles has oscillated for years, but there have been occasions at least as far back as 2009 when there were insufficient numbers to patrol all new articles. Due to the 30-day cutoff there is a constant pressure to keep up with the list, in the face of what many patrollers see as a

3299:

From where I'm sitting, it's obvious to me that the WMF is working on better collaboration and insight between community and WMF: they've created the Community Liaison position (mine) specifically to facilitate communication between staff and community; they created the Community Liaison, Product

3199:

Hold your horses :). A very small group of staffers have indicated that they would personally like to see a discussion. Now, that's different from being, organisationally-speaking, able to engage in it. If you hold a party and nobody comes there's no real advantage - I'd wait until something more

2562:

If anything, I hope this long discussion above demonstrates to the WMF why so many long-time editors are wary about the accuracy of the survey about which this excellent signpost article was written. To briefly recap yet again: the community spends months establishing a consensus for ACTRIAL and

2529:

I agree this isn't the place for a debate about WMF - vs - project responsibilities, though that needs to happen somewhere. To turn the conversation back to the survey, I was amused to find that even its organizers suffered from preconceptions - the drop-down list of years of birth did not go far

1753:

I don't know how many of those who make mistakes leave and how many learn to patrol more accurately, but my experience of declining incorrect speedy deletions is that I'm definitely not dealing with a bunch of experienced editors who've been around since 2006. This survey has ruled out the theory

1480:

And my rant above assumes that the problem is simply in Wiki markup. Maybe when a given user says editting is "too hard", the user may refer to another part of the experience, such as how to add content so it improves the article, how to best organize an article -- or maybe the problem is (my pet

1229:

It's another symptom of the lack of leadership from the WMF. They don't give the new page patrol (NPP) volunteers any support. So, to lessen their workload and stress the NPP regulars come up with the auto-confirmed user criteria. Then, the WMF reflexively denies it and tries to come up with a

535:

Between 79 and 82 percent of responders were over the age of 18; more than 90 percent had completed secondary schooling, and 63 percent had an undergraduate degree or postgraduate qualifications. In short, new page patrollers are not much different from the rest of those who edit Knowledge (XXG).

273:

The patrollers themselves have come under fire; critics contend that they "deal with new users inappropriately, scaring them off, that they have an unacceptably high error rate when tagging pages for deletion, and that they are more interested in using New Page Patrol as a route to gaining higher

2582:

it shouldn't be difficult to imagine how editors are hesitant to trust WMF staffers who say "hey buddy, trust me, the stats are cool, I checked them myself *wink*", particularly since the WMF now appears to have a motive to skew the survey results to benefit their new-found ideology. Make sense

2000:

I've tried to make clear to Howie, Brandon and, well, everyone I come into contact with as a contractor precisely how much things like ACTRIAL have harmed the Foundation-Community relationship. As a patroller and editor I understand the depth of feeling quite well; it's seen as evidence that the

1552:

Actually, the usability initiative did look at what bits were most difficult; it is, as you say, things like templates or tables. I think we may be getting away from the point here, though; I'm happy to discuss this on my talkpage or via email or in (insert appropriate venue here), but I want to

1294:

I'd take a look at the Zoom page - it's far more than just a new UI, although what precisely we do with it is yet to be seen. I agree that a lot of devs don't quite get the situation within the community and, to be entirely honest, I'm pissed off at ACTRIAL too. Not the result - I agree with the

1269:

for immediate consideration." That would also reduce the workload on NPP in two ways-vandals and spammers would often be stopped by that bar, while good-faith contributors might, after spending some time editing and getting a feel for what we want, submit a decent or at least salvageable article

711:

and navigating to Special:NewPages from there. Most patrollers also give positive reasons for their motivation: they want to "keep vandalism and bad-faith pages out of Knowledge (XXG)" (83 percent) and "watch over the quality of new articles" (80 percent). 35 percent of patrollers were motivated

3461:

composed of 10 people. Besides Founder Jimmy Wales (who is very much active here), there are three seats elected by editors, two by chapters (which are not part of the Wikimedia Foundation but separate community-run organizations), and four which are chosen by the people elected to the Board by

2608:

I understand why you may feel that the data is invalid. Tell you what; if you want, I can sit down over the weekend and retabulate the data, with one set of datapoints for the full survey number (minus the junk, obviously, but including all the responses removed because we couldn't verify their

2052:

WMF employees do not answer to the Board. :-) (Nor, in general, do employees at any organization answer to their Board.) Only the ED answers to the Board; other employees answer to her. If anything, the Board has an obligation to avoid interference with the work of staff. You write "staffers

1984:

I think we're actually largely in agreement. I too think that the WMF's actions late last year - the Indian issue, for example, or the way ACTRIAL was handled - were, to put it bluntly, screwups. What the Foundation is saying, though, is not that "no kind of obstacle must ever for any reason be

1783:

Anybody who's actually waded through the waves of useless slop coming through the front gate knows that there NEEDS to be limits placed upon article creation. English Knowledge (XXG) decided to do something about the problem — and the Foundation vetoed en:WP's very reasonable proposal to make a

1477:

is difficult. No one asks the people who actually edit articles which parts are worse than others. The basic pieces of Wikimarkup are quite simple -- far, far simpler than HTML, for Chrissake -- & anyone with reasonable motiviation & intellect can learn it in 15 minutes. (Which is why I

2523:

Explaining on the landing pages that WP is an encyclopedia, not Myspace, will help, but it really needs to be done at account creation time. We shouldn't let people sign up under a misapprehension, even if they are then deterred from submitting unsuitable articles. Better to turn those who are

2228:

While I know that you've only just discovered the existence of chapters, Mathew, and it's understandable that you may not yet grasp the relationship between chapters and the WMF or, indeed, chapters and communities, or what chapters are working to do, I'm concerned that positioning things as a

3421:

Well, as I said somewhere, I've been looking around on Meta and there's no mention really of wp;en. WMF is a company, structured under 501(c) because of the tax advantages, as many companies are. "Non profit" has nothing to do with being "free". It's interests are expanding WMF "initiatives"

3214:

With complete respect (you've been great on this page), while it would of course be best if WMF peoples participated in a request for comment, it's not required. EngWp can all sit down (metaphorically) and discuss WMF - WP relations without waiting. It's possible, for example, that once the

2764:

I'm fine with stats, although I have some of the same misgivings as editors above me, and everyone knows where I stand on the ACTRIAL business (I've read everything above, no need to rehash things here). I will, however, bring up a point that any good sports fan will immediately get. For my

2288:

And what absolute percentage of such contributors have an account on Knowledge (XXG), and are thus editors? To make almost any substantial contribution to this project you must have an account, which means you participate in and are bound to the community. The Foundation exists to oversee the

2014:

to the community, so that we're actively measuring the editorial pulse and not just constantly reacting to stuff at the last possible moment. If we can do these things, and if we can do them well, we can regress to a time when the community trusted the WMF. All of these things are things the

2577:

But I digress. Hopefully the above is an adequate summary of how WP editors felt about the WMF at the conclusion of the ACTRIAL debacle. Ok. So now, WMF decides they want to get more information about how new page patrollers operate. They organize a survey, promptly throw out 75% of the

2005:

the Foundation wants, because it is practical suicide to keep introducing technical changes (or not introducing technical changes) without community buyin. They have an ethical duty, in my opinion, to make editors a part of the conversation. And this status quo of the community thinking the

1689:(outdent) Those who complain most vociferously about NPPers and perpetuate this claim that they're mostly young, uneducated, dumb males tend to be extreme inclusionists and people who are mad because their article was deleted. This is how we end up with disruptive breaching experiments like 3316:

helpful to me in copyright work - but I believe that the degree of collaborative work there is simply unprecedented. Currently, Sue is recommending to the Board that the bulk of the WMF budget be put into the hands of an advisory committee composed primarily of experienced volunteers. (See

2129:(for reference, if Sue thinks the WMF should do something, the WMF will most likely do it, because she is the WMF's executive director) seem to suggest that you're not entirely familiar with the wider structure of the movement. Can I suggest you do some further reading before commenting? 1472:

The reader survey was flawed in many ways, IMHO. The PTB have a preconception that all problems with the Wiki markup system can be fixed with a "user-friendly" interface that even the mythical Aunt Sally can use; however, from what I've seen no research has gone into determining exactly

2049:" In general, the Board does not micromanage the work of the projects; nor is it generally the role of the WMF to set Project editorial or community policy. An exception to that principle was made in this case, for better or for worse. But that was not directed by a Board resolution. 2009:

Fixing it doesn't start with trust, trust is the end goal. Fixing it starts with making the community part of the conversation, to a far greater degree than they are at the moment. Fixing it starts with communicating our reasons and intentions better. Fixing it starts with paying more

1230:

rushed, half-measure to mitigate the problem. I will say it again, I encourage NPP volunteers to simply refuse to patrol new pages. Go ahead and let the English Knowledge (XXG) start filling up with garbage. Put the entire problem in the WMF's lap if they're going to act like this.

1955:

Now, if you are concerned about editor retention and about newbies finding Knowledge (XXG) unfriendly, consider this: many of the new pages that get deleted are not the work of vandals or incompetents, but of good-faith new editors who have not understood what Knowledge (XXG) is and

3797:

Actually, no; he was excluded from the survey results. The section Kablammo is quoting from is specifically about the data sanitisation. Kablammo, you're right; I miswrote, and will alter it from the plural to the singular in the morning. It's just past 1am, so I'm going to bed :).

1724:

will continue to make a mess. Editors will plead, beg, reprimand them and then they will leave. It is amazing how many new editors have their article speedy deleted only to turn around and start speedy deleting articles at NPP. There has to be some minimum requirements to do NPP.

3469:

contributors to the movement, including editors of English Knowledge (XXG) and the many other language Wikipedias that exist, as well as to the other projects, including Wikimedia Commons, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc. It also includes readers and donors, not all of whom

369:, it was shot down by the Wikimedia Foundation, being marked as a "RESOLVED WONTFIX". WMF deputy director Erik Möller said that "creating a restriction of this type is a strong a statement of exclusion, not inclusion, and that it will confuse and deter good faith editors." 175:

New page patrolling has long been a prominent problem area for the Wikipedian community. While patrollers complain of being overworked, other editors have raised issues with the patrollers themselves, characterizing them as mostly young and inexperienced volunteers who lack

1064:

Again, Resident Mario: can you either back up the assertions there or apologise for them? I note you're linking to complaints, without taking into account the responses to those complaints. And if you could please point out where "cherry picked" is used in those complaints?

1244:

Cla68, we're designing an entirely new Special:NewPages interface. Can you explain how this is a half-measure? I work for the WMF specifically *on* this project, and I've patrolled more new pages than most people; if these weren't projects I believed in I wouldn't be here.

1259:

I can't speak for Cla68, but for myself, the problem with what happened is twofold, and a new UI can't solve it. As far as established editors go, the WMF gives lip service to retaining them. So the English Knowledge (XXG) does a rare thing—it comes to consensus for a

1961:

teams. We let them go all the way to writing an article, sometimes putting a great deal of effort into making it look good, before flagging it for deletion and telling them: "Sorry, this is not an encyclopedic subject, no amount of editing will make it acceptable."

1322:

for years (and is continuing to do) to people's perception on the openness and user-friendliness of editing (overly complicated wikisyntax, poorly structured guidelines and policies, quick reverts/deletions and process flow - hint:ask any new user to upload a

1153:

partaken in the survey I found that they were all negatively aligned to it. How can it be that the volunteers who had been most involved in the process find the most fault in it? Their issues warrant concern. I voice their concern. You can stop fidgeting now.

1738:

Well, obviously we didn't pick up people who left; the same is true of any survey. However, we did get a very large number of people who have done small amounts of speedy deletion, and then stopped, or small amounts, spread out over a long period of time.

252:

or nominated it for deletion, the article can be marked as patrolled. Articles created by administrators were automatically marked as patrolled by the system; this was unbundled in June 2009 (or, rather, a system of whitelisting was formalised with the

3132:

has a common view, and indeed is aware of the WMF at all) and the WMF have rather fundamentally different views of their relationship, and of the best ways to pursue the common goal. The best we can hope for is to understand each other a little better.

3219:

of the community feels that everything is fine. So, yes, please do issue some invites but I'll be continuing editing merrily away. My intention is first to build a framework of the history of previous ahhh, "episodes of sub-optimal communication." -

842:

Have a keen interest in or strong feelings on new page patrolling or another issue of relevance to the English Knowledge (XXG) community? The Signpost is recruiting reporters and soliciting opinion essay submissions; those interested should apply to

523:

Demographically, New Page Patrollers were found to indeed be overwhelmingly North American and European, with these regions accounting for 85 percent of those surveyed. Only 8% identify as females, consistent with cross-wiki average found during the

613:

A question on non-patrolling activities found that patrollers did other things: 97 percent were active in anti-vandalism efforts in some form, and 95 percent were adding content to Knowledge (XXG), by creating and editing new articles. As expected,

2019:

needs to do, not the community: all I ask of the community is that you acknowledge where we're trying to do things better, and keep an open mind. I cannot promise that the WMF will do everything editors want; I can't promise everything the WMF

1290:

for newbies, which should be deployed in a trial format (we don't want to overwork people if it actually works) in a couple of months. The announcement is about to come out - hopefully I won't get shouted at for spoiling the surprise factor

1345:

As said at the top of this page - we don't have anything useful enough for public consumption yet. Once we do, we're pulling out all the stops to make sure people can give feedback on the designs and participate in the deployment process.

3454: 261:

user right), so that now any prolific creator of valid articles can have this privilege. This keeps most of the articles created by established editors (familiar with inclusion criteria) out of the pool of those needing to be patrolled.

3483:

Your perspective that "They're really not interested in en:wp, except how they can exploit it through using it to do the grunt work for their "educational iniatives" etc." is, I have to admit, frankly baffling to me. Knowledge (XXG) is

3070:

Hi, Mathew. :) While Oliver is best positioned to answer your question about how the WMF is addressing these concerns, I just wanted to note that Meta is not the best place to read what the WMF people do. The WMF has a wiki of its own:

1907:

and in those situations the Foundation has to balance the various groups and entities that make up this set of projects. There are, by definition, going to be situations where one group or another doesn't get precisely what they want.

3354:

Sorry for the length here, but I felt like it might be helpful for me to share a bit of what I've been seeing. It might help explain why I suspect the Foundation would welcome thoughts on improving coordination as much as I would. :)

3182: 1454:

I do wish the reader survey hadn't had this question as a mutually exclusive one; I'm sure there are some people whose reasons as "I find it too hard, and, as a smaller issue, I'm not too fussed" or conversely "well I don't care

2826:

central concern. The issue is, very simply put, that the Foundation made that decision at all. The way to fix the trust that was lost is not to promise to communicate bad decisions better and more nicely in the future, it is to

239:

The introduction of patrolled edits provided a better process for patrolling new pages. Unpatrolled new pages are highlighted in yellow, and patrollers can choose to browse just those unpatrolled new articles. Once viewed, any

795:

With these, developers can examine the process of patrolling, get more details on precisely how patrollers do their work, and try to identify unnecessarily difficult areas that can be simplified to make patrolling easier."

2830:(and, ideally, reverse the one at hand too, though I'm not holding my breath). And from what I'm seeing here, it's based on some nebulous, unsupported concerns about "future" editors, while ignoring what the ones who are 2773:, Game 3 of the Yankees-Oakland series), only shows up in the box score as 9-6-2 for one out. I'm as ardent a Yankee fan as you could ever hope to meet, and there are very few stats I pay any attention to because they 1951:

The second reason is that, if I understand the reason for the ACTRIAL refusal, it was a belief, a WMF axiom, that no kind of obstacle must ever for any reason be placed in the way of anyone wishing to write an article.

2269:

we've also got researchers, staffers, people who do GLAM work and other chapters work - arguably even donors. And when we're talking about this goal and this movement, we have to take into account the people who come

798:

The survey broke new ground by giving everyone a clearer view of a subset of Wikipedian editors; perhaps, in the future, similar surveys will provide detailed information about other specialized groups of editors.

212:

lists recently created pages in descending order (the most recent first), allowing users to easily browse recently created pages. New pages are kept on the list for 30 days, after which they disappear from view.

2609:

patroller status) and another for the "sanitised" dataset. So it'll work out as a long list of "Full data set, X percent Y. Sanitised data set, Z percent Y. Difference, + or - Q percent". Would that be helpful?

2514:

outside body, which didn't seem to understand the problem, considered itself entitled to interfere at this level of detail in en:wp's operations, and that anyone who doesn't like it, in Erik's eloquent words, "

3300:

Development position (Oliver's) specifically to interact closely with community in work like this; they're actively working on reshaping the former "Legal Department" into "Legal and Community Advocacy" (see

2604:

So, you don't think that telling new editors "if you're here to write about your garage band or aunty ethel, step aside" is going to reduce the number of new editors writing about their garage band or aunty

444:

the total included in the survey was reduced to 309 participants. To supplement the survey, an analysis was done on the top quartile of editors by number of patrol actions. A summary of the results follows.

2888:

for a decision made before you became a short-term contractor. People are hopping mad, and justifiably. I am making that clear: I appreciate it may not be apparent with the information currently available.

790:

What now? The results of the NPP Survey clearly refute many of the views held of patrollers by their critics; nonetheless, it is often the patrollers themselves that are clamoring most loudly for changes.

391:

It was quickly found that there was no single way that patrollers did their work, and that they were using a variety of third-party software for their work. The lack of understanding page patrollers led to

3457:. Far from learning nothing, they've learned quite a bit from that experience and are working to incorporate what they've learned in forward movement. I'm not sure if you're aware that the WMF is run by a 3488:

the largest and widest reaching "educational initiative" that the Wikimedia Foundation supports; the English Knowledge (XXG) is the largest and widest reaching of the over 280 Wikipedias that exist. This

959: 407:

familiar with relevant policies, and greatly exceed the expectations set by the stereotype. Indeed, the only major difference between patrollers and any other editor is that patrollers choose to patrol.

3439:

Perhaps you missed the note I left you above on this page (that being the "somewhere" where you mentioned Meta), but Meta is not the WMF's website. :) You might want to look higher up to find that note.

928: 918: 933: 913: 707:

The vast majority of patrollers originally learned about New Page Patrol passively, for instance from a userbox on somebody's userpage that advertised New Page Patrol, or through seeing a new page at

923: 2024:

do will be stuff editors agree with. But I can promise, at least for New Page Triage, that the community will be far more involved than they are at the moment. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

1630:

also agree that one of the most annoying things even for experienced editors is editing tables and templates. Simplifying their use should be on a priority list for the new user interface design.

3185:- Redlink now, but I'll start putting a draft together. Always happy for help, of course. Also think that perhaps Meta relations could fall under the same auspice, given the recent dust-up? - 3322: 3318: 908: 865: 504: 201: 73: 2884:

Regardless of that, though, I am communicating how patrollers feel on this issue; it's hard not to get a decent impression of how angry people are when you have other editors screaming at you

2107:

The difference it the "WMF movement" has little if anything to do with "editors". It has to do with the furtherance of "chapters", and few editors belong to chapters or even know about them.

2838:

been done and proved disastrous, that would have given the Foundation firm ground to oppose any such future move. But a whole lot of us don't think it would have, and that it would actually

2657:

If you're not signing an NDA, I'm prohibited from releasing the data. The terms used means we need some kind of paperwork as assurance that the data is going to be used for as opposed to .

1171:

As said, I'm fine with people voicing their concerns; I'd just rather they did so in a way that allows us to move forward and correct any mistakes. Ask me a direct question, I'll answer it.

236:

process, the unified deletion process that covered all namespaces in earlier days of Knowledge (XXG). (Today, there are separate discussions depending on the type of page to be deleted.)

197: 1093:

Sorry but I value the thoughts of my fellow editors over those of WMF employees. They registered doubts, I found that these are legitimate and put up a disclaimer. All the "evidence" is

896: 489: 1198:

It's ridiculously short-sighted that WMF dismissed the idea of only allowing autoconfirmed users to create articles. This is one of the reasons established editors choose to leave WP.

285:

summarized the reasons for this with an analysis that showed that only 17.5% of autoconfirmed users' articles were deleted, compared with 72.5% of new editors' contributions. A second

3150:

form, although where and when and how isn't entirely clear (and I can't promise everyone feels this way). But this is certainly something we need to look into and, in my opinion, do.

778:. If the right were to be instituted, the largest group of respondents felt that it should be granted automatically at some point, with slightly less support for distribution through 1023:

I'll be giving people a poke when there's something to show off :). Our engagement strategy for NPT should involve the opportunity for people to play around with the prototype, too.

3868: 474: 1948:" In view of concerns about loss of established editors, that is an unfortunate attitude; it certainly means that WMF should be concerned about losing the trust of the volunteers. 3080: 890: 265:

Because Special:NewPages only holds onto articles for 30 days, unpatrolled articles that survive that long drop off the list, making them exceedingly difficult to find later. The

52: 41: 1424:

to edit (the Edit tab screams!), are not the ones we would like to actually edit our articles, or – mind you – expect them to understand our editing policies and guidelines.

3026:

That is, the concerns about the quality of articles and the difficulty of patrolling, or do you mean something more strategic about the needs of existing editors generally?

169: 3535:

the position, I made clear to the WMF that being able to continue with my work as a volunteer was important to me, and they have been nothing but supportive of that, but I

3530:

I'm sorry that our conversation was a horrible awakening for you, Mathew, but I'm happy to say that you've misunderstood a bit what I told you. :) It's not that we can't

157: 294: 2460:

And at this point I'll choose to leave the conversation. If you want to discuss the survey productively, feel free to drop me an email or stick a note on my talkpage.

3921: 1420:

I am sorry but I have the feeling that those readers who still haven't managed to find out that Knowledge (XXG) is an open encyclopedia that everyone can edit, or

2624:

my opinion), that's not going to have a significant effect on new page patroller workload or overall article quality. More is needed than just a stern warning.

209: 21: 3896: 3305: 2788:

push the Foundation people to let the trial go or make it appear that it was actually the WMF making the decision rather than a few people injecting their

2371:

Addendum: if the Foundation cannot answer to the community that it is supposed to answer to, as you imply in the TLDR above, then it should be dissolved.

3891: 3886: 2876:

Sorry; I evidently haven't been making myself clear :). My intention above was not to suggest that comms was the issue - more a personal anecdote or why

2797: 1946:

If you don't trust WMF, you can - and probably should - contribute your effort elsewhere, because WMF may - and probably will - do things you won't like.

244:

editor can mark an article as patrolled by clicking the "" link at the bottom right corner of the page. If the patroller thinks the article is ready for

2546:

Yeah, we got a couple of comments along those lines ;p. And I agree, we need to have this debate at some point, although this probably isn't the place.

249: 3630:

Guys and Dolls, there is some really great exchanges happening here... but is this really the best venue for it? Suggest we move to a better spot. -

3551:

processes; if you are concerned about this person's editing habits, your mentor may be able to help you find the best avenue for approaching that. --

224:. Its members used the Special:NewPages page directly, a page that has been part of Knowledge (XXG)'s infrastructure since the introduction of the 3881: 3386: 3731:

And what is it about the phrase "from Africa" that makes the data even more improbable? Does no one see anything wrong with such a stereotype?

3407:

I see you are linking to an editor essay, Mathew, and quoting from it, but I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. :) Can you clarify? --

3308:). We are in the middle of a cultural shift. Have you seen the work General Counsel Geoff Brigham did with the community in shaping the proposed 2911:

Where's the rest of the Foundation? I'm sure they're reading along here; they were involved enough to make a fuss about me posting a diff above.

208:, which lists newly created articles on Knowledge (XXG), although it can be extended to any other page category by using a drop-down option. The 1993:

have to deal with (plus a lot of other neat things, like providing guidance to patrollers and allowing for some degree of review and oversight).

2785:; anecdotal evidence, such as that supplied by the competent New Page Patrollers, really should carry a lot more weight than it's being given. 2390:

course, and we need to correct that. But the Foundation's staffers do not and never have answered to the community: they answer to the Board.

2793: 3746:

A 10-year-old with a PhD generally is statistically improbable. I think it's acceptable to say it's even more improbable when you consider

1295:

decision not to turn it on - but the way the community was dicked around. The WMF had ample time to step in and say "this isn't happening"

165: 1847: 3389:. (For most everyday matters, the WMF chooses to defer to the community. This voluntary choice of theirs is what permits power users the 3750:. For reference, it's not a stereotype; it's an example :). Somebody genuinely filled out the survey claiming to be such an individual. 1332: 1199: 1079:

I, as well, would ask that Resident Mario either demonstrate a factual basis for those claims, or cease to continue to broadcast them.

437: 622:, and similar venues were tied in with the process, and many editors who patrolled new pages also participated in discussions there. 2725:

I'm very late to this conversation, and I'm sorry if I'm missing a nuance, but I'm confused; Scotty, why wouldn't you want to sign a

3876: 878: 427: 291:

established a "clear consensus for a six-month trial, followed by a one-month period of discussion to determine the trial's effects"

46: 32: 17: 3453:

sure if you're aware that they hired an outside consultant to evaluate that situation so that they could adjust future approaches:

1215:

Actually, I'd consider it more short-sighted if they'd permitted it. It'd be another reason for new editors to choose not to join.

2394:

lead on what and when: that's for a different time and place. I don't want to derail or distract from the subject of this report.

3075:. As it happens, I addressed your question as to what the WMF people do shortly after I came aboard - at least, right after the 1439:

that excuse to get out doing things off-Wiki; modern life is complicated, with lots of things competing for our attention. --

233: 3728:

The article says "obviously fallacious data" includes, for example, claims to be "10-year-olds from Africa with doctorates".

2689:

And on the "gestalt mind" front; did you see what happened with de.wiki's trial of not letting anonymous people edit in 07?

282: 225: 2428:

will. The community can elect members of the board, who direct the Foundation's efforts and decide on its strategic goals.

1097:, and it worries me that the people who had originally suggested this survey are the ones most concerned with the results. 625:

An analysis of tool usage found that a large percentage of page patrollers were aware of and use semi-automated tools like

2199:

in this shared mission, and we need to continue to attempt to work together as colleagues, or we're not likely to succeed.

2006:

foundation don't care about them and the Foundation being all confused as to why they're being screamed at cannot persist.

1327: 1304:

engagement. I wouldn't be doing that if I wasn't sure that it would be. In the meantime, I'd just ask for some trust :).

161: 381: 1005:

You don't yet. It hasn't been implemented. We've only just recently begun our latest design round, which is described

181: 3851: 3825: 3807: 3792: 3774: 3759: 3740: 3713: 3694: 3676: 3661: 3639: 3625: 3601: 3582: 3573:

processes wouldn't cover my concerns as we await the next flood of edits from students of on line university courses.

3560: 3525: 3502: 3434: 3416: 3402: 3364: 3229: 3209: 3194: 3177: 3159: 3141: 3092: 3035: 3021: 3006: 2982: 2962: 2949:

Oh in general, I would have expected them to plead innocence by now, given that they responded to the early comments.

2938: 2924: 2898: 2869: 2849: 2818: 2803: 2747: 2698: 2684: 2666: 2652: 2618: 2599: 2555: 2539: 2499: 2469: 2455: 2437: 2422: 2403: 2384: 2366: 2339: 2317: 2302: 2283: 2242: 2138: 2116: 2098: 2065: 2033: 1976: 1916: 1897: 1859: 1841: 1823: 1808: 1793: 1774: 1765: 1748: 1733: 1716: 1700: 1653: 1639: 1562: 1490: 1467: 1448: 1433: 1415: 1397: 1378: 1355: 1340: 1313: 1276: 1254: 1239: 1224: 1207: 1180: 1166: 1147: 1129: 1110: 1088: 1074: 1059: 1032: 1018: 1006: 997: 3301: 2504:

Okeyes, thank you for your eloquent and obviously considered response. I don't find it entirely convincing, though: "

822:. The raw data, sans gender and contact information (per policy), will be made available to anyone willing to sign a 3146:

Agreed. There seems to be an agreement amongst the staffers I've spoken to that we need to have this discussion in

2988:

relationship, or of new page triage, I'm fine with that, but this probably isn't the best place for it - this is a

1286:

the trial period. I agree completely that we need to make things clear to new editors; that's why we're developing

2642:

few percent difference between the sanitized and unsanitized data, wouldn't it have been a wiser decision to just

685: 607: 258: 241: 3635: 3225: 3190: 1372: 991: 1120:

staffers, I think staffers should be treated relatively decently - which is why I've stopped engaging with him.

3902: 3845: 3788: 3688: 3578: 3521: 3430: 3398: 3171: 3017: 2956: 2918: 2726: 2678: 2493: 2449: 2416: 2378: 2360: 2296: 2112: 2092: 1891: 1160: 1104: 1084: 1053: 823: 646: 3597: 3556: 3498: 3412: 3360: 3088: 2743: 2238: 1697: 1336: 1203: 1939:

make a policy that marks "crap" articles as being poor quality, then funnel our efforts into make them good

561: 549: 419:

Editors were identified as patrollers and surveyed based on three separate sources: 2,504 from a script by

412: 229: 3821: 3803: 3755: 3672: 3621: 3205: 3155: 3031: 3002: 2978: 2934: 2894: 2814: 2694: 2662: 2614: 2551: 2465: 2433: 2399: 2313: 2279: 2134: 2029: 1912: 1855: 1835: 1804: 1760: 1744: 1712: 1649: 1558: 1463: 1411: 1393: 1351: 1309: 1250: 1220: 1176: 1143: 1125: 1070: 1028: 3838:

waves hand* It was an example, both generally and in that one specific case. There's nothing to correct.

3265:

have gone much better if staff had become part of the conversation at early stages and could have helped

775: 245: 177: 3747: 2042: 2041:

The Board did not say 'we shouldn't restrict the ability of new people to contribute' - the closest our

1694: 708: 281:

was put forward to reduce the stress in the system by limiting article creation to autoconfirmed users.

266: 856: 774:

By 53 percent to 45 percent, a majority of patrollers disagreed with the implementation of a patroller

689: 681: 603: 599: 3631: 3493:

the "educational initiative; it's not being exploited to do the grunt work for that initiative. :/ --

3221: 3186: 1369: 1014: 988: 3458: 3304:; Philippe is actively seeking community input on how our department can best support the community 2524:

looking for another Myspace or Facebook away at the gate, though I fear this will be thought heresy.

2195:. WMF and chapters also take part in this dialogue. Naturally, we will not always agree. But we are 630: 3840: 3816:

is the source of the issue you have; RM, if you're watching, you may want to correct your article.

3813: 3784: 3683: 3588: 3574: 3517: 3426: 3394: 3166: 3013: 2951: 2913: 2673: 2488: 2444: 2411: 2373: 2355: 2291: 2108: 2087: 1886: 1155: 1099: 1080: 1048: 164:. NPP is the first line of defense against articles that do not belong on Knowledge (XXG), be they 150: 2230: 1725: 674: 619: 196:

Patrolled edits is a software feature that went live on Knowledge (XXG) in November 2007, after a

3770: 3736: 3593: 3552: 3494: 3408: 3356: 3084: 2844: 2739: 2234: 2148: 2080: 1403: 1271: 525: 3387:

WMF owns the web domains, trademarks and servers of the English Knowledge (XXG), not the editors

2125:

majority of the movement is editor-centric. I don't need to be rude, but comments like this and

1884:

I want to see the Foundation promise that they will NEVER circumvent community consensus again.

729: 396:

creating a survey to find out more about what an average page patroller did, and who they were.

373:

relationship between the Foundation and Knowledge (XXG)'s editors. The Foundation focused on a "

3812:

I note that both versions say 10 year old from Africa singular, and always have. It seems that

1903: 321: 90: 3817: 3799: 3751: 3668: 3657: 3614: 3423: 3201: 3151: 3124:

Don't make decisions at all, at this level: do not try to micro-manage the volunteer projects.

3027: 2998: 2974: 2930: 2890: 2810: 2690: 2658: 2610: 2547: 2461: 2429: 2395: 2309: 2275: 2130: 2025: 1908: 1851: 1831: 1819: 1800: 1789: 1740: 1729: 1708: 1645: 1554: 1486: 1459: 1444: 1407: 1389: 1347: 1305: 1246: 1216: 1172: 1139: 1121: 1066: 1024: 955: 803: 573: 349: 120: 3463: 2738:. :) The NDA is required by our lawyers, who are really careful about user privacy issues. -- 2409:

then it is little more then an oligarchy, and that troubles me far more than a phony survey.

1690: 779: 3137: 2535: 1972: 385: 205: 2192: 1266: 626: 615: 100: 3708: 2647: 2594: 1635: 1429: 1235: 1010: 819: 662: 420: 3570: 3548: 3539:

have to keep my roles separated. However, I was very happy that the admin I recommended,

1850:

useful; it's a bit more than "another unread page on the already-too-long reading list".

130: 374: 354: 3700: 1116: 1115:

I'm not saying you have to believe what I'm saying (although it would be nice, because

309: 1287: 3915: 3779:

well, the data shows that about one person edited from Africa (see relevant graph in

3766: 3732: 3540: 3309: 1693:

that end up driving off the most experienced and productive NPPers and result in . -

2187:

time - the constant reassessing and reasserting of what Knowledge (XXG) is meant to

3653: 2863: 2730: 2333: 2059: 1815: 1785: 1482: 1440: 1318:

The potential harm that trial would have done is miniscule to the harm that WP has

1094: 815: 807: 393: 185: 110: 3455:

Knowledge (XXG):India Education Program/Analysis/Independent Report from Tory Read

3235:

can. I will also make sure that the WMF remains aware of community feelings there.

2191:) and determining what constitutes such subversion (as with the ongoing RFC about 232:

page was used for this purpose. Problematic new articles were a large part of the

3652:

I don't remember the big group of bot page creations in April. What were they?

140: 3133: 3076: 2766: 2531: 1968: 811: 668:

Editors by edit count, showing double the usual rate for users over 10,000 edits

277:

In response to perceived problems with new page patrolling, on April 3, 2011, a

1829:

is the same. We're actually quite diverse in our backgrounds and perspectives.

1631: 1425: 1231: 741: 3183:

User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Wikipedia:Request for Comment/WMF - WP relations

2993:

page triage page, or on my talkpage, or via email. But I think we should try

712:

because it "provides experience that may be valuable further down the road".

2770: 653: 595: 3512: 3072: 532:

and strongly supporting the need for a more usable, intuitive interface.

753: 362: 2860: 2330: 2056: 2038:

I find this thread of the conversation troubling. Two clarifications:

802:

The New Page Patrol survey was conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation's

2789: 184:, and often mis-tag new articles. The NPP Survey, first suggested by 160:, part of a project to increase understanding of editors who work on 2327:

at the stated goals, or whether it might have the opposite effect.

3565:

It's not just any editor. This editor according to her user page:

3393:

that the English Knowledge (XXG) is controlled by "the community")

2506:

we shouldn't be restricting the ability of new people to contribute

505:

First results of editor survey: Wikipedians 90% male, 71% altruist

348: 1553:

avoid distracting from the actual subject of the special report.

3215:

highly-involved editors from this page have their say that the

2085:

I fail to see the difference between "movement" and "editors".

1458:

much, but even when I did I found it too hard to participate".

156:

This week the Wikimedia Foundation reported the results of its

51: 3587:

Mathew, I'm staff at WMF these days, but if I do something as

2045:

came was to reaffirm what all projects already strive to do: "

1362:

I'm not sure there is a gestalt mind in the internet. What %

315:

Articles created by autoconfirmed users: deleted versus kept.

2929:

You mean the two staffers who commented? It's 8:50am in SF.

2516:

can - and probably should - contribute your effort elsewhere

877: 454: 31: 652:

Editors who are most active at Special:NewPages, showing a

2580:

Even if the results actually are valid and representative,

475:

The Gardner interview: new editor attraction and retention

3312:? I'm very proud of him for that. I loved Mike - he was 2834:

were clearly asking you for. Ironically enough, had the

1367:

when it speaks with wide consensus, it is rarely wrong.

490:

RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging

3704: 3200:

concrete comes down the line before starting anything.

2126: 2047:

Treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect.

1388:

I'll hunt around for whatever data we have on that :).

1043: 971: 964: 944: 290: 254: 221: 3114:

back, the message I would like the WMF to get is not "

594:

Patrolling distribution was found to have a prominent

340:: The large jump in April was caused by bot activity. 3569:

I assume she holds this position through WMF so the

2857:

would like to see more short community-run trials.)

295:

Knowledge (XXG):Autoconfirmed article creation trial

3783:article). Must've had a PhD. And they nabbed him. 2233:

relationship is not likely to help in that goal. --

969:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try 366: 2781:. Benjamin Disraeli made his famed remark for a 2274:that if it isn't acceptable, they can change it. 1944:I see that Erik's message you linked above ends " 680:Editors by user-right, with high numbers who are 433:template on their userpage, and those 133 with a 2777:. To understand Jeter's greatness, you have to 2646:sanitize the data and save us all the trouble? 3012:here? (besides the getting new editors stuff) 404: 3681:Snottywong's graph, not mine; I've asked him. 3079:system was established. The first two answers 1009:. There aren't any mockups yet, I'm afraid.-- 579:Decade of birth: 79 to 82 percent are over 18 380:The upshot of these developments was the new 198:proposal to re-enable anonymous page creation 8: 3164:An RfC is the best venue for such and such. 1135:wanted, why would I pick data that produced 2578:responses, and declare the results valid. 1848:mw:Article Creation Workflow/Landing System 1644:As I understand it, this is a priority :). 2734:about the NDA, I'll be happy to work with 1934:two reasons for banging on a little more. 331:-autoconfirmed users: deleted versus kept. 3922:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2012-02 3511:Sorry for that. I didn't see the link to 3270:that things like this don't happen again. 3465:The "WMF community" is the community of 1137:the same result as if I'd left it alone? 1081:Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation 639:Editing activity: new page patrollers... 18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 3667:Excellent question :). Resident Mario? 972: 948: 747:Policy awareness—an overwhelming "yes." 542:Demographics: new page patrollers by... 67: 1117:I am one of the aforementioned editors 567:WikiAge: 60 percent editing since 2006 759:Where new page patrollers patrol from 68:The plight of the new page patrollers 7: 361:Yet when the technical solution was 806:, with contributions from staffers 1282:the potential to do a lot of harm 510: 495: 480: 293:; the specifics were finalized at 228:in January 2002; before then, the 53: 28: 3302:meta:Legal and Community Advocacy 3116:Communicate your decisions better 1902:I'm afraid I can't promise that. 954:These comments are automatically 222:existed since at least March 2004 3547:editors are subject to the same 3543:, was willing and able to help. 2794:The Blade of the Northern Lights 1328:Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol 859:, or contact an editor directly. 847: 830: 752: 740: 735:Hours per week spent patrolling. 728: 673: 661: 645: 572: 560: 548: 320: 308: 135: 125: 115: 105: 95: 85: 606:, and more than 40 percent had 3083:will offer you an overview. -- 2518:" - i.e., go jump in the lake. 2289:community, not to command it. 965:add the page to your watchlist 248:, or they have added multiple 1: 3852:22:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3826:15:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3808:01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3793:01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3775:01:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3760:00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3741:00:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3714:00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3695:14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 3677:12:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 3662:20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 3640:04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3626:01:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3602:20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3583:19:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3561:18:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3526:18:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3503:16:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3435:16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3417:14:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3403:14:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3365:13:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3230:10:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3210:07:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3195:03:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3178:02:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3160:23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3142:22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3093:13:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3036:23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3022:22:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3007:21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2997:to discuss the task at hand. 2983:21:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2963:20:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2939:16:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2925:16:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2899:08:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2870:03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 2850:06:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2819:08:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2804:01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2748:12:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 2699:08:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2685:21:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2667:22:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2653:16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2619:15:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2600:15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2556:15:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2540:15:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2500:02:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2470:02:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2456:02:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2438:02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2423:02:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2404:02:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2385:02:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2367:01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2340:03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 2318:01:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2303:01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2284:00:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2243:12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 2139:12:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 2117:03:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 2099:23:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 2066:03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 2034:00:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 1977:23:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1917:22:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1898:21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1860:20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1842:19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1824:16:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1809:10:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1794:08:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1775:09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1749:08:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1734:07:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1717:01:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1701:20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1654:22:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 1640:19:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 1563:22:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 1491:19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 1475:what parts of the Wiki markup 1468:20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1449:17:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1434:03:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1416:15:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1398:15:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1379:13:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1356:07:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1341:06:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 1314:07:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1277:06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1255:05:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1240:05:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1225:03:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1208:03:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1181:19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1167:18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1148:15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1130:15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1111:15:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1089:08:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1075:03:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1060:02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1033:01:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1019:01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 998:00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 3748:the dearth of PhDs in Africa 3724:New Page Patrol survey data 1331:if it's not on those pages? 423:, the 1,300 editors with a 220:new pages patrol group has 3938: 2775:don't tell the whole story 1937:problem because we could " 986:So how do we access Zoom? 722:New page patrolling habits 438:User Newpages with Twinkle 2671:My thoughts exactly, SW. 848: 831: 826:(requests can be sent to 3383:Random Section Break 002 2727:Non-disclosure agreement 2261:Random Section Break 001 1846:Carrite; you might find 1756:if in doubt - categorise 981:Random Section Break 000 824:non-disclosure agreement 526:April 2011 Editor Survey 428:User wikipedia/NP Patrol 202:previous Signpost story) 1799:this as hand-wringing. 780:Requests for permission 204:. The feature draws on 2323:whether this would be 2043:resolution on openness 962:. To follow comments, 882: 855:, leave a note in the 459: 413:New Page Patrol survey 409: 365:for implementation on 358: 192:History of the process 158:New Page Patrol Survey 36: 3120:Make better decisions 2790:own personal analysis 1267:articles for creation 881: 814:and from Wikipedians 709:Special:RecentChanges 616:Articles for Deletion 458: 352: 162:new page patrol (NPP) 35: 2530:enough back for me! 2486:Well you're no fun. 2153:and a rewrite later: 1832:Steven Walling (WMF) 958:from this article's 327:Articles created by 172:, or attack pages. 170:copyright violations 3594:Maggie Dennis (WMF) 3589:User:Moonriddengirl 3553:Maggie Dennis (WMF) 3495:Maggie Dennis (WMF) 3409:Maggie Dennis (WMF) 3357:Maggie Dennis (WMF) 3085:Maggie Dennis (WMF) 2740:Maggie Dennis (WMF) 2442:Phony phony phony. 2235:Maggie Dennis (WMF) 2121:Matthew, the vast, 267:length of the queue 3571:dispute resolution 3549:dispute resolution 2765:example, I'll use 1707:quality increase. 1288:a new landing page 949:Discuss this story 929:Arbitration report 919:WikiProject report 883: 460: 359: 234:votes for deletion 180:, are ignorant of 42:← Back to Contents 37: 3459:Board of Trustees 3310:meta:Terms of use 2973:Plead innocence? 2848: 2152: 2084: 1382: 1275: 1001: 973:purging the cache 934:Technology report 914:Discussion report 845:wikipediasignpost 656:type distribution 608:autopatrol rights 555:Gender: 89% male. 517: 516: 226:Phase II software 47:View Latest Issue 3929: 3905: 3850: 3848: 3693: 3691: 3618: 3176: 3174: 2961: 2959: 2923: 2921: 2868: 2866: 2847: 2800: 2683: 2681: 2498: 2496: 2454: 2452: 2421: 2419: 2383: 2381: 2365: 2363: 2338: 2336: 2301: 2299: 2146: 2097: 2095: 2078: 2064: 2062: 1896: 1894: 1840: 1838: 1772: 1768: 1763: 1404:nineteen percent 1377: 1274: 1165: 1163: 1109: 1107: 1058: 1056: 996: 976: 974: 968: 947: 924:Featured content 901: 893: 891:20 February 2012 886: 870:"Special report" 869: 854: 852: 851: 850: 837: 835: 834: 833: 812:Dario Tarborelli 756: 744: 732: 677: 665: 649: 590:Editing activity 576: 564: 552: 512: 497: 482: 470: 469: 463: 462:Related articles 457: 442: 436: 432: 426: 415: 386:Special:NewPages 384:, a redesign of 324: 312: 250:maintenance tags 206:Special:NewPages 166:unsuitable pages 153: 139: 138: 129: 128: 119: 118: 109: 108: 99: 98: 89: 88: 59: 57: 55: 54:20 February 2012 3937: 3936: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3901: 3899: 3894: 3889: 3884: 3879: 3872: 3860: 3859: 3846: 3839: 3765:can see that. 3726: 3689: 3682: 3650: 3632:Aaron Brenneman 3616: 3385: 3222:Aaron Brenneman 3187:Aaron Brenneman 3172: 3165: 2957: 2950: 2919: 2912: 2864: 2858: 2798: 2679: 2672: 2565:temporary trial 2494: 2487: 2450: 2443: 2417: 2410: 2379: 2372: 2361: 2354: 2334: 2328: 2297: 2290: 2263: 2093: 2086: 2060: 2054: 1958:what it is not. 1892: 1885: 1836: 1830: 1770: 1766: 1761: 1161: 1154: 1105: 1098: 1054: 1047: 983: 978: 970: 963: 952: 951: 945:+ Add a comment 943: 939: 938: 937: 894: 889: 887: 884: 873: 872: 867: 846: 844: 829: 827: 788: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 757: 749: 748: 745: 737: 736: 733: 724: 723: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 678: 670: 669: 666: 658: 657: 650: 641: 640: 633:in their work. 629:and especially 627:AutoWikiBrowser 620:speedy deletion 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 577: 569: 568: 565: 557: 556: 553: 544: 543: 520: 519: 518: 481:January 2, 2012 467: 466: 461: 455: 440: 434: 430: 424: 417: 411: 402: 375:New Page Triage 344: 343: 342: 341: 334: 333: 332: 325: 317: 316: 313: 194: 154: 148: 147: 146: 145: 136: 126: 116: 106: 96: 86: 80: 77: 66: 62: 60: 50: 49: 44: 38: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3935: 3933: 3925: 3924: 3914: 3913: 3900: 3895: 3890: 3885: 3880: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3862: 3861: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3814:Resident Mario 3785:MathewTownsend 3725: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3701:User:PotatoBot 3649: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3575:MathewTownsend 3518:MathewTownsend 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3427:MathewTownsend 3395:MathewTownsend 3384: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3128: 3127: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3014:MathewTownsend 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2882: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2786: 2779:watch the game 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2669: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2606: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2526: 2525: 2520: 2519: 2510: 2509: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2391: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2262: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2154: 2109:MathewTownsend 2076: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2050: 2007: 1998: 1994: 1986: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1720: 1719: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1402:It looks like 1383: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1326:I went to the 1324: 1301: 1292: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1132: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1002: 982: 979: 953: 950: 942: 941: 940: 936: 931: 926: 921: 916: 911: 909:News and notes 906: 904:Special report 900: 888: 876: 875: 874: 864: 863: 862: 787: 784: 772: 771: 766: 758: 751: 750: 746: 739: 738: 734: 727: 726: 725: 721: 720: 719: 718: 705: 704: 699: 679: 672: 671: 667: 660: 659: 651: 644: 643: 642: 638: 637: 636: 635: 592: 591: 586: 578: 571: 570: 566: 559: 558: 554: 547: 546: 545: 541: 540: 539: 538: 522: 515: 514: 508: 500: 499: 496:August 8, 2010 493: 485: 484: 478: 468: 464: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 403: 401: 400:Survey results 398: 382:Zoom interface 355:Zoom interface 346: 336: 335: 326: 319: 318: 314: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 301: 300: 299: 298: 193: 190: 182:deletion rules 151:Resident Mario 144: 143: 133: 123: 113: 103: 93: 82: 81: 78: 72: 71: 70: 69: 65:Special report 64: 63: 61: 58: 45: 40: 39: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3934: 3923: 3920: 3919: 3917: 3904: 3898: 3893: 3888: 3883: 3878: 3870: 3866: 3853: 3849: 3844: 3843: 3837: 3836: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3729: 3723: 3715: 3712: 3711: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3692: 3687: 3686: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3648:Bots in April 3647: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3611: 3610: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3590: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3541:User:Dcoetzee 3538: 3533: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3514: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3487: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3382: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3324: 3320: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3268: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3218: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3175: 3170: 3169: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3130: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3118:", not even " 3117: 3112: 3111: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2991: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2960: 2955: 2954: 2948: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2922: 2917: 2916: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2846: 2845:Seraphimblade 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2828:not make them 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2795: 2791: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2763: 2762: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2677: 2676: 2670: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2651: 2650: 2645: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2597: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2581: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2566: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2528: 2527: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2497: 2492: 2491: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2453: 2448: 2447: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2420: 2415: 2414: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2376: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2359: 2358: 2351: 2341: 2337: 2332: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2295: 2294: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2260: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2155: 2150: 2149:edit conflict 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2082: 2081:edit conflict 2077: 2075: 2067: 2063: 2058: 2051: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2018: 2013: 2008: 2004: 1999: 1995: 1992: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1959: 1953: 1949: 1947: 1942: 1940: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1839: 1833: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1782: 1776: 1773: 1769: 1764: 1757: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1722: 1721: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1695:Burpelson AFB 1692: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1476: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1406:are unaware. 1405: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1333:76.185.111.45 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1273: 1272:Seraphimblade 1268: 1263: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200:76.185.111.45 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1158: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1138: 1133: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1102: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1051: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 999: 994: 993: 990: 985: 984: 980: 975: 966: 961: 957: 946: 935: 932: 930: 927: 925: 922: 920: 917: 915: 912: 910: 907: 905: 902: 898: 892: 885:In this issue 880: 871: 861: 860: 858: 839: 836:wikimedia.org 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 800: 796: 792: 785: 783: 781: 777: 769: 768: 767: 755: 743: 731: 717: 713: 710: 702: 701: 700: 691: 687: 686:autopatrolled 683: 676: 664: 655: 648: 634: 632: 628: 623: 621: 617: 611: 609: 605: 601: 597: 589: 588: 587: 575: 563: 551: 537: 533: 529: 527: 513: 511:June 13, 2011 507: 506: 502: 501: 498: 492: 491: 487: 486: 483: 477: 476: 472: 471: 447: 446: 445: 439: 429: 422: 416: 414: 408: 399: 397: 395: 389: 387: 383: 378: 376: 370: 368: 364: 356: 351: 347: 339: 330: 323: 311: 302: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 275: 271: 268: 263: 260: 259:autopatrolled 256: 251: 247: 243: 242:autoconfirmed 237: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 214: 211: 207: 203: 199: 191: 189: 187: 183: 179: 173: 171: 167: 163: 159: 152: 142: 134: 132: 124: 122: 114: 112: 104: 102: 94: 92: 84: 83: 75: 56: 48: 43: 34: 23: 19: 3864: 3841: 3818:Okeyes (WMF) 3800:Okeyes (WMF) 3780: 3752:Okeyes (WMF) 3730: 3727: 3709: 3684: 3669:Okeyes (WMF) 3651: 3566: 3544: 3536: 3531: 3490: 3485: 3466: 3390: 3313: 3266: 3216: 3202:Okeyes (WMF) 3167: 3152:Okeyes (WMF) 3147: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3028:Okeyes (WMF) 2999:Okeyes (WMF) 2994: 2989: 2975:Okeyes (WMF) 2952: 2931:Okeyes (WMF) 2914: 2891:Okeyes (WMF) 2885: 2877: 2839: 2835: 2832:already here 2831: 2827: 2811:Okeyes (WMF) 2782: 2778: 2774: 2735: 2731:User:Kudpung 2691:Okeyes (WMF) 2674: 2659:Okeyes (WMF) 2648: 2643: 2611:Okeyes (WMF) 2595: 2579: 2564: 2548:Okeyes (WMF) 2515: 2505: 2489: 2462:Okeyes (WMF) 2445: 2430:Okeyes (WMF) 2412: 2396:Okeyes (WMF) 2374: 2356: 2324: 2310:Okeyes (WMF) 2292: 2276:Okeyes (WMF) 2270: 2231:battleground 2196: 2188: 2131:Okeyes (WMF) 2122: 2088: 2046: 2026:Okeyes (WMF) 2021: 2016: 2011: 2002: 1990: 1967: 1963: 1957: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1943: 1938: 1935: 1909:Okeyes (WMF) 1887: 1852:Okeyes (WMF) 1801:Okeyes (WMF) 1759: 1755: 1741:Okeyes (WMF) 1709:Okeyes (WMF) 1688: 1646:Okeyes (WMF) 1626: 1555:Okeyes (WMF) 1479: 1474: 1460:Okeyes (WMF) 1455: 1421: 1408:Okeyes (WMF) 1390:Okeyes (WMF) 1368: 1363: 1348:Okeyes (WMF) 1320:already done 1319: 1306:Okeyes (WMF) 1296: 1283: 1261: 1247:Okeyes (WMF) 1217:Okeyes (WMF) 1197: 1173:Okeyes (WMF) 1156: 1140:Okeyes (WMF) 1136: 1122:Okeyes (WMF) 1100: 1067:Okeyes (WMF) 1049: 1025:Okeyes (WMF) 987: 903: 897:all comments 841: 840: 804:Oliver Keyes 801: 797: 793: 789: 773: 770:Improvements 765: 714: 706: 698: 624: 612: 593: 585: 534: 530: 521: 509: 503: 494: 488: 479: 473: 465:Demographics 448:Demographics 418: 410: 405: 390: 379: 371: 360: 345: 337: 328: 276: 272: 264: 238: 217: 215: 195: 174: 155: 3903:Suggestions 3077:wmf:Answers 2767:Derek Jeter 956:transcluded 682:rollbackers 600:rollbackers 289:soon after 3867:. You can 3863:It's your 2197:colleagues 2017:Foundation 1373:Farmbrough 1011:Jorm (WMF) 992:Farmbrough 820:Tom Morris 808:Howie Fung 786:The future 776:user-right 703:Patrolling 421:Snottywong 283:Snottywong 230:New topics 79:Share this 74:Contribute 22:2012-02-20 3897:Subscribe 2886:in-person 2771:2001 ALDS 2325:effective 2012:attention 1323:picture). 960:talk page 853:gmail.com 690:reviewers 654:long tail 604:reviewers 596:Long Tail 363:submitted 246:mainspace 210:interface 3916:Category 3892:Newsroom 3887:Archives 3865:Signpost 3781:Signpost 3767:Kablammo 3733:Kablammo 3391:illusion 3122:", but " 3073:wmf:Home 2990:Signpost 2840:increase 1771:Chequers 868:Previous 857:newsroom 367:Bugzilla 287:proposal 279:proposal 255:creation 218:de facto 121:LinkedIn 101:Facebook 20:‎ | 3869:help us 3703:. See 3699:It was 3654:Nyttend 3617:Georgia 1816:Carrite 1786:Carrite 1726:Bgwhite 1691:WP:NEWT 1483:llywrch 1441:llywrch 816:Kudpung 631:Twinkle 394:Kudpung 257:of the 186:Kudpung 111:Twitter 3486:itself 3134:JohnCD 2799:話して下さい 2783:reason 2605:ethel? 2532:JohnCD 2193:WP:COI 2003:thinks 1969:JohnCD 1297:before 828:okeyes 688:, and 131:Reddit 91:E-mail 3882:About 3615:Sandy 3470:edit. 3267:shape 2836:trial 2271:after 1767:Spiel 1632:Nageh 1426:Nageh 1364:still 1284:after 1262:trial 1232:Cla68 200:(see 16:< 3877:Home 3822:talk 3804:talk 3789:talk 3771:talk 3756:talk 3737:talk 3710:—SW— 3705:here 3673:talk 3658:talk 3636:talk 3622:Talk 3598:talk 3579:talk 3557:talk 3532:help 3522:talk 3513:here 3499:talk 3431:talk 3413:talk 3399:talk 3361:talk 3314:very 3306:here 3226:talk 3217:rest 3206:talk 3191:talk 3156:talk 3148:some 3138:talk 3089:talk 3081:here 3032:talk 3018:talk 3003:talk 2995:here 2979:talk 2935:talk 2895:talk 2815:talk 2744:talk 2695:talk 2663:talk 2649:—SW— 2615:talk 2596:—SW— 2583:now? 2552:talk 2536:talk 2466:talk 2434:talk 2400:talk 2314:talk 2280:talk 2239:talk 2145:One 2135:talk 2127:this 2123:vast 2113:talk 2030:talk 2022:does 1973:talk 1913:talk 1904:Erik 1856:talk 1837:talk 1820:talk 1805:talk 1790:talk 1762:Ϣere 1745:talk 1730:talk 1713:talk 1650:talk 1636:talk 1559:talk 1487:talk 1464:talk 1456:that 1445:talk 1430:talk 1412:talk 1394:talk 1370:Rich 1352:talk 1337:talk 1310:talk 1251:talk 1236:talk 1221:talk 1204:talk 1177:talk 1144:talk 1126:talk 1095:here 1085:talk 1071:talk 1029:talk 1015:talk 1007:here 989:Rich 838:). 818:and 810:and 602:and 353:The 338:Note 178:clue 141:Digg 3847:Mar 3842:Res 3707:. 3690:Mar 3685:Res 3545:All 3467:all 3173:Mar 3168:Res 2958:Mar 2953:Res 2920:Mar 2915:Res 2878:I'm 2736:you 2680:Mar 2675:Res 2644:not 2495:Mar 2490:Res 2451:Mar 2446:Res 2418:Mar 2413:Res 2380:Mar 2375:Res 2362:Mar 2357:Res 2298:Mar 2293:Res 2094:Mar 2089:Res 1893:Mar 1888:Res 1422:how 1291:;p. 1162:Mar 1157:Res 1106:Mar 1101:Res 1055:Mar 1050:Res 1044:FYI 528:. 329:non 149:By 76:— 3918:: 3824:) 3806:) 3791:) 3773:) 3758:) 3739:) 3675:) 3660:) 3638:) 3624:) 3600:) 3581:) 3559:) 3537:do 3524:) 3501:) 3491:is 3433:) 3415:) 3401:) 3363:) 3355:-- 3325:). 3321:, 3228:) 3208:) 3193:) 3158:) 3140:) 3091:) 3034:) 3020:) 3005:) 2981:) 2937:) 2897:) 2861:SJ 2859:– 2817:) 2802:) 2792:. 2746:) 2697:) 2665:) 2617:) 2554:) 2538:) 2468:) 2436:) 2402:) 2331:SJ 2329:– 2316:) 2282:) 2241:) 2189:be 2137:) 2115:) 2057:SJ 2055:– 2032:) 1991:do 1975:) 1915:) 1858:) 1834:• 1822:) 1807:) 1792:) 1758:. 1747:) 1732:) 1715:) 1652:) 1638:) 1627:do 1625:I 1561:) 1489:) 1466:) 1447:) 1432:) 1414:) 1396:) 1376:, 1354:) 1339:) 1312:) 1253:) 1238:) 1223:) 1206:) 1179:) 1146:) 1128:) 1087:) 1073:) 1046:. 1031:) 1017:) 995:, 866:← 684:, 618:, 610:. 441:}} 435:{{ 431:}} 425:{{ 216:A 168:, 3871:. 3820:( 3802:( 3787:( 3769:( 3754:( 3735:( 3671:( 3656:( 3634:( 3620:( 3596:( 3577:( 3555:( 3520:( 3497:( 3429:( 3411:( 3397:( 3359:( 3323:2 3319:1 3224:( 3204:( 3189:( 3154:( 3136:( 3126:" 3087:( 3030:( 3016:( 3001:( 2977:( 2933:( 2893:( 2865:+ 2813:( 2796:( 2742:( 2693:( 2661:( 2613:( 2550:( 2534:( 2464:( 2432:( 2398:( 2335:+ 2312:( 2278:( 2237:( 2151:) 2147:( 2133:( 2111:( 2083:) 2079:( 2061:+ 2028:( 1971:( 1911:( 1854:( 1818:( 1803:( 1788:( 1743:( 1728:( 1711:( 1698:✈ 1648:( 1634:( 1557:( 1485:( 1462:( 1443:( 1428:( 1410:( 1392:( 1381:. 1350:( 1335:( 1308:( 1249:( 1234:( 1219:( 1202:( 1175:( 1142:( 1124:( 1083:( 1069:( 1027:( 1013:( 1000:. 977:. 967:. 899:) 895:( 692:. 357:. 297:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2012-02-20/Special report - Knowledge (XXG)

Index