Knowledge talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Archive 4

284:

broadening the content of Knowledge to include under-represented groups and topics (since those groups are our most rapidly growing audiences). These diverging priorities put us on a collision course. Personally, I think that both points of view are valid, and I hope we can keep trying to listen to each other without falling into personal attacks, conspiracy theories, and the like. The WMF has presented its point of view and it's mostly been rejected by the present company. The WMF took that feedback and also looked at the new data that MusikAnimal produced and decided that it would be better to work with the community on ACTRIAL than against them. Surely, that should be appreciated rather than criticized, but I'm not going to waste my breath on that argument. Conducting a new RfC was mostly my idea, as I don't think there would be any harm in collecting broader community feedback before we embark on ACTRIAL. I fully expect such an RfC to pass, but we might get some useful feedback on how to implement it (for example, how should we deal with edit-a-thons?). I'm also slightly worried that if the WMF implements ACTRIAL without a new RfC there will be members of the community that will complain that we are acting unilaterally (as the community is much more skeptical of actions by the WMF than by community admins). If everyone here strongly objects to the idea of a new RfC, we don't have to do it, but I would be surprised if that were the case. How about we collaborate on drafting a new RfC? What do folks think of that idea?

1749:: take for example running editathons or education program assignments: if we suddenly make a policy change for 6 month trial, (where workflow for creating articles move to one system that needs a permission for new editors), and then after the trial we decide to make even more changes to that article creation process (whether making it more strict or trying other technical strategies for making it better for new users). For each of those changes you have a many month lag time for program organizers to figure out what happened. First to figure out that something that has worked for over 10 years, doesn't work any more, and then learn not one, but two major workflow changes. This leads to lots of frustration among many many people not present in this conversation (or even around during ACTRIAL), for a long window of time that is not accompanied by responsive and supportive documentation/strategies that they can learn and rely on for years to come. I would rather we be decisive and holistic after we learn from a trial during one short window of time that can be statistically adjusted for seasonal variation (preferably in the next few months where it won't disrupt as many programs -- which run a lot during the school year in North America/Europe). This allows us to be confident that folks who run these programs, can learn about the change once, and be confident about how it works. 867:

to work in their sandbox to begin with, as it allows them to test out possible amendments to articles as well as simulating new article creation. I would always encourage expanding existing articles over new article creation for new editors anyway, as the required skill set is greater for the latter activity. I'd be perfectly happy to see those editors who seem capable of article creation doing so in Draft: space, as the guidance from AfC is valuable. It would be nice to have the ability to confirm editors as part of AccountCreator, but it's not essential. If ACTRIAL were in place, I'm pretty sure that I could simply create a page in the appropriate space for the rare few who learn so quickly that they are ready to create an article before they are autoconfirmed. It would not be a great burden during the course of an editathon. I also doubt that I would be taking a serious risk with the integrity of our project, as I make a point of getting to know participants, so should be in a position to judge when they are ready better than an arbitrary "10-edits & 4-days" restriction would do.

246:, who I honestly wish no ill will and to my knowledge I haven't gotten into sparring with during the process beyond disagreement on what would work better (and if I have been uncivil, I am sorry.) Danny gave me the impression this entire time that he was here to sell the community something and that he did not want to listen to our concerns. This might have been unintentional, but it is the feeling I have gotten, and based on other comments people have made here (some which could be construed as rude, others to the point but civil), I feel that he has lost the confidence of the community in this matter. To be straightforward: this proposal smells like something put together when you release a brand new idea to the public, and it fails, so you need to save face. I think that is an accurate description of where we are right now. While I am glad that we are finally at a point of engagement here, I honestly did not feel like I was being heard until this weekend.So what does this mean for my views on ACTRIAL and his new suggestions? A few points: 1602:

available. 6 months is extremely, extremely disruptive unless the outcomes are absolutely clear that the limitation will stay in place (which the whole point of the trial, is that it is in doubt -- moreover, we may decide that we need to do something different than AFC/Draft space as a triaging environment: both of which don't appear to work very well for new, limited-time contributors). Moreover, the whole reason that this conversation restarted (the massive backlog at NPP) seems to be abating, through attention and recruiting. Why force a long-term, non-temporary (6 months is not a temporary window of time) process change, when its not necessary for effective evaluation? Let the research experts put forward a plan, based on effective research methods that don't disrupt the community -- its reasonable that if WMF invest resources, it needs to be on terms that match that investment without causing huge overhead for other parts of the community.

342:, I understand why my statement above could make you feel frustrated and like you can't win. It is good to know that the WMF did not see its role as selling anything, but like I said, even if it was unintentional, that is what it felt like, and perception matters a lot. Like I said above, I am happy that we are finally getting engagement from Danny after a month rather than just being talked at, which is what it felt like. That might not have been the intent, but it came off that way. Putting that out in the open I think is necessary for any future movement here.Re: RfC, I don't think it necessary now since the WMF seems amicable and we have a previous consensus to implement, I would also be fine going through one if others want it. In terms of collaboration, I very strongly feel that WMF employees should not take part in drafting an RfC either before or after ACTRIAL because of the history here, both from the last six years and the last month. 2425:: Kaldari will be able to answer about development time more intelligently than I will, but here's a start: both Options 2 and 3 involve working with the ArticleCreationWorkflow extension, which is old code that was never actually deployed. The live code that the extension interacts with has changed significantly in the intervening years. This isn't just a matter of throwing some php together -- this is releasing code on one of the biggest and most important websites on the planet. If I've got my own website and I write all my own code, I can do that pretty easily, and if it goes down, then no big deal, I can fix it. Knowledge is a sprawling, collaborative enterprise, and if you screw something up in the databases, then that changes millions of people's lives for the worse. That's why we need a security review, which can take a couple weeks, and that's why we need to go through the usual deployment channels, which takes a week. 587:, and thank you. The staff page does not however depict any organigram or arborescence. I always liked to think of the WMF as a relatively flat hierarchy on the German model of the 70s and 80s. Perhaps it basically is, but the main difference is that in the Wikimedia family of projects the volunteers - the real workers - don't have any say in the product, the management, or on who gets hired and fired. Moran's valedictory, which tells us nothing, is a carbon copy of all the others, except perhaps for my good friend Philippe who actually also thanked the volunteer community for their work. Just like I spar with you, I used to fight with Jorm. We ended up being good friends - on and off Wiki. Let's see. 657:

but I didn't hear about it. Since Toby stepped in as the new interim VP, he's been looking at problems like this, and he's asking why we haven't been working with the community on them. Last month, he brought people from several teams together and said that he wanted a team to step up and be more proactive, if "proactive" is a word that applies when it's six years later. He thought Community Tech was the best team to work on it, and we wanted to work on it. We all knew the current limitations on our resources, but we wanted to start engaging with this group and this problem. So the transition from Wes to Toby isn't a sudden roadblock. It's progress.

465:, I understood Kaldari as saying that the WMF wanted a role in the specifics of the implementation (technical, timing, etc.), which I think makes sense. I agree with all of your other points, which is why I am especially opposed to WMF employees (on whatever account) having a role in the drafting of any potential RfC, pre or post. ACTRIAL is first and foremost a community initiative, but working with WMF and the resources they provide I see as being a positive if it is done right, especially if the alternative is a mega-RfC about flipping the switch without them. I don't mind doing that if nothing comes of this, but I'd prefer not to. 1826:, this has indeed already been addressed and I'm not convinced it's much of a problem anyway. Anyone who is leading an editathon will surely adapt to the slightly different way that new users create will new articles. Meanwhile, thousands of bad article will be prevented from being published and we will be able to evaluate whether fewer spammers and vandals even attempt to create bad articles, and whether the reviewer work load is reduced. Maybe if we can spend less time swatting at the locust swarm, we can actually spend more time helping sincere users create quality articles and become long term editors.- 1193:, I am the strongest and most vociferous proponent for ACTRIAl, and to have it rolled out as a permanent feature as soon as possible. So much so, that I have even been sent totally inadmissible emails from the Wikimedia Foundation telling me to lay off. Please don't fall into the classic Knowledge habit of taking tings put of context. There has been so much criticism over my efforts of late that I am already looikg round for another hobby, and of course that would also be playing right into the hands of the Foundation and my other detractors, but that's the way it will be. 359:, I've learned a lot over this past month about this process, and the people here. I knew that the findings in my report were going to be controversial -- that some people would agree, and some would very strongly disagree. I didn't want those ideas to get run over, so I argued for that approach. I probably did that too hard. I'm sorry that I came off like I didn't really care, and I'm sorry that I wasn't listening closely enough. The reason why I'm still here, and why the Community Tech team is still here, is because we care about this workflow, and we care what happens on Knowledge. -- 2294:, my quick thoughts: fine with either options 1 or 3. Strong preference against option 2: sending everyone there automatically would likely just shift the burden to AfC for all the sub-draft quality articles. Option 3 would likely be the best long term option, but the blacklist was probably the preferred route for the "community flips the switch" option, so I don't have opposition to it. The deciding factor for me would be time: how long will it take to fix the bug in option 1 vs option 3, and would there be any considerable timing difference to the actual date of rollout. 900:. My experience as a mentor for potential article creators/editors is minuscule compared to most who are commenting here, but experience in various other teaching disciplines has demonstrated to me that newbies and students actually appreciate PAGs and welcome a bit of mentoring. I liken it to teaching someone how to swim before you strap a SCUBA tank to their back, and that it's much better to start them at the shallow end of the pool. The biggest obstacles I've seen in newbies who truly want to contribute and create quality articles is a lack of self-confidence. 1523:

purpose of these off-wiki events. If we run this for more than a month or two, we risk creating a huge disruption of on-going work (such as the education program's content from student editors who often write large-high quality drafts, with limited number of edits and publish them in October/November), forcing workflows to adapt to a workflow that is not going to be reliable or permanent. The one month allows for sufficient analysis that we can do some deeper thinking about the solution, and if we can create better community workflows in response to the change.

2727:, the huge advantage of working with the WMF now to implement the 2011 consensus is that we don't need another RfC to move forward. They also have the resources to help with things that volunteers could do but it would be much easier to have a paid person do it: write the code, collect the stats, etc. These should be done with community collaboration, but working with the WMF on this is vastly preferable to flipping the switch ourselves without them in my opinion. I do think that is an option if this all falls through, but working with the WMF is preferable as 1569:, you also seem to have a predetermined view of the outcome of the trial, and are assuming that it won't be permanent after it is run. While that is certainly a possibility, and I am open to it, it is in fact probably more likely than not that the community will in fact ratify this as a permanent change unless to borrow a phrase, the wiki bursts into flames. There are already some experienced editors and admins who think that Jimmy's fiat against IP article creation also applies to non-confirmed accounts, and many people want to do away with the 1232:. re: the timeframe, I get from the WMF's standpoint the desire to have the analyst on board while the post-ACTRIAL discussion is ongoing. In terms of the budget request would it be possible to request the funding for the contractor to be split? One month designing the questions at the beginning and then two months after ACTRIAL for analysis? I get the personnel reasons for wanting to stick it together, but one of the key values of contractors over employees is that you can bring them on and off as you want. I think 744:, you're just being deceptive again. Here in Thailand I'm almost as active on off-Wiki projects as you are in the UK, and you know full well that for editathons there are special features available that you only have to ask for. There are no reasons why editathon participants would be disadvantaged or even discouraged by what's going to happen when ACTRIAL is rolled out, and you can ask Doug if you don't believe me. You do a lot of good work out there, don't spoil it by comparing Knowledge to social media. 506:

and disinformation. What WMF need to understand is that their 'offer' now comes a bit late, the damage is done and Danny's department has already lost any of the trust and confidence that the community might have had - exacerbated by the fact that they refuse steadfastly to tell us who their superiors are and what was going on with Wes Moran with whom I shared an hour's Skype with Kaldari. Don't get me wrong, Ryan is one of the good guys, but obviously he's between the horns of a dilemma (pun intended).

514:. What I would appreciate is that the WMF would climb down from centre stage and finally understand that among the thousands of volunteers there are plenty of people, if not more, who are just as qualified as any of the paid staff - if not more so. Unfortunately there is this attitude, which I have even encountered in RL at several Wikimanias over the years, even from Howie Fung, that because they are paid, the employees certainly assume they are better and know best. 1332:: When the funding for the contractor gets approved, they'll be able to guide the design of the experiment. I want that process to be as transparent on-wiki as possible, and include the concerns that people have brought up here. Looking back a couple days, I probably shouldn't have jumped into making suggestions about the time period :) -- that's actually part of what we're hiring somebody to help us all figure out. Sorry about that, I get ahead of myself sometimes. 1847:

tried ACTRIAL, I think we should try to appreciate the olive branch and try to work constructively. While we can technically implement ACTRIAL ourselves, it would arguably be better if we could also enlist the help of some friendly WMF staffers for certain parts of the trial. And, it would be better for everyone if WMF is "on our side" rather than fighting against us. Here are the top things that need to be done to maximize the chances that ACTRIAL is a success:

1350:: you seem to be under the impression that no analysis of the effects of ACTRIAL can be undertaken until the trial is over. Why can't analysis take place concurrently (at least, after a week or two have elapsed)? If "new editors burst into flame" or "the house burns down" as a result of ACTRIAL, it should be rather easy to see that it's happening while the trial is taking place, at which point a discussion about whether to stop the trial early can take place. 975:

the USA. There are also other events that affect the creation of new pages such as items of international news. The period was determined by community consensus. Funding approval + the work: what kind of time scale are we looking at? Another year? When is the collaborative discussion over the design and function of the landing page going to begin? Is there any reason why the conceptual (i.e. look and function) design cannot be discussed right now?

31: 242:, who has worked with us on technical questions and features and despite what I see as our disagreements of philosphy on ACTRIAL, I believe that he really wanted to engage us. I don't say this because they are longstanding community members, I really haven't interacted with either of them much before this, but because they actually listened to our needs and gave responses that weren't talking points. I cannot say the same for 1574:

with in the followup RfC, and could help us adapt the proposal for the eventual permanent implementation and make it more successful for all involved. Additionally a one month trial would not be sufficient for most people on this Wiki who aren't involved with new pages to realize that a change had even happened. The data part of the trial is only one piece: the other piece is giving the community time to see if it likes it.

1236:'s point about needing a time frame along the lines of six months because of variations within calendars, etc. is important, and I also think it is important because we've had a large dip in the backlog before, and then it quickly shot up to 22k. My suspicion is that this is often caused by adding a particularly active reviewer or two who then burn out. A longer trial would help control for this and other factors. 1739:: I don't work with this particular team, have not been in conversation with them about their goals/tactics/strategy, and to be frank, missed the last few weeks of conversation because I took a vacation away from computers or was focused on other things. I am weighing in based on my experience as a New Page Patroller, long-time editor, and someone who has taught many many new contributors how the projects work. 719:. I might try that myself as I've not done this yet and video seems an intimidating format for a newbie. Does YouTube tell you to go away and make 10 comments to other videos before you can upload one of your own? Does YouTube tell you that you have to wait four days simply for time to pass? I shall be surprised if it's so hostile to new contributors because my experience of other platforms such as 643:

tell a product team to work on this problem -- I expect it felt like someone's finally paying attention, and then he disappears and nothing happens. It would make me wonder if there was a plot to thwart the community, that maybe Wes was fired because he was interested in doing what the community wants. I don't know if that's exactly how it felt to you, but obviously it was disappointing and frustrating.

299:

participants who stopped the trial, it was the WMF that stopped the trial. ACTRIAL is not new, it is unfinished business that is years behind schedule. I must agree with the above, that the refusal to implement ACTRIAL has shattered any trust that the WMF supports Knowledge as well as they can, and I have little confidence that this new proposal will materialize in something. Please prove me wrong.

3024:-- and the first part is figuring out the research questions. He's using the list of questions on the ACTRIAL page as a guide, and also thinking about other questions that weren't technically feasible when that list of questions was compiled in 2011. The plan is for him to come up with the first draft of that list this week, so that we can all discuss it and work on a final list together. 2371:

Keyes-Fung phenomenon, and I don't want more emails from the WMF telling me to stay out of it. I have worked for years as hard on this project as anyone else and it's poor form when paid people throw their weight around at the people whose volunteer work pays their salaries - that's a sure fire way to lose the community's cooperation and even more of its trust and respect.

905:

and discourage potential editors. We should also keep in mind that while many on the NPP team feel that we're fighting a losing battle, we must not forget the other groups of editors we're sending those articles to for clean-up or deletion, including admins, copyeditors, Wiki gnomes and various project teams. I'm of the mind that if there's a snake in the

140:, and we've been able to get statistical significance within two to four weeks on those. But this is a different case, and Aaron's analysis will tell us more. We also need to make sure that we've got resources to run the analysis for the experiment; we're working on that now, and we hope to have that settled by next week as well. 1681:

about why this should move forward promptly, and as originally designed. We also need attention to much-needed enhancements to the tools to make the reviewing process more efficient. The recent modest gains on the backlog have been achieved by significant brute force effort from relatively few people. I doubt that its sustainable.

563:

Knowledge is for us to figure out how we can cooperate (as Kudpung has asked us to do many times). We don't want to "take over" ACTRIAL, we want to help design how the ACTRIAL is implemented and help with the relevant data collection (with what little resources we have at our disposal). Hopefully that can be a win-win situation.

1975: 2674:: in its early days Knowledge was derided for being unreliable due to the "anyone can edit" aspect. In the last few years, I have seen students and professors alike refer to it in much higher esteem. I fear a reversal of this trend may occur if we do not implement ACTRIAL soon. I suggest using the blacklist method 2895:

I concur with that. What we need to do is get those mock ups and flow chart of Jorm's over here so we have a basis to work from and to see if it is/was supposed to be in addition to the wizard r a replacement for it. In any case, users need to be given some hint of what they can and can't do right at

2836:

It sounds like there's still some debate about whether option 1 or option 3 is the best implementation. Unfortunately, I can't say for certain which would be quicker to implement (option 1 is probably faster but depends on a different team to fix the bug). Either way, we can probably finish either of

1928:

will be necessary at some point to make it more clear to everyone what is going on here. I think for now it makes sense to have the basic pre-planning conversations here so as to not create another page for someone to follow. Once we have a basic framework established and agreed to, then moving it to

1879:

Yes, the original ACTRIAL RfC decided that it would last for 6 months. WMF seems to want to run it for 1 month. Can we meet in the middle and maybe go for 3 months? Running a new RfC on this will delay the implementation of the trial for a long time, and probably won't provide a lot of value for that

1846:

In the interest of being constructive, I think everyone here needs to be a little bit flexible so that we can work together instead of working against each other. WMF is offering an olive branch, and while there is obviously still some anger towards WMF regarding how things went down the last time we

1623:

abating. It has shown a very slight dip just recently, but that is no reason to assume success; if you were familiar with these discussions, you would have seen the graph I prepared showing the backlog over the past 12 months - which incidentally none of your experts has been able to explain. One odd

1125:

It cannot become permanent due to inertia because the terms of the consensus were quite specific that that it return to 'normal' after six months. That was to be followed by a further one month of monitoring to compare withe pre trial statistics and to evaluate the trial itself. If it were found that

656:

I honestly don't know anything about Wes' departure besides that post on Wikimedia-L; I wasn't close to him, and we didn't talk. Here's what I can tell you about the transition from Wes to Toby: Wes never talked to me about NPP or Page Curation. He might have talked to the Editing/Collaboration team,

547:

Ryan can probably talk about the call with Wes; my guess is that Ryan wanted Wes to know about the NPP problems, and they didn't follow up because Wes was busy with other things. Ryan, Leon and I work together, and we met with the researchers today so that we could figure out how to implement ACTRIAL

505:

claiming the kudos for all my hard work. Now perhaps people will understand why I for one, am very bitter when dealing with people who are just as evasive as that contractor who under the pretext of having been sent to give us a hand, turned to be a Foundation mole and was feeding us with fake delays

406:

thank you both for your responses, and for taking the time to have this dialogue. I really do appreciate it. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly see that as being a positive role for the WMF to play in this. I would also assume that this would be in collaboration with the community so it can

255:

I do not think now that the WMF seems to realize how big a deal this and how much trust they have lost with us over this that an RfC is needed. There was the 2011 consensus, diverse groups of the community have commented in the past that they felt the 2011 consensus still stood, and the WMF now seems

120:

from Research and Data. The people we've been talking to, here and on related pages, have made a lot of good arguments in favor of ACTRIAL. So we're interested in running ACTRIAL as a research experiment, so tmhat we can look at the impact on new user retention and productivity, as well as the impact

2790:

above is so precise it obviates the need for me to repeat it. At the moment we're just going to have to be patient. I've been waiting (and pleading) for this to happen for nearly 6 years so although it ought to be done quickly, it won't break Knowledge to wait a couple more weeks if we have to. That

2460:

largely overlapped many of the items of which the cause and effect will be revealed by ACTRIAL. It also demonstrates that modern statisticians are able to extract almost anything they want from a database and display it in nice, easy-to-read graphs that even a simpleton like me can understand. There

2074:

We should be looking at the current trends and level of noise in the metrics I've proposed and determine whether the trial duration would be able to reliably detect the signals we're looking for in this context. One thing is clear, a longer trial is going to give more usable information so we should

1998:

There's a clear consensus for a six-month trial, followed by a one-month period of discussion to determine the trial's effects. Given the wide support and uncontroversial nature of this, combined with me not quite knowing who to ask or where to go to enact this result, I am leaving that to the folks

1912:

I think the immediate best way to handle it would be to educate editathon coordinators and direct them to have people send things to draft space. As a project we should work on educational materials for the people who run off-wiki events on how best to handle the upcoming changes. I would ultimately

1495:

A six-month trial is what the community agreed on. I'll repeat again that this needs to be up and running before the Western world releases its children to write attack pages about their teachers and about their favourite non notable video games. We don't want to wait another year for

1009:

I echo Kudpungs thoughts as to when the process for designing the implementation can begin. I think this can and should go on simultaneously as the funding approval and hiring process for a data analyst. There is a lot that can be done without that position on board. I think 6 months would be a long

951:

Currently, we're working on securing extra funding for a data analyst contractor. All of the researchers on staff are working on other projects, but there's a contractor that we're hoping to work with who's done a lot of Knowledge-related research. I'm not sure how long it'll take to get the funding

913:

with less value than something they acquired through time and effort. The symptoms of WP's unsustainable development tell us it's a growing concern that comes with consequences, including relentless vandalism, low morale and lost incentive which creates problems with editor retention, and the growth

866:

I've been watching the proposals with interest, and been trying to formulate what impact ACTRIAL might have on training sessions and editathons where I'm involved. I think that any problems that might arise would have fairly straightforward solutions. First of all, I encourage all first-time editors

836:

Rob, I know what the special things are, and I've run a dozen editathons. Of course pushing them all through AfC would be the 'easiest' solution, but if you've ever facilitated an editathon, you will have noticed that your audience are not your usual vandal children, spammers, and hoaxers you get at

2959:

I agree with your comment on tone. While spammers, paid editors and autobiography writers are a large part of the problem at NPP and AFC, we must ensure that we don't drive away potential long-term, good-faith Wikipedians. As has been mentioned above, many of the help pages will need updating for

2035:

for edit-a-thons etc. I object to putting stuff generated by these initiatives into Draft: space as it doesn't give the sense of astonishment we want to create to hook new editors. The amount of crap created from these account will be limited by the fact that they're somewhat supervised and limited

1872:

This might be something that WMF's data analyst contractor can help with. However, it will be good for the community to provide input on the data we believe to be important. Primarily, the effects we want to measure revolve around the NPP backlog and editor retention, but we'll probably want to get

1865:

Do we need to construct an official system for handing out confirmed status to users participating in these events? Or, do we need to communicate clearly to the organizers of upcoming events that new users will need to create their articles in AfC? What's the most effective way to communicate these

1808:

very department that in spite of my advance warning, caused one of the biggest crises for NPP in Knowledge history (and squandering of tens of thousands of donors' dollars), and that I organised the massive cleanup afterwards by our unpaid volunteers and, like I still do at NPP, put in hundreds of

1573:

part of ACTRIAL. As described above, this is actually not that likely to have much of an impact on editathons and if anything gives the participants A six month trial is actually beneficial to the groups you mentioned should the change go permanent because it will give us more off-wiki data to work

1479:

Whatever analysis we do, we'll definitely have to control for seasonal variation. The best way to do that will probably be to compare with data for the same period last year (or across several years). The seasonal variation issue doesn't seem like a good reason to make it last for 3–6 months, but I

904:

A stop-check (user sandbox), how-to effort (mentoring) will address such issues. I'd much rather collaborate with new editors in a friendly mentor program than be forced to explain why their article is crap and up for deletion at AfD, the latter being a move that is proven to raise a lot of hackles

769:

be hit by any edit filter. However, there's nothing bad about sending all the new articles created by editathon participants through AfC. If whoever is running the editathon is competent, they can easily spin the review process as a positive to "give you feedback on your new entries" etc etc. (Made

670:

Kudpung, there may be some things that you and I will disagree about until the day that we die, and that's fine -- it's productive and interesting to work with people who have a different point of view. I would like to move beyond the personal jabs, as Ryan mentioned -- if we're going to spar, then

500:

ACTRAL. That was never part of the 2011 project. Wresting it out of the hands of the volunteers gives them the power to manipulate it to their own ends. The last two times they did it, it also involved NPP and while it slowed down developments of our work, it ended in disaster for their reputation,

262:

If the WMF insists on an RfC to the point where ACTRIAL will not go forward without it, I think it is important that it be crafted by members of the community and not WMF employees, either in a professional or volunteer capacity (they are the same human, and we all have biases). The reason I posted

2750:

It's looking like we're almost at the stage where the switch is about to flip with both WMF and community consent. My question is how will this happen? From the discussion, it looks like the preferred method is the blacklist, so which admin will implement it, and when? What tasks have yet to be

2339:

Again, I don't see why development time is so long. I seem to recall having experimented with these messages - and with the Wizard itself - with this with my own very limited knowledge of web design and php. I do think that Jorm's project this is crucial to the future of Knowledge and as i

1522:

from being actually created, and forcing undo burden on the communities directly effected by the trial. I regularly interact with folks who work on Editathons and other off-wiki programs, and the Draft space and AFC are known as places where new content goes to disappear: which largely defeats the

1444:

NPP discussion which was nothing other than deliberate stalling by the WMF, a usurpation of a community project, and a doctored set of stats that were of no use to anyone once that contractor released them to the community. And by rhe way, talking about stalling - we need to get this trial up and

1254:

I don't think it's so much to do with burn out as that it's simply a horrible job. It's like doing community penance cleaning sewers instead of going to jail; it's worse than boot camp in the British army in the 70s. If you're not wallowing in written excrement you're being beaten over the head by

1219:

I've been one of the more vocal proponents of ACTRIAL recently, and I would not support a permanent imposition without a new RfC (and ideally one fairly quickly after the trial). I fully anticipate that I would support it being made permanent: I don't see any reason to suspect this being different

1036:

About the time -- there's a couple reasons why I think six months is too long. For one thing, we're going to have the contractor for three months, to set up the experiment, run it and do the analysis. Also, if it turns out that this change is not actually good for the wiki -- we get more spam, new

974:

We fixed the duration at six months to provide a sample period that would cover seasonal variations. We must not forget, for example, that a large number of inappropriate pages are made by children and that not all English language regions follow the same academic calendar and national holidays as

947:

Aaron says that we could reach statistical significance in a week, or two weeks to be sure. I think that's too short to really judge impact on the backlog and the NPP system. I would suggest four weeks, which I think is enough to give people time to adjust, and see how it feels. I think going much

786:

For editathons there are special features available that you only have to ask for. There are no reasons why editathon participants would be disadvantaged or even discouraged by what's going to happen when ACTRIAL is rolled out. Editathon facilitators know well in advance when they have an upcoming

642:

But all of that is cold comfort when there's something that you know is super important, and you've been trying to raise it to management's attention for years, and you still can't manage to get anybody to work on the problem. When you talked to Wes -- the VP of Product, the guy who could actually

2653:

At this rate, all that I want is for ACTRIAL to be implemented before the quality control problem swells to some figure like 25,000 unreviewed pages – 0.5 percent of all articles. The more readers that see the abysmal quality of new articles, the more likely readers will become frustrated and use

1884:

Don't kid yourself, implementing this trial in a way that maximizes its chances for success will take a lot of work and preparation. I think the above 4 points are probably the most important pieces that need to be worked on right now. Does anyone have any other items that need to be addressed?

1854:

Are they clear enough? Are they friendly enough? Do they offer enough alternative options for creating the article elsewhere? Do they clearly explain what is required to become autoconfirmed? Do they look good and match the current aesthetic of WP error messages? I created some example messages

1601:

That consensus is six years old, and the timeframe was decided without the researchers on hand to help identify an effective and statistically appropriate means of evaluating the trial. This ought to be a new conversation, building on the new data and a new understanding of what resources will be

517:

I would warmly welcome a collaboration between en.Wiki and the WMF on the development of the new landing page if we could be treated as equals, and in equal numbers around the designing table. I would like to see a continuation of the 1,000 lines of code that have already been written, but that

380:

I'm fine with that on one condition: That the WMF be allowed to help design how the ACTRIAL is implemented. We want to make sure that it is implemented in such a way that we can actually get useful, statistically significant data from it. We also want to minimize collateral damage to the project.

2274:

We've submitted a request for funding for the data analyst contractor, but we won't know for a month if the funding's approved -- after August 15th. We could start working on the UI mechanism before we get approval on the research funding, so we don't have to wait until then. I know, August 15th

1680:

The six year old consensus is still valid, absent any evidence to the contrary. This should have been implemented six years ago and the only things that have changed is that the situation is more urgent and WMF has a much larger budget. There are many good reasons expressed across multiple pages

509:

FWIW, if there is going to be another RfC, while most people, as I do, consider the original, very strong consensus to be still valid, a new RfC has been drafted and is waiting in the wings in case it's needed. No changes are needed to anything that was proposed at ACTRIAL, or the templates and

3089:

I think the post at Jimbo talk and VPP has served the objective of making it more well known to people, and showed that while there are still a few people who oppose, the community is largely behind this still and there really isn't demand for an RfC. In terms of letting more people know: we've

2155:

span of execution.Anything around 5-6 months is optimum.Whilst the curves of many metric(which we will be consider-ing) will probably display sharp deviations from the current levels; that will hardly be a representative of the long term effects.4-6 months is time optimum enough for a system to

2442:

I totally agree with you that this should be a joint development between the volunteers and WMF. That's why we're giving you all the information and options that we know. This won't work if it's top down, and I've been very clear about that with people at the Foundation. Cooperation, trust and

1785:

points of feedback from these people and help us work with them if it is decided to make it permanent. There is also the pretty obvious answer of them moving the article out of draft space themselves and skipping AfC in four days when they become autoconformed, or asking the person running the

1635:

naïvety at the time, we thought it needed a MediaWiki intervention to which we do not have access. We now know that this can easily be done by a local script (in fact several of them are possible), and we can (and probably wiil) roll this out with or without the Foundation's help over the

1544:, I think you misunderstand me. The community has decided that the trial will take place over a sample period of six months. Development of the article creation workflow landing page that should have /could have been developed 6 years ago can restart right now - it's only a few hours of coding. 251:

I felt and expressed to others on-Wiki that an RfC would be needed if we were to implement ACTRIAL locally through edit filters or the blacklist. This is mainly because it was my view that we would be going against an advisory view of the foundation, which runs the servers we work on, and that

190: 283:

We're not here to sell you anything or tell you what to do. The basic reason there are conflicting points of view is because the WMF and New Page Reviewers have different priorities. New Page Reviewers are more concerned with enforcing Knowledge standards, while the WMF is more concerned with

2370:

I would just reiterate again however, that I am of the firm conviction that this should all be a joint development by volunteers and the WMF people, and not another 'top down' project that will be rejected by the community. Also, as regards the timing, we want to avoid another

562:

Personally, I have no idea why Wes left. I could only speculate. Also, can we please lighten up on the personal jabs? Danny's offering an olive branch here and getting drawn and quartered in return. We're all tired and frustrated at this point, but I think the best solution for the future of

1551:

assistance from the Foundation, not to re-debate the issue of te trial or its consequences. The events you mention will be captured by the trial, which is exactly what we want in order to get some representative data. Anything else would defeat the purpose of the trial. It is not helpful to

298:

All a wide-scale RfC does is attract the trolls and vandals with no legitimate want to contribute. The old RfC was carefully discussed and crafted. It was not a question of yes or no, it was an ensemble of viewpoints that fully showed each participant's view on the topic. And it was not the

1255:

the trolls and spammers whose articles you've tagged for deletion. Most of the users who ask for the bit at PERM haven't got a clue what they're letting themselves in for, while others just avoid any drama by taking the uncontentious low-hanging fruit. That's where the backlogs come from.

488:

at 5:14 am, my time while I was already up and checking out some other communications regarding these issues. I decided to mull it over while I had my breakfast and drive to my office. Lo and behold, I started reading a reply to it and I thought "Huh? Did I type that while I was having my

445:

In return, the WMF gets to collect data however they want, publish it however they want, modify the interfaces as needed, use A/B testing if necessary. However, the WMF does not make the final decision. Instead an RfC is created and if there is a good consensus for ACTRIAL then it remains.

2039:

As long as the raw data is made public (and WMF has said that it will), I think some of this will take care of itself. We should establish a list of metrics we want to measure and establish normal ranges for these and acceptable deviations and desired improvements. Metrics could include:

851:

Agree with Rob that there is no good reason for editsthon participants to bypass AfC. The other solution would be to debundle granting confirmed status to account creators if this is a big enough deal. I see these types of things to be things we would work through with the WMF during the

315:

And I don't want to explain this again, but here goes: the garbage that comes through the new pages feed every day is abysmal. If "broadening the content" means including every dreamer's band and every YouTube unknown with a total of ten views, then nobody would trust Knowledge anymore.

2984:

ACTRIAL is a trial. I think it probably unwise to start calling it a policy or even a policy change. That's why we're going to tun the trial. The results of the trial could go either way, but that should not be used as an excuse for the WMF to delay urgently needed software already.

407:

truly be a jointly owned venture. Despite what I posted above, I probably have one of the more optimistic views regarding the Foundation, but I think addressing the last month was necessary in moving forward positively.Let's see how others feel about an RfC: you could count me as a

989:

A longer trial period would better cover the likelihood that as time went on, less sophisticated COI editors would "get wise" to the change, and advice pages on the internet on the lines of "how to get yourself/your business on WP" could be adapted to help get round the new

2204:

One mechanism that we want to avoid is using the edit filter/abuse filter to prevent non-AC editors from saving their article. Going to the trouble of writing a new page and then not being able to save it is a terrible experience, so we'd like to keep that off the table.

837:

NPP. The idea (or at least the way I train them) is to get them to understand enough that by the time they go home they've done 10 edits and just need to wait another three days. They will have been taught enough to not necessarily need to go through the wizard or AfC.

2200:

Hi everyone: Kaldari, MusikAnimal and I have been talking this week about the possible technical mechanisms for how ACTRIAL could be implemented. I'm going to give a few options, and talk about pros and cons for each; then we can all discuss it and figure things out.

2539:

The contingency plan is to try again, or figure something else out. We were disappointed and frustrated yesterday when we found out that we have to wait that long. But I don't want to make any promises that we can't keep, so I have to be honest about where we are. --

1110:

A couple of elephants in the room here: 1/ After all this is there really and suddenly a change of WMF sentiment WRT ACTRIAL? 2/ The subtext of this negotiation over trial duration is, do we want to risk making it long enough that it becomes permanent due to inertia?

1032:

We'll definitely talk soon about the design and the mechanics of how it'll work -- I just haven't had a chance to get together with Kaldari and MusikAnimal to figure out what's possible. We're going to talk on Thursday, and I'll be able to post more about that on

2270:

One question that occurs to us about the messaging: do we explain "4 days, 10 edits", or find a less specific explanation, like "your account isn't old enough to create a new article" or "it doesn't look like you've done enough editing to create an article yet"?

2868:

I would also prefer that we get it right (with option 3) rather than try to implement something that will still need to be redone and doesn't really save all that much time. It doesn't seem that there is a viable solution that would work in the very short term.

2854:, if that is the case I would say go with option 3. I think the mood here is "do this right". I think if both would happen before the data analyst gets on, its worth an extra week or two, especially if we would only have to work with one team of WMF developers. 381:

What we have to offer in return is (limited) development and research capacity. In other words, we can (hopefully) make the ACTRIAL roll-out go smoothly and we can collect and process the data that the community will need to evaluate the effects of the trial.

1908:

I think something that needs to be worked on is making the error messages more modern/even colourful if possible. If it is a standard WP error message (like when a non-sysop tries to view a deleted revision), I don't think people are going to be as likely to

2393:

Another option would be to simply archive most of what is at the existing ACTRIAL page (and its associated talk page), and start planning efforts on that page rather than creating a new ACTRIAL2017 page, especially since the trial might extend into 2018.

2837:

them before we have our data analyst (since that likely won't happen until late August). Personally, I would love to see option 3 implemented, as I think it would be the best experience for new users, but I support whatever decision you guys settle on.

2075:

err towards longer. We can do analysis during the trial and abort if we see strong negative signals. We can start the trial as soon as we have #1 and #2 taken care of and when we beleive we're a month away from being ready to start analyzing results.

3000:

Hi everyone, we have some progress to report on the Community Tech side. We're able to work with the analyst a lot sooner than we thought we would, and Kaldari and I had an initial meeting with him on Friday. The analyst is Morten Warncke-Wang, aka

1284:

Whatever the cause of it, the return to the median of a growing backlog is something we have experienced before. I'm glad its going down now, but I'd prefer the data be gathered over a longer period of time to help account for activity spikes, etc.

2347:

Note: In its endeavour to be helpful, even the Wizard itself has become a series of walls of text and is enough to put anyone off from going fufther. It needs revamping by someone who is not a software engineer, but who has majored in

3032:

if you want to follow it. So that'll be ready soon, and we should all talk about what's going to happen from that page. If you're familiar with the Phabricator ticket system, and you want to track all of the related tickets, the main ticket is

955:

Once we've got the analyst on board, then we'll come up with a specific proposal for the metrics that we're evaluating in this trial. We'll use the list of questions on the ACTRIAL page as a guide, and we'll post the proposal for discussion.

170:

Had to double take when I saw the section heading in my watchlist :) - yes, very unexpected but definitely good news. Thanks for your willingness to listen to us here and across the other talk pages, as well as gathering requested stats etc.

143:

Once we've got that settled, our idea is to propose the trial as an RfC, to make sure the community is okay with WMF making the change. As part of that process, we'll put together a set of metrics to evaluate, with your help. (We'll use the

2736:. I will have more time later tonight to point out some other tasks that I think need to be done, but there is in fact a lot of work that can be done before the switch is flipped. We don't need to wait until they hire an analyst to do it. 1370:

the stats. The last time we asked the WMF for some help with NPP stats, the contractor who was foisted on us by the Foundation fed us a load of BS about delays until full FIVE MONTHS later he published his own doctored report and went to

131:

analysis, which will help us understand how long the trial would have to be, in order to get statistically significant results. We'll share that analysis with you next week, once Aaron's done. We've done similar experiments before on the

1269:

Don't forget the opportunity to be vilified at PICKYOURLETTERS, supervised by editors who don't believe in deleting any thing and being forced to keep up with the rule changes made by editors who have no experience patrolling new pages.

1028:

The approval should be no longer than a few weeks. We've already got the contractor who's willing to do the work, and he's been working on Knowledge-related research for the WMF before, so there won't be a protracted hiring/onboarding

438:

The WMF implements ACTRIAL. This means that if a user has fewer than 10 edits and has registered less than 4 days ago, then they cannot create articles. No half-baked solution, no RfC, use the consensus developed at the RfC we already

2731:

points out above even if we don't need to. We can start working on the project now: thinking through and drafting information to inform affected groups, working on the article wizard, and the other tasks Kudpung has pointed out at

209:

I agree with Esquivalience. There is already a consensus to run this trial. Unless there is some evidence that consensus has changed while the WMF has delayed implementation, then there is no reason to revalidate the consensus. -

909:, just kill it - don't waste time and energy appointing a committee on snakes, but that's another story for a later discussion. Bottomline - WP will continue to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's human nature to treat 1517:

As long as the one month is during a seasonal high point (like early Fall or Spring), and doesn't conflict with a major article-writing campaign (like Art+Feminism), there is no reason to be so disruptive as to prevent the

3027:

On the tech side, we started working last week on a simple version of ArticleCreationWorkflow that will redirect non-autoconfirmed users who try to create pages to a new special page. That's in progress right now -- it's

2171:

I highly encourage making checklists of this kind of stuff. It's essential to keep everyone on the same page of expectations. There is a big difference between "doesn't seem too difficult" and actually getting it done :)

2336:

If you are going to create a new article, we have put in place some exiting features to help you through the process and it will be seen by visitors to Knowledge as soon as it meets our minimum standards for

1389:

When could we expect to actually get underway? I'm a bit concerned that we may end up coinciding with a surge of newbies as the US academic year starts, which may skew the results - or is that not a significant factor?

234:, I was actually ecstatic and told other users who were questioning it that they should be thankful for the attention and wait and see. During the time since the report has been launched, I am more than grateful to 536:, I can tell you who our superiors are -- Ryan and I run the Community Tech team together, and our boss is Toby Negrin, the interim VP of Product. Toby's boss is Katherine Maher, the ED. This information is on the 1619:, I have been wondering when you or one of your other WMF colleagues would try those arguments. These are just more deliberate delaying tactics, why disrupt the community with such comments?. The backlog is 2603:(the lists). This save valuable time by helping to reduce a lot of the work of the WMF to the physical coding of anything that is required, and providing the 'before & after' graphs. Let's also not forget 2483:

Aaron and Jonathan are consulting with us on this project; they were part of the group that decided to help run the ACTRIAL experiment, and Aaron recommended the analyst that we're hoping to contract with. --

1919:

I was actually just thinking myself that I would be fine with a 3-4 month compromise. I think 6 would be ideal, but compromise makes the world go 'round and figuring out a middle ground is better than fighting.

2932:

629:-- you've said before that you're not impressed with it, but it's a method for getting direct input on the product ideas that people think are most worthwhile. And then there's us talking to you right now. :) 816:, mostly. We have no way of bypassing an edit filter that checks for autoconfirmed or confirmed except by granting confirmed flags, which I don't think is a likely community practice. There's no good reason 268:

I hope these views are helpful and are seen not as having animosity towards anyone in particular or the WMF in general, but as an expression of where I feel those engaged in this conversation are right now.

2361:

If a workspace for all this is required, I don't see why we can't simply move ACTRIAL and all its associated pages to ACTRIAL 2017, it;s the same project hat is continuing where it was left off.

1073:

of hiring. We have CS and maths professors here, among a plethora of other technical professionals. I hope that the raw data will be released in addition to any analysis performed by the WMF-hired person.

2618:

that page rather than just skim over it. I note that many of the questions the WMF and newcomers to ACTRIAL are still posing clearly demonstrate that they have not read it, or have not read it properly.

2258:, reduce the scope, and deploy a simplified version of it. This would direct non-AC users to a special landing page that presents them with options -- Article Wizard, sandbox, edit something else, etc. 1168:

So you really just want to do a trial to collect data and then I guess move into another phase where we try to get consensus about what to do permanently. In the spirit of Knowledge, I would prefer a

252:

renewing the consensus would be needed if it were to work without foundation staff issuing an office action against it. I was and am prepared to go to a sitewide RfC very quickly if this was the case.

914:

of poor quality articles and promotionalism, all of which threaten the integrity of the encyclopedia. My antenna may not pick up all channels, but the benefits of ACTRIAL come in loud and clear.

715:". Introducing a four-day delay is an obvious blocker for such activity. And Knowledge is not the only game in town. For example, another event at the symposium is about adding new material to 613:. I think there are ways that the community influences WMF management, but it's not a direct line from one individual to the top of the agenda. There are community members who are voted onto the 263:

the paragraphs above about the staff personalities is this: there is lost trust, and the best way to regain it if insisting on an RfC would be to let the community be in charge of the drafting.

2574: 2216:

and a custom permission error to display a message to the editor. When a non-AC user tries to create a new page, they would see a "Permission error" with a friendly message directing them the

941: 124:

This is a new plan, and we need to run it by a few people -- both at WMF, and here, with you. I'll describe the current outline of the plan, and we're interested to know what you think.

1224:

that IPs not be allowed to make pages, but I'm also personally not confident enough in my ability to predict the future that I'd be willing to say 100% that the comparison's raised to

2327:

I don't see why development time is so long. I seem to recall having experimente with this with my own very limited knowledge of web design and php. It wouldn't have taken me weeks.

1809:

unpaid hours on it. The moral of this story? Each time the paid WMF makes a mess, the community cleans it up for them for free; and that's what we want to avoid happening again here.

695:

status. That introduces an arbitrary delay of four days for no good reason and that seems especially disruptive for outreach events. For example, in July, I shall be attending the

1496:

this seasonal disruption to Knowledge to take place before rolling out ACTRIAL. The trial should begin asap - we can argue about the stats later, the edits won't go away.

1037:

editors burst into flame, the house burns down -- then six months is a really long time before we figure that out. I'd like the analyst to be part of the conversation around this.

3094:

that these things are easier to do with a work group and then make the more specific plan widely known (of course the work group being on-wiki so anyone who wants can take part).

2573:. I think the suggestion to clear most of the old discussion and use the existing ACTRIAL page makes sense. If there are no objections, I'll move the archive in my userspace to 2247:: Medium development time -- probably a week of development, three weeks for security review and deployment -- approximately four weeks total. You don't see "permission error". 238:, who got us the statistics we needed despite this not being his job and who actually talked with us about what we wanted to know rather than talking at us. The same goes with 2156:

stabilise from a sudden change and the graphs thus produced in the later phase will bear the maximum semblance with the effects to be most likely encountered in the long run.

948:

longer than that would have diminishing returns, and I'm eager to actually see the findings, which a longer test period would delay. I'm curious to know what you all think.

496:

This news from the Foundation sounds good on the surface but for me it comes with mixed blessings and we need to proceed with caution. I'm not sure we would want the WMF to

152:

to create their article in draft space. Once the trial's over, we'll turn it off, the analyst will crunch numbers, and we'll present the results for everyone's discussion.

1129:

My question regarding talks on the development of the new landing page - which is equally important - have not been answered. Is there a reason why this has been ignored?

820:

editathon participants should bypass AfC, though. Editathon coordinators could, of course, have admins or AfC reviewers on hand to provide instant feedback on articles. ~

91: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3040:

So now that we're getting into the planning, where should we have these conversations? Should we be moving to the main ACTRIAL talk page? Also, I saw the conversation on

617:, and they actually have direct impact on hiring and upper management, as part of that group. There's an annual planning process that gets evaluated by the community-run 2114:

and are subject to extremely high levels of scrutiny and the possibilities of a mess-up is considerably less.But that's for another day!As things currently stand; I am

3017:. He's really excited about working on this project -- it's not often that you get the chance to make a noticeable change in a core workflow on English Knowledge. :) 1624:

coincidence is that it rose very sharply again in February when I announced that after all these years I was retiring from my 6 years of micromanaging the NPP system.

548:

as a research project; we made the decisions together, as Ryan says above. You can check any of these facts by asking anybody else who's involved. Does that help? --

723:

is that they are welcoming and eager for people to participate. If Knowledge heads off in the other direction then those other platforms will just eat our lunch.

3060: 1856: 145: 1375:

with the false claim 'what a good little boy am I, the volunteer community was wrong' (only to be desysoped shortly after for some other inappropriate action).

870:

TL;DR: I'd be quite happy with ACTRIAL and don't expect it present any real challenges to any reasonably well-planned training session or editathon. Cheers --

2032: 1913:

like to see the ability to confirm accounts debundeled to the account creator user right, but I think it would be best to include that in the post-trial RfC.

1445:

runing befire Europe and North America goes on holiday - there are going to be millions of children with nothing better to do than play their favouririte

2469:) who I would like to see working with us on the Landing Page/Article Creation Flow GUIs, and other Knowledge user interface messages. Is that possible? 226:

First, let me say that despite my clearly being on team ACTRIAL, I do not have the same negative feelings about the WMF as some people on here do. When

2220:(or other options) instead of the editing interface. You can see what this would look like (without the friendly message) by logging out and going to 1088:

If any volunteers want to help analyze the data, I'd be happy to point them in the right direction. I expect all the data will be publicly available.

1404:

I think if we're waiting a month to get funding approved that's likely. A longer time period would likely help account for this and balance it out.

47: 17: 1055:

Why is a contractor required to do analysis? Why not reveal the data and let the volunteers analyse it? Is this not a community run project? --

1852:

Review the design of the error messages that will be displayed to non-autoconfirmed users when they attempt to create a new article in mainspace.

1636:

statistics. New Page Reviewing is in crisis, the quality of our encycolpedia is dropping, the Wikimedia movement is getting very bad press, and

2820:

But to answer the original question. I'd go with option 3. The current article creation interface is a tragedy and it needs some serious work.

1713:, could you please explain how a six month trial would be "extremely, extremely disruptive"? It absolutely eludes me that that's the case. - 1632: 618: 696: 2465:(Aaron Halfaker) and Jonathan Morgan, whose PhDs appear to be concerned human interaction with various stimuli (I guess a bit like my own 1925: 2266:: Longer dev time -- about three weeks of development, three weeks for security review and deployment -- approximately six weeks total. 1147:, but I want to talk to Kaldari and MusikAnimal about it. We'll talk Thursday, and then I'll be able to talk about it here on Friday. 2910:

I couldn't agree more with the preceding sentence. What such hints need to convey – not of course in those words – is something like

2791:

said, the WMF team is waiting for funds for the stats, but that should not hinder the required software developments in the meantime.

3009:

since 2010. He's a PhD who's published research on the production of quality content on Knowledge, and he's done a lot of work with

2798:- it's more than just flipping a switch because circumstances (and code) have changed since we drew up the original ACTRIAL project. 489:

breakfast?" (at my age, the short term memory sometimes pays tricks on one). So identical to my own thoughts, it wasn't until I saw

713:

This workshop will provide you with all the skills and resources necessary to create new entries ...No prior experience is required

256:

to be ready to help implement themselves. This is a very different situation than if we would be implementing against their wishes.

133: 2036:

in number. We should also do what we can to have these events focus more on improving existing articles than creating new ones.

1627:

You are forgetting, or are not aware of the main point: the only reason ACTRIAL was not rolled out in 2011 was that in my and

2911: 2340:

does not depend on the results of any trials, it's something that could be properly prioritised and begun right now.

622: 2604: 2255: 2960:

consistency with the new policy, I suggest a transcluding template that explains ACTRIAL. Any thoughts on that method?

626: 442:

No stalling. If this isn't done within, say, 60 days, then I would say that it is safe to say that this is not happening.

2157: 1954:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the original RfC specified that ACTRIAL would be "3 to 6 months" not "6 months".

2275:

sounds like forever -- we were hoping it would be much faster -- but that's something that's not under our control. --

1916:

Community input would be ideal, but I do think this is something that should probably be worked on with the contractor.

1870:

Determine what data we need to obtain in order to measure the success of the trial, and determine how to get that data.

1781:

has already addressed the editathon objections at length above. As I mentioned, a longer period would actually give us

1143:

Sorry, that was what I meant about "the design and mechanics". I think we can redirect non-autoconfirmed people to the

2521:

be approved and another five weeks to wait is really stretching it a bit. What's the contingency plan if they're not?

2185: 2330:

I think this is almost exactly the solution we are looking for. However, IMO what a new user needs to to see on the

38: 813: 728: 3124: 3103: 3072: 3053: 2994: 2978: 2943: 2925: 2905: 2878: 2863: 2846: 2831: 2807: 2769: 2745: 2718: 2696: 2665: 2644: 2628: 2586: 2549: 2530: 2493: 2478: 2452: 2405: 2380: 2303: 2284: 2189: 2164: 2090: 2010: 1987: 1963: 1938: 1896: 1833: 1818: 1795: 1758: 1720: 1649: 1611: 1583: 1561: 1532: 1505: 1489: 1458: 1431: 1413: 1399: 1384: 1361: 1341: 1320: 1294: 1279: 1264: 1245: 1202: 1181: 1156: 1138: 1120: 1097: 1083: 1064: 1046: 1019: 1002: 984: 968: 915: 879: 861: 846: 831: 800: 781: 753: 732: 680: 596: 572: 557: 527: 474: 457: 420: 390: 368: 351: 327: 310: 293: 278: 259:

I think an RfC after the trial on whether it is permanent or not makes sense regardless of which route is taken.

217: 204: 180: 164: 2570: 2240: 2217: 2213: 1144: 149: 104:

As I mentioned over the weekend, I met today with some WMF folks interested in New Page Patrol & ACTRIAL:

1419: 137: 2826: 2660: 692: 452: 322: 305: 199: 2930:

There are ways of implying the same thing but in a positive/encouraging tone and using the KISS principle:

2443:

respect are essential, and this can only work if each of us is cooperative, trustworthy and respectful. --

3120: 3099: 3049: 2859: 2795: 2741: 2733: 2582: 2545: 2489: 2448: 2299: 2280: 1983: 1934: 1791: 1579: 1409: 1337: 1290: 1241: 1152: 1042: 1015: 964: 857: 704: 676: 553: 470: 416: 364: 347: 274: 235: 160: 155:

I hope this idea comes as good news for everyone here. :) Either way, I'd like to know what you think. --

501:

and I was furious that an employee made us wait 5 whole months for a simple request and then went to the

3041: 2466: 2349: 191:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

148:

as a guide.) Then we'll make the change, which will probably be sending non-autoconfirmed users to the

2639: 2400: 1891: 1356: 788: 741: 724: 2971: 2870: 2762: 2689: 1999:

over this way. Ed |TB| 1:33 pm, 18 August 2011, Thursday (5 years, 10 months, 22 days ago) (UTC+7)

1275: 1060: 940:

to help us understand how quickly we could get statistically significant results, and here it is:

2874: 2822: 2713:- a tincture of common sense and experience at AfC and NPP are telling ingredients. I'm pinging 2706: 2671: 2656: 2312: 2100: 1395: 1126:

the trial proves to be a net benefit, new restriction would be rolled out as a permanent feature.

462: 448: 334: 318: 301: 231: 227: 195: 117: 614: 541: 3116: 3095: 3080: 3068: 3045: 3010: 2990: 2939: 2920: 2901: 2855: 2842: 2803: 2787: 2737: 2717:

because, if I'm not mistaken, he writes code and I hope he's been following this discussion.

2624: 2578: 2541: 2526: 2510: 2485: 2474: 2444: 2376: 2352:(or who has preferably done post-grad research in it), and that's a different discipline. 2322: 2295: 2291: 2276: 2006: 1979: 1959: 1945: 1930: 1814: 1787: 1645: 1596: 1575: 1557: 1501: 1485: 1454: 1427: 1405: 1380: 1347: 1333: 1329: 1286: 1260: 1237: 1229: 1198: 1148: 1134: 1093: 1079: 1038: 1011: 997: 980: 960: 937: 853: 842: 796: 749: 672: 592: 584: 568: 549: 523: 511: 490: 483: 466: 412: 401: 386: 375: 360: 356: 343: 289: 270: 243: 186: 156: 128: 113: 3021: 1905:, thank you for saying these things. I'm of the same mind as you. To respond to your points: 2208:

Here are the other options, in order of how much development time it would take to set up:

2129:

compels me to believe that the amount of utter-crap that generates out of these projects is

1754: 1607: 1552:

presuppose its effects with 'what if' and 'we risk'. This is Knowledge's Manhattan project.

1528: 109: 1069:

I concur. It's likely that there is more expertise in the community than the foundation is

952:

approval, hopefully no more than a few weeks, and I'll keep you posted on how it's going.

3006: 2728: 2634: 2560: 2395: 2318: 2181: 2022: 1949: 1902: 1886: 1628: 1351: 1308: 875: 708: 3112: 2457: 1228:

might not come true. I don't think they will, but I'd prefer being morally certain of it.

2595:

No objections, but as that page contains all the essential elements, keep the sections:

537: 2963: 2754: 2710: 2681: 2462: 2086: 1271: 1177: 1169: 1116: 1056: 193:. It's not a small one as well: 500 participated with very good support for the trial. 510:

interface messages that were already prepared directly on that page for all to see at

3063:

and the talk page there. It looks there are already some discussions underway there.

2751:

completed by both the community and the WMF which are required to activate ACTRIAL?

2126: 1830: 1717: 1391: 1316: 821: 771: 765:

Unless we're going to grant confirmed to all the new accounts for an editathon, they

214: 176: 2607:

which contains important models for graphs which the WMF found so hard to replicate.

3091: 3084: 3064: 3002: 2986: 2935: 2914: 2897: 2851: 2838: 2799: 2714: 2702: 2620: 2564: 2522: 2470: 2422: 2372: 2236:. Also, showing "Permission error" at the top of the page is not super encouraging. 2002: 1993: 1970: 1955: 1810: 1727: 1641: 1592: 1553: 1512: 1497: 1481: 1450: 1423: 1376: 1256: 1233: 1194: 1163: 1130: 1089: 1075: 991: 976: 838: 807: 792: 760: 745: 610: 588: 564: 533: 519: 397: 382: 339: 285: 239: 105: 3037:. Right now, there's only the one ticket, but there will be more as we go along. 3034: 3029: 2233: 3090:

directed people to the pages now and invited comments. I also tend to agree with

540:. Wes wrote to the Wikimedia-L mailing list about why he left, which you can see 1823: 1801: 1750: 1710: 1616: 1603: 1566: 1539: 1524: 1225: 518:

depends both on the WMF team and whomever the community sends as its delegates.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

787:

event, which leaves them plenty of time to have an admin on call in real time.

2173: 1778: 1437: 897: 871: 2515:...we won't know for a month if the funding's approved -- after August 15th. 1924:

As to the new page, I have been thinking about that myself. I think creating

1877:

Come to an agreement on how long the trial will last, and when it will start.

2251:: Takes people straight to the Article Wizard, without giving other options. 2122: 2082: 1188: 1173: 1112: 906: 411:

on having one, but as in all things, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

2577:

and clear the threaded conversation from six years ago from the main page.

2232:: There's a Visual Editor bug that we'd need the Contributors team to fix, 1827: 1744: 1714: 1312: 211: 172: 720: 716: 3077:

Agreed that ACTRIAL/ACTRIAL talk is the correct place to hold it now.

700: 1446: 3014: 936:

Last week, I said that we'd get a statistical power analysis from

1855:

many years ago, we could use them as a starting point (find them

1311:

has decreased by quite a bit now which looks better for ACTRIAL.

1441: 625:

process that includes a lot of community input. And there's the

3059:

Yeah, let's move the planning and discussion around ACTRIAL to

671:

let's spar about the ideas. I'm good with that, if you are. --

493:

signature on it that I realised I hadn't written it after all.

959:

So that's where we are right now; let me know what you think.

25: 2243:

automatically from the edit page for a nonexistent article.

1863:

Decide how to handle edit-a-thons and other off-wiki events.

2575:

Knowledge:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/2011 archive

1547:

The purpose of these current discussions is to obtain some

933:

Hi everyone, here's an update on the ACTRIAL experiment.

1418:

It's amazing how short the WMF's memory is of their last

2517:

It's therefore not a foregone conclusion that the funds

2057:

Number of new AfC submissions per unit time (same or up)

2049:

Number of surviving new pages per unit time (same or up)

2043:

Number of new pages created per unit time (same or down)

2724: 2221: 1736: 1733: 3020:

Morten's starting to build a Research page on Meta --

2317:

All the interface messages were already elaborated by

2069:

Number of first articles per unit time (same or down)

3013:

to develop the article quality model that's used in

1926:

Knowledge:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, 2017

1885:

Should we start a new page to coordinate this work?

770:

especially easy because it actually is positive). ~

2794:The various tasks involved are already outlined at 711:

is just one day in that. The event material says "

3005:-- he's a long-time Wikipedian who's been running 2060:Number of AfC approvals per unit time (same or up) 791:knows about theses things - why doesn't Davidson? 3044:-- should we be advertising this more widely? -- 2046:Number of new pages deleted per unit time (down) 1842:What needs to happen for ACTRIAL to be a success? 2262:: Can offer more options and special messaging. 2066:Number of first edits per unit time (same or up) 2063:Number of new registrations per unit time (same) 2052:Percentage of surviving pages per unit time (up) 2461:were also some people involved in that, namely 3061:Knowledge:Autoconfirmed article creation trial 2125:'s suggestion is better and my experience at 2106:2) I find reasonable merit in unbundling the 691:I'm not ok with this because it's based upon 8: 1010:enough trial period to get sufficient data. 942:Research talk:Autoconfirmed trial experiment 2513:, with respect to my post above, you said: 189:, a 3-6 month trial with 1-3 month review: 2597:Draft messages for non-autoconfirmed users 2110:to account-creators.The right-holders are 1366:I'm also worried about the time frame for 1480:guess we'll see what the analyst thinks. 1440:and I’m very much afraid of a repeat of 2569:I've cloned the current ACTRIAL page at 2254:Take the existing work that was done on 2137:during the trial that will keenly watch 2119:making people send things to draft space 2103:who developed something of a proto-type. 18:Knowledge talk:The future of NPP and AfC 2099:1)This doesn't seem too difficult.Ping 2096:My own takes on ScottyWong's points:-- 2678:to start ACTRIAL as specified above. 2605:user:Scottywong/Article creation stats 1804:, permit me to remind you that it was 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 1640:are going to do something about it. 697:Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 1929:its own page makes a lot of sense. 127:This week, Aaron is going to do a 24: 3115:is now marked as resolved. Best, 2256:Extension:ArticleCreationWorkflow 185:There is already a consensus for 121:on page creation and reviewing. 2321:and transcuded to the main page 1866:changes to the event organizers? 1633:The Blade of the Northern Lights 621:. There's currently a year-long 100:ACTRIAL as a research experiment 29: 2028:This doesn't seem too difficult 1992:The consensus was clear enough 538:Wikimedia Foundation staff page 2133:.Still, it's best to create a 1978:on length closed as 6 months. 134:Articles for Creation workflow 1: 2723:As I replied to DrStrauss on 1786:editathon to do it for them. 619:Funds Dissemination Committee 2896:the moment of registration. 2334:already is something like: 3141: 2654:other resources instead. 2196:Update from Community Tech 434:How about this agreement: 3125:14:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC) 3104:19:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 3073:18:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 3054:18:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 2995:01:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC) 2979:12:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 2944:09:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2926:08:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2906:01:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2879:20:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 2864:19:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 2847:18:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 2832:01:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 2645:17:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2614:all concerned to finally 2571:User:TonyBallioni/Archive 2239:Redirect non-AC users to 2190:09:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 916:16:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 880:12:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 862:12:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 847:11:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 832:10:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 812:The "special things" are 801:10:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 782:10:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 754:07:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 733:06:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 681:21:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 627:Community Wishlist Survey 597:07:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 573:07:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 558:06:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 528:05:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 475:03:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 458:02:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 421:02:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 391:01:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 369:01:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 352:01:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 328:01:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 311:01:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 294:00:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 279:00:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 218:23:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 205:22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 181:22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 165:22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 112:from Community Tech, and 2808:20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2770:20:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2746:19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2719:19:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2697:16:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2666:03:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2629:01:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2587:01:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2550:03:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2531:23:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 2494:03:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2479:23:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 2453:20:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 2406:18:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 2381:02:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 2304:01:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 2285:23:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 2165:14:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2091:16:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 2011:01:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 1988:22:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1964:21:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1939:21:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1897:21:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1834:19:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1819:17:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1796:16:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1759:16:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1721:16:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1650:16:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1612:15:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1584:14:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1562:14:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1533:13:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1506:03:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1490:20:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1459:14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1432:14:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1414:12:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1400:12:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1385:11:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1362:07:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1342:17:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1321:17:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1295:15:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1280:09:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1265:08:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1246:02:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1203:03:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1182:23:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1157:20:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1145:Knowledge:Article wizard 1139:20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1121:18:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1098:19:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1084:13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1065:12:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1047:17:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1020:10:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1003:10:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 985:09:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 969:17:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 852:implementation proxsss. 2633:No objections, thanks. 2458:This research programme 2228:: Very easy to set up. 2144:3)Will be adding later! 1732:As I have mentioned on 1520:good quarter of content 138:the Knowledge Adventure 2467:Communication Studies 2350:Communication studies 230:posted about this at 42:of past discussions. 3111:(Just flagging that 699:. This year it's a 2676:as soon as possible 2151:favor a trial with 2108:auto-confirmed flag 2701:I also agree with 2033:Confirmed accounts 1420:$ 125,000 research 902:What if I mess up? 814:WP:Account creator 3042:Jimbo's talk page 2332:registration page 2316: 2021:Some comments on 829: 779: 707:organised by the 623:Movement Strategy 338: 236:MusikAnimal (WMF) 146:ACTRIAL questions 129:statistical power 97: 96: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3132: 3088: 3022:Research:ACTRIAL 2976: 2974: 2969: 2966: 2923: 2830: 2767: 2765: 2760: 2757: 2694: 2692: 2687: 2684: 2664: 2642: 2637: 2568: 2516: 2403: 2398: 2310: 2177: 2162: 2154: 2120: 2025:'s four points: 1976:The followup RfC 1974: 1953: 1894: 1889: 1748: 1731: 1600: 1543: 1516: 1392:Roger (Dodger67) 1359: 1354: 1317:tea and biscuits 1192: 1167: 1000: 825: 811: 775: 764: 456: 405: 379: 332: 326: 309: 203: 177:tea and biscuits 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3078: 2987:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2972: 2967: 2964: 2962: 2936:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2921: 2898:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2821: 2800:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2786:The comment by 2763: 2758: 2755: 2753: 2690: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2655: 2640: 2635: 2621:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2558: 2523:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2514: 2471:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2401: 2396: 2373:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2198: 2175: 2158: 2152: 2118: 2112:trust(ed)-users 2003:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1968: 1943: 1892: 1887: 1844: 1811:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1742: 1725: 1642:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1590: 1554:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1537: 1510: 1498:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1477: 1451:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1424:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1377:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1357: 1352: 1257:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1195:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1186: 1161: 1131:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 998: 977:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 931: 839:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 828: 805: 793:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 778: 758: 746:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 709:British Library 701:three day event 589:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 520:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 486:'s post arrived 447: 395: 373: 317: 300: 194: 118:Jonathan Morgan 102: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3138: 3136: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3011:Aaron Halfaker 2998: 2997: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2866: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2792: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2699: 2668: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2631: 2610:However, I do 2608: 2590: 2589: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2534: 2533: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2342: 2341: 2328: 2325: 2307: 2306: 2268: 2267: 2252: 2241:Article Wizard 2237: 2218:Article Wizard 2214:Titleblacklist 2197: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2145: 2142: 2139:these articles 2104: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2064: 2061: 2058: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2050: 2044: 2037: 2031:We should use 2029: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1882: 1881: 1874: 1873:more specific. 1867: 1860: 1843: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1740: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1625: 1545: 1476: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1434: 1387: 1324: 1323: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1249: 1248: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1172:ER approach. ~ 1159: 1127: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1034: 1030: 1023: 1022: 1006: 1005: 987: 930: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 868: 826: 776: 736: 735: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 602: 601: 600: 599: 578: 577: 576: 575: 545: 480: 479: 478: 477: 443: 440: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 371: 330: 313: 265: 264: 260: 257: 253: 248: 247: 223: 222: 221: 220: 183: 150:Article wizard 114:Aaron Halfaker 101: 98: 95: 94: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3137: 3128: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3086: 3082: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3036: 3031: 3025: 3023: 3018: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2970: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2934: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2919: 2918: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2867: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2828: 2824: 2823:Esquivalience 2819: 2818: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2771: 2768: 2766: 2761: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2707:Esquivalience 2704: 2700: 2698: 2695: 2693: 2688: 2677: 2673: 2672:Esquivalience 2670:I agree with 2669: 2667: 2662: 2658: 2657:Esquivalience 2652: 2651: 2646: 2643: 2638: 2632: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2566: 2562: 2557: 2556: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2512: 2509: 2508: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2407: 2404: 2399: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2338: 2333: 2329: 2326: 2324: 2320: 2314: 2313:edit conflict 2309: 2308: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2272: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2170: 2166: 2163: 2161: 2160:Winged Blades 2150: 2146: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2102: 2101:Esquivalience 2098: 2097: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2073: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2051: 2048: 2047: 2045: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2024: 2020: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1972: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1927: 1923: 1918: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1904: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1890: 1878: 1875: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1858: 1853: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1841: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1825: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1807: 1803: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1780: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1746: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1729: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1712: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1568: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1514: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1474: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1449:: Knowledge. 1448: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1388: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1360: 1358:| verbalize _ 1355: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1220:than Jimmy's 1218: 1217: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1190: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1165: 1160: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1109: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1008: 1007: 1004: 1001: 996: 995: 988: 986: 982: 978: 973: 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 957: 953: 949: 945: 943: 939: 934: 928: 919: 918: 917: 912: 911:free and easy 908: 903: 899: 895: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 864: 863: 859: 855: 850: 849: 848: 844: 840: 835: 834: 833: 830: 824: 819: 815: 809: 804: 803: 802: 798: 794: 790: 785: 784: 783: 780: 774: 768: 762: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 743: 740: 739: 738: 737: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 693:autoconfirmed 690: 689: 682: 678: 674: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 581: 580: 579: 574: 570: 566: 561: 560: 559: 555: 551: 546: 543: 539: 535: 532: 531: 530: 529: 525: 521: 515: 513: 507: 504: 499: 494: 492: 487: 485: 476: 472: 468: 464: 463:Esquivalience 461: 460: 459: 454: 450: 449:Esquivalience 444: 441: 437: 436: 435: 422: 418: 414: 410: 403: 399: 394: 393: 392: 388: 384: 377: 372: 370: 366: 362: 358: 355: 354: 353: 349: 345: 341: 336: 335:edit conflict 331: 329: 324: 320: 319:Esquivalience 314: 312: 307: 303: 302:Esquivalience 297: 296: 295: 291: 287: 282: 281: 280: 276: 272: 267: 266: 261: 258: 254: 250: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 228:TNegrin (WMF) 225: 224: 219: 216: 213: 208: 207: 206: 201: 197: 196:Esquivalience 192: 188: 184: 182: 178: 174: 169: 168: 167: 166: 162: 158: 153: 151: 147: 141: 139: 135: 130: 125: 122: 119: 115: 111: 107: 99: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3117:Elitre (WMF) 3110: 3096:TonyBallioni 3081:DannyH (WMF) 3046:DannyH (WMF) 3039: 3035:phab:T170851 3030:phab:T170354 3026: 3019: 3003:User:Nettrom 2999: 2961: 2958: 2931: 2916: 2856:TonyBallioni 2788:TonyBallioni 2752: 2738:TonyBallioni 2725:my talk page 2679: 2675: 2615: 2611: 2600: 2596: 2579:TonyBallioni 2542:DannyH (WMF) 2518: 2511:DannyH (WMF) 2486:DannyH (WMF) 2445:DannyH (WMF) 2335: 2331: 2296:TonyBallioni 2292:DannyH (WMF) 2277:DannyH (WMF) 2273: 2269: 2263: 2259: 2248: 2244: 2234:phab:T138715 2229: 2225: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2159: 2148: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2080: 1997: 1980:TonyBallioni 1946:TonyBallioni 1931:TonyBallioni 1883: 1876: 1869: 1862: 1851: 1845: 1805: 1788:TonyBallioni 1782: 1777: 1637: 1620: 1597:TonyBallioni 1576:TonyBallioni 1570: 1548: 1519: 1478: 1475:Update break 1406:TonyBallioni 1372: 1367: 1348:DannyH (WMF) 1334:DannyH (WMF) 1330:TonyBallioni 1287:TonyBallioni 1238:TonyBallioni 1230:DannyH (WMF) 1221: 1149:DannyH (WMF) 1070: 1039:DannyH (WMF) 1012:TonyBallioni 993: 961:DannyH (WMF) 958: 954: 950: 946: 935: 932: 910: 901: 854:TonyBallioni 822: 817: 772: 766: 712: 673:DannyH (WMF) 585:DannyH (WMF) 550:DannyH (WMF) 516: 508: 502: 497: 495: 484:DannyH (WMF) 482: 481: 467:TonyBallioni 433: 413:TonyBallioni 408: 402:DannyH (WMF) 376:TonyBallioni 361:DannyH (WMF) 357:TonyBallioni 344:TonyBallioni 271:TonyBallioni 244:DannyH (WMF) 157:DannyH (WMF) 154: 142: 126: 123: 103: 75: 43: 37: 2636:‑Scottywong 2397:‑Scottywong 1888:‑Scottywong 1353:‑Scottywong 1309:AfC backlog 1226:Citizendium 409:weak oppose 110:MusikAnimal 36:This is an 3007:SuggestBot 2796:WT:ACTRIAL 2734:WT:ACTRIAL 2729:Scottywong 2641:| confer _ 2601:Statistics 2561:Scottywong 2323:WP:ACTRIAL 2319:Scottywong 2135:work-group 2023:Scottywong 1950:Scottywong 1903:Scottywong 1880:time lost. 1737:occassions 1629:Scottywong 1422:into NPP. 789:User:RexxS 512:WP:ACTRIAL 187:WP:ACTRIAL 2711:DrStrauss 2463:EpochFail 2402:| speak _ 2222:this page 2147:4)I will 1549:technical 1436:See also 1272:Legacypac 1057:SmokeyJoe 896:I agree, 725:Andrew D. 583:It does, 498:take over 92:Archive 7 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2933:display. 2871:Mduvekot 2337:display. 2290:Thanks, 2212:Use the 2186:contribs 2131:marginal 1893:| talk _ 1734:multiple 1373:Signpost 705:Wikithon 703:and the 609:Thanks, 503:Signpost 3113:T138715 3092:Kudpung 3085:Kaldari 3065:Kaldari 2968:Strauss 2922:(talk), 2917:Noyster 2852:Kaldari 2839:Kaldari 2759:Strauss 2715:Lourdes 2703:Kudpung 2686:Strauss 2612:implore 2565:Kudpung 2423:Kudpung 2116:against 1971:Kaldari 1956:Kaldari 1728:Kudpung 1631:'s and 1593:Kudpung 1513:Kudpung 1482:Kaldari 1368:getting 1234:Kudpung 1170:WP:BOLD 1164:Kudpung 1090:Kaldari 1076:Rentier 1071:capable 1033:Friday. 1029:period. 999:(talk), 994:Noyster 990:barrier 907:bullpen 808:Kudpung 761:Kudpung 721:Twitter 717:YouTube 611:Kudpung 565:Kaldari 534:Kudpung 398:Kaldari 383:Kaldari 340:Kaldari 286:Kaldari 240:Kaldari 106:Kaldari 39:archive 2149:always 2127:WP:NPP 1824:Sadads 1802:Sadads 1751:Sadads 1711:Sadads 1617:Sadads 1604:Sadads 1567:Sadads 1540:Sadads 1525:Sadads 1447:MMORPG 1346:Also, 929:Update 742:Andrew 491:Tony's 232:WT:NPP 1909:read. 1779:RexxS 1571:TRIAL 938:Aaron 920:NOTE: 898:RexxS 872:RexxS 767:would 615:Board 439:have. 16:< 3121:talk 3100:talk 3083:and 3069:talk 3050:talk 3015:ORES 2991:talk 2973:talk 2940:talk 2912:this 2902:talk 2875:talk 2860:talk 2843:talk 2827:talk 2804:talk 2764:talk 2742:talk 2709:and 2691:talk 2661:talk 2625:talk 2616:read 2599:and 2583:talk 2563:and 2546:talk 2527:talk 2519:will 2490:talk 2475:talk 2449:talk 2377:talk 2300:talk 2281:talk 2264:Cons 2260:Pros 2249:Cons 2245:Pros 2230:Cons 2226:Pros 2182:talk 2153:long 2123:Kvng 2087:talk 2083:Kvng 2007:talk 1994:Ryan 1984:talk 1960:talk 1948:and 1935:talk 1857:here 1815:talk 1806:your 1792:talk 1783:more 1755:talk 1646:talk 1608:talk 1595:and 1580:talk 1558:talk 1529:talk 1502:talk 1486:talk 1455:talk 1442:this 1438:this 1428:talk 1410:talk 1396:talk 1381:talk 1338:talk 1307:The 1291:talk 1276:talk 1261:talk 1242:talk 1222:fiat 1199:talk 1189:Kvng 1178:talk 1174:Kvng 1153:talk 1135:talk 1117:talk 1113:Kvng 1094:talk 1080:talk 1061:talk 1043:talk 1016:talk 981:talk 965:talk 876:talk 858:talk 843:talk 797:talk 750:talk 729:talk 677:talk 593:talk 569:talk 554:talk 542:here 524:talk 471:talk 453:talk 417:talk 400:and 387:talk 365:talk 348:talk 323:talk 306:talk 290:talk 275:talk 200:talk 161:talk 136:and 116:and 108:and 1745:MrX 1621:not 1313:jcc 823:Rob 818:why 773:Rob 173:jcc 3127:) 3123:) 3102:) 3071:) 3052:) 2993:) 2965:Dr 2942:) 2915:: 2904:) 2877:) 2862:) 2845:) 2806:) 2756:Dr 2744:) 2705:, 2683:Dr 2627:) 2585:) 2548:) 2529:) 2492:) 2477:) 2451:) 2379:) 2302:) 2283:) 2224:. 2188:) 2184:• 2178:DJ 2174:Th 2089:) 2009:) 2001:. 1996:: 1986:) 1962:) 1937:) 1859:). 1828:Mr 1817:) 1794:) 1757:) 1715:Mr 1648:) 1638:we 1610:) 1582:) 1560:) 1531:) 1504:) 1488:) 1457:) 1430:) 1412:) 1398:) 1383:) 1340:) 1319:) 1293:) 1278:) 1263:) 1244:) 1201:) 1180:) 1155:) 1137:) 1119:) 1096:) 1082:) 1063:) 1045:) 1018:) 992:: 983:) 967:) 944:. 878:) 860:) 845:) 827:13 799:) 777:13 752:) 731:) 679:) 595:) 571:) 556:) 526:) 473:) 419:) 389:) 367:) 350:) 292:) 277:) 212:Mr 179:) 163:) 3119:( 3098:( 3087:: 3079:@ 3067:( 3048:( 2989:( 2938:( 2900:( 2873:( 2858:( 2841:( 2829:) 2825:( 2802:( 2740:( 2663:) 2659:( 2623:( 2581:( 2567:: 2559:@ 2544:( 2525:( 2488:( 2473:( 2447:( 2375:( 2315:) 2311:( 2298:( 2279:( 2180:( 2176:e 2172:— 2141:. 2121:. 2085:( 2081:~ 2005:( 1982:( 1973:: 1969:@ 1958:( 1952:: 1944:@ 1933:( 1831:X 1813:( 1790:( 1753:( 1747:: 1743:@ 1730:: 1726:@ 1718:X 1644:( 1606:( 1599:: 1591:@ 1578:( 1556:( 1542:: 1538:@ 1527:( 1515:: 1511:@ 1500:( 1484:( 1453:( 1426:( 1408:( 1394:( 1379:( 1336:( 1315:( 1289:( 1274:( 1259:( 1240:( 1197:( 1191:: 1187:@ 1176:( 1166:: 1162:@ 1151:( 1133:( 1115:( 1111:~ 1092:( 1078:( 1059:( 1041:( 1014:( 979:( 963:( 874:( 856:( 841:( 810:: 806:@ 795:( 763:: 759:@ 748:( 727:( 675:( 591:( 567:( 552:( 544:. 522:( 469:( 455:) 451:( 415:( 404:: 396:@ 385:( 378:: 374:@ 363:( 346:( 337:) 333:( 325:) 321:( 308:) 304:( 288:( 273:( 215:X 202:) 198:( 175:( 159:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Archive 4 - Knowledge

Index