IRC office hours/Office hours 2011-04-14

00:02 < aude> hi sgardner
00:02 < Austin> Hi, Sue
00:02 < mpantages> hi aude
00:02 < sgardner> Hey Aude! Congratulations! :-)
00:02 < tyw7> hi sgardner :)
00:02 -!- mode/#wikimedia-office [+v sgardner] by ChanServ
00:02 < tyw7> sgardner: for what?
00:02 < aude> see everyone in July 2012 :)
00:02 <+sgardner> Wikimania 2012 :-)
00:02 < Austin> Yes, congratulations to the DC team!
00:02 < aude> and Haifa
00:02 < tyw7> where?
00:02 < RoanKattouw> Whee DC
00:02 < Danny_B|backup> dc got it?
00:02 < Austin> You guys totally earned it. :)
00:02 < jowen> Yes congratulations I look forward to DC and Haifa!
00:03 < tyw7> in Washington DC?
00:03 < jeremyb> tyw7: georgetown university
00:03 < tyw7> not in UK?
00:03 < tyw7> any meetups in Cornwall?
00:03 < Pharos> and Lake Vostok!
00:03 < tyw7> and are we being logged?
00:03 < aude> we plan to do newbie outreach, ensure campus ambassadors
continues, etc.
00:03 < jeremyb> haifa -> DC -> stellenbosh? :)
00:03 < Shakata|Laptop> tyw7: yes
00:03 < Philippe> tyw7: yes, this channel is logged for office hours
00:03 < tyw7> is office hours on?
00:03 < Austin> Haifa -> DC -> floating platform above the Atlantic
00:03 < StevenW> tyw7, yeah IRC office hours is always posted on Meta later
00:04 < tyw7> O_O
00:04 < Nihiltres> tyw7: yes
00:04 * tommorris was already here
00:04 < Pharos> shipping containers, ppl
00:04 < tyw7> :)
00:04 < aude> Austin: you got our email right? (we can chat later, offline)
00:04 * tommorris is *always* here
00:04 < StevenW> Hey tommorris :)
00:04 <+sgardner> Hey is Gerard here? I wanted to congratulate him
too: he had a really nice blog post the other day :-)
00:04 < Fluffernutter> Pharos: you can't fit all of wikimania into the
wikicontainer, hon
00:04 < Theo10011> He is.
00:04 < RoanKattouw> GerardM- is here
00:04 < jeremyb> Pharos++
00:04 < tyw7> Hi everyone!
00:04 < jeremyb> GerardM-?
00:04 < tyw7> Hello world!!
00:04 < Austin> aude: yes, and I'm composing a well-reasoned reply
that I intended to have finished by now, but I promise you'll get it.
00:04 < tyw7> :)
00:04 < Theo10011> Hey Austin.
00:04 < aude> Austin: thanks, much appreciated
00:04 < Austin> Hey Theo
00:04 < tyw7> what office hours about?
00:05 < tyw7> is there any particular topic?
00:05 < Theo10011> Yes tyw7.
00:05 < Theo10011> it's on top.
00:05 < tommorris> oh, NPP
00:05 < Nihiltres> tyw7:
00:05 < Theo10011> Topic: New Page Patrol and other forms of
interaction with new editors, Resolution:Openness, and related issues
00:06 < tyw7> Ummm... encourage more editors?
00:06 -!- mode/#wikimedia-office [+o StevenW] by ChanServ
00:06 * tommorris should switch to his decent laptop
00:06 < jowen> hello delphine
00:06 * tyw7 is on my desktop...
00:06 < Austin> So, not to be a smartass, but I feel compelled to
point out the irony of holding a talk about increased global
participation when it's 1:00 in the morning here in Europe and even
later in most of the "Global South."
00:06 < Fluffernutter> oh god, this again
00:06 < tyw7> How about making terms easier for editors?
00:06 < delphine> hey jowen!
00:06 < tyw7> :)
00:06 <+sgardner> I think we're talking about NPP today, right?
00:06 < tyw7> Fluffernutter: not what again?
00:06 < Theo10011> Austin: 4.30 ;)
00:06 < Theo10011> AM
00:06 <+sgardner> Sorry; I am just getting organized :-)
00:06 < James_F|Busy> Hey Sue.
00:06 < Austin> Theo: yep, exactly
00:06 < delphine> Theo10011: you're a mess ;)
00:06 < tommorris> Austin: they do have office hours at a variety of
different times
00:06 < tyw7> hi sue
00:06 < Theo10011> hehe
00:07 < aude> Austin: what about south america?
00:07 < Nihiltres> Austin: It's always night somewhere :(
00:07 <+sgardner> Is it 430 for you Theo? You are very impressive.
00:07 < tyw7> sgardner: did you accept my f/r on Facebook ;)
00:07 < Theo10011> Hey delphine
00:07 < Hedgehog456> tyw7: of course not, we need some WP:BEANS for
WP:WEASEL to preserve the WP:PILLARS
00:07 <+sgardner> I don't know tyw7; who are you on FB?
00:07 < tyw7> Thu Win
00:07 < tyw7> :)
00:07 < jeremyb> note to self: ask delphine about tipping in france
(she already mailed about tipping in germany)
00:08 < delphine> jeremyb: easy: be stingy and leave it on the table
when leaving
00:08 < Theo10011> lol
00:08 <+sgardner> Done!
00:08 <+sgardner> (I accepted your friend request, tyw7. Hello :-)
00:08 < Pharos> we have global south in this hemisphere too, ya know :P
00:08 <@StevenW> Austin: it was funny, because last time we did a good
time for Asian folks, it was all night owl Wikipedians from the US and
Canada showed up :)
00:08 < tyw7> hello :)
00:09 < Theo10011> Beria is here to represent that Pharos.
00:09 < tyw7> you can see my Wikipedia page at
00:09 < Beria> i'm?
00:09 < GerardM-> she lives in Portugal and is in the same timezone as me
00:09 <@StevenW> Okay, so to kick us off "officially"
00:09 < Beria> But i'm still brazilian
00:09 < Beria> no matter what people think :P
00:09 < jowen> hello Sue
00:09 <+sgardner> Stopit jowen!
00:10 <+sgardner> Confusing!
00:10 <@StevenW> Just wanted to say that we'd generally like to focus
on the topic of editor retention, but whatever your question is,
either private message it to me or feel free to throw it in the
00:10 < tyw7> what is confusing?
00:10 <+sgardner> James Owen is my assistant tyw7: he's sitting across
from me and we've said hello many times today :-)
00:10 < Nihiltres> tyw7: jowen is presumably sitting nearby sgardner IRL
00:10 < tyw7> problem is that most new editors are there to perform michief
00:10 <+sgardner> He is just teasing me :-)
00:10 < geniice> QUESTION:how many foundation employees have done NPP?
00:10 < GerardM-> tyw7 how do you know that
00:10 < Philippe> Ah, thanks for that tyw7 :P Turns out you might be wrong....
00:11 <+sgardner> Okay -- so let's begin. I'm curious to know how many
people have here done NPP?
00:11 < tyw7> GerardM-: most vandalism come from new editors
00:11 < GerardM-> what is NPP ?
00:11 < tyw7> and ips
00:11 * Keegan is at the grocery store. great for all time zones.
00:11 < Hedgehog456> Me!
00:11 < Nihiltres> New Page Patrol
00:11 <@StevenW> NPP = new page patrol GerardM-
00:11 < tyw7> GerardM-: new page patrol
00:11 < Nihiltres> I've dabbled in it a bit
00:11 < tommorris> sgardner: +1
00:11 <+sgardner> geniice: I have. Not for very long though, and I
didn't enjoy it much.
00:11 < Thehelpfulone> GerardM-: WP:NPP - New Page Patrol
00:11 < Philippe> I've done it. :)
00:11 < tyw7> Nihiltres: you beat me with it!
00:11 < Pharos> done it a bit
00:11 < Hedgehog456> I've done it occasionally
00:11 < Fluffernutter> sgardner: i tried NPP. Quit after NEWT scared
the hell out of me.
00:11 * mindspillage has not done it in a long time.
00:11 < tyw7> I did it for a little
00:11 < Hedgehog456> In a negative way
00:11 < Alchimista> me also, i've reverted more than 200 newbies per day :S
00:11 * aude has and speedy deletions
00:11 < delphine> ok, and now, what is New Page patrol
00:11 <+sgardner> what's NEWT?
00:11 < GerardM-> tyw7 but it does not follow that most new editors
want mischief
00:11 < tyw7> and who's minding #wikipedia-en-help?
00:11 < Pharos> it was awhile ago
00:11 < Theo10011> BTW Dispenser was here earlier talking about new
editors, I wonder if he's still around.
00:11 < Hedgehog456> Looking for things to CSD
00:11 < Thehelpfulone> tyw7: minding it? I help :)
00:11 < Keegan> me!
00:11 < aude> try to save stuff, see what can be rescued
00:12 < wizardist> is this discussion about enwiki only?
00:12 < Fluffernutter> sgardner: NEWT was the breaching experiment
some experienced users ran on en.wp where they faked being new
accounts and named and shamed editors who CSD tagged their new
00:12 <@StevenW> No wizardist
00:12 < Theo10011> Hola Keegan.
00:12 * Thehelpfulone waves to Keegan - lies!
00:12 < tyw7> Thehelpfulone: who's there to help those who need help...
00:12 <+sgardner> wizardist: No, it's not intended to be.
00:12 < tommorris> sgardner: WP:NEWT
00:12 < wizardist> ok :)
00:12 < Nihiltres> w:en:WP:NEWT :P
00:12 < tommorris> sgardner: I do a bit of NPPing. I did a lot a while back
00:12 < delphine> links
00:12 < delphine> real links help
00:12 < delphine> :P
00:12 <+sgardner> Fluffernutter: oh, AKA the newbie treatment at CSD
study? Is it the same thing?
00:12 <@StevenW> This is officially one of the biggest office hours
we've had in months
00:12 < Thehelpfulone> tyw7: we have a wide range of helpers, you can
see them on the access list, plus loads of people who have ?iki?edia
cloaks who aren't on there
00:12 < Nihiltres> sgardner: yes
00:12 < tommorris> sgardner: yes
00:12 < Fluffernutter> sgardner, yes, same thing
00:12 < tyw7> Thehelpfulone: I mean who's there atm?
00:12 < Shirley> Hey Thehelpfulone.
00:12 <+sgardner> That was such an interesting study.
00:12 <@StevenW> So let's be sure to try and get focused somewhat if
there's a question
00:13 < Thehelpfulone> hi Shirley :)
00:13 < tommorris> sgardner: lots of people have criticisms of NEWT
00:13 < aude> barnstars for Thehelpfulone ! awesome work in the help channel
00:13 <+sgardner> Okay let me ask this. Just out of curiosity, has
anyone here ever done NPP anywhere _other_ than enWP?
00:13 < tommorris> sgardner: but that's WP. what do you expect
00:13 < tyw7> Pharos: linked me to this sneaky chart
00:13 < Thehelpfulone> thank you aude :)
00:13 < tommorris> sgardner: I've done some NPP on simple-wp
00:13 < Shirley> NPP --> new page patrol
00:13 < Alchimista> sgardner: me, on pt.wp
00:13 < geniice> done NPP on and off over the years
00:13 < delphine> sgardner: I still don't know what New Page Patrol really is
00:13 < tyw7> I did some NPP at en wiki
00:13 < tommorris> sgardner: plus on wikinews, but that's a different
matter entirely
00:13 <+sgardner> tommorris: yeah, I know. People felt hoodwinked,
ambushed. But despite that, I thought the results were interesting
00:13 < Logan_> StevenW: maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it in #wikipedia-en :P
00:13 < tyw7> delphine: patrol new pages...
00:13 < wizardist> sgardner: hardly ever at
00:13 < tyw7> to se whether they are note worthy
00:13 < BarkingFish> I've done NPP on tpi.wikipedia and on en.wikinews
00:14 <+sgardner> TimStarling!!
00:14 <+sgardner> Hello :-)
00:14 < RoanKattouw> Basically it's patrolling except it's for page creations
00:14 < delphine> ok, so it's just a regular thing, nothing with
millions of rules and stuff?
00:14 <@StevenW> Yes, what Roan said.
00:14 < Nihiltres> it's interesting because there's definitely a lot
more "established editor" stereotyping than we might want to think
00:14 < TimStarling> hello sgardner
00:14 < tommorris> delphine: New Page Patrollers basically check new
pages. if they meet the standards for inclusion in WP, they click
"mark as patrolled". otherwise, they'll often nom it for deletion,
stick cleanup tags over it, or, maybe, just maybe, make it better
00:14 < RoanKattouw> The only special things are 1) there's no
previous version, so no diff and 2) it can be enabled/disabled
separately from regular patrolling
00:14 < Nihiltres> not that that is entirely a bad thing, but it can be
00:14 < delphine> tommorris: my hearty thanks
00:14 < Ironholds> tommorris: unless the admin is being an idiot ;p
00:15 < aude> question: what's the status of pending changes (on
enwiki, but especially other wikis)
00:15 <+sgardner> (Tim. Nice to see you! I see Evelyn pictures on FB
all the time, it makes me happy :-)
00:15 <@StevenW> So I got a question from BarkingFish that is pretty
good and I want to throw it in here
00:15 * aude thinks it's horribly broken on arabic wikipedia but
isn't involved enough to address problems
00:15 <@StevenW> "In the light of the recent discussions on
en.wikipedia concerning restricting direct article creation to
autoconfirmed users and upwards, do you feel that this is an
appropriate step to be taking, when our aim is to help new users, not
place barriers in their way?"
00:15 < Logan_> sgardner: May I introduce myself to you? I'm
User:Logan on Wikipedia.
00:15 <+sgardner> Hello Logan: nice to meet you :-)
00:15 < tyw7> Logan_: what's with the underscore?
00:15 < Logan_> sgardner: Nice to meet you too. :)
00:15 < Ironholds> StevenW: the answer is "no" but, well, I *would* say that :P
00:16 < tyw7> sgardner: I'm User:Tyw7 on enwp and commons
00:16 < Logan_> tyw7: hmm?
00:16 < GerardM-> Logan_ what Wikipedia ?
00:16 < Thehelpfulone> Logan_: on your nick
00:16 < tyw7> Logan_: why are you using Logan_ and not Logan
00:16 <+sgardner> BarkingFish, can I ask you first: what do you think of it?
00:16 < Thehelpfulone> GerardM-: the English one
00:16 < Logan_> GerardM-:
00:16 < tommorris> One thing that needs to be taken into account in
disucssion of NPP is that a lot of users who aren't newbies but are
learning the ropes start with NPPing. It was the first thing I did
when I started editing again in November after I got fed up with
00:16 < aude>
00:16 < aude> page last approved on october 4!
00:16 < Logan_> Thehelpfulone, tyw7: "Logan" is registered and active
on freenode.
00:16 < Nihiltres> I don't want outright *barriers* to newbie editing
or page creation, but *funnels* that push them towards good practices
would help
00:16 < Thehelpfulone> Logan_: /nick Logan
00:16 < Ziko_> Nihiltres: Indeed.
00:17 < Philippe> Can I ask that we not go nuts with side conversations?
00:17 < GerardM-> Hoi Ziko
00:17 < BarkingFish> sgardner: Personally, I've been a strong opponent
of the idea. I don't like the fact that we're pushing new editors
through a process of "if you want to create an article, either you
wait 4 days, or you let us check it first."
00:17 < Ziko_> hi gerardm
00:17 < Thehelpfulone> Philippe: indeed, sorry
00:17 < Pharos> i think new barriers are helpful too
00:17 < Nihiltres> e.g. a rule *for your new article to stick it
should have 3 good references*
00:17 < Tyw7|pingme> but don't make them too complicated
00:17 < Tyw7|pingme> like the pending changes
00:17 < Ziko_> My impression is that "openess" leads easily to "being
lost" and "invited to fail"
00:17 < Fluffernutter> Nihiltres: we have rules requiring referencing.
people just don't follow them.
00:17 < GerardM-> Nihiltres that sucks
00:17 * StevenW listens to Sue typing an answer to BarkingFish's question :)
00:17 < Pharos> time to open up a bit like the old days
00:17 < Tyw7|pingme> which IMO would drive new editors away
00:18 <+sgardner> BarkingFish: I haven't read the proposal, or the
comments people have made on it. But at face value, my gut reaction is
that I agree with you: creating new barriers doesn't seem likely to
help with new editor retention.
00:18 < Tyw7|pingme> cause their edits doesn't appear
00:18 < Nihiltres> GerardM-: just an example idea
00:18 < BarkingFish> I'm not impressed that we're putting restrictions
on editors which the current users of Wikipedia (speaking as a 6 year
user), didn't have to go through ourselves.
00:18 < tommorris> the thing is the current WP:BITE behaviour
makes me think twice about creating new pages and I've got 5,000+
edits under my belt ;-)
00:18 < BarkingFish> My first contribution as an account holder on
Wikipedia was the creation of an article. It's still there 6 years
00:18 < Hedgehog456> BarkingFish: you suggest we do it a different way?
00:18 -!- mode/#wikimedia-office [+o Philippe] by ChanServ
00:18 < Prodego> Philippe: +m works...
00:18 < Fluffernutter> BarkingFish: the same could be said of almost
any guideline we've implemented in the past ten years. Old users
create the guidelines, new users then have to follow them
00:18 <+sgardner> BarkingFish: I think that's a good point. I think
the new editor experience on Wikipedia today is very different from
the new editor experience on Wikipedia three four or five years ago.
00:18 < Hedgehog456> Make the same restriction for all?
00:18 <@StevenW> that's a great point tommorris
00:18 <@Philippe> Prodego: That doesn't allow for discussion of the
question at hand though. :)
00:19 <+sgardner> Fluffernutter: there used to be fewer guidelines though.
00:19 < Pharos> we were attracted by the original open culture, we
shouldn't be closing the gate behind us
00:19 < YairRand> "Your new article does not have any references. Save
anyway? (Yes) (No) (Learn more about references)"
00:19 <+sgardner> Pharos: I agree.
00:19 < Tyw7|pingme> and simplify all the rules and regulations
00:19 < Thehelpfulone> sgardner: at WP:ACC, Request an Account on
the English Wikipedia, when new accounts are created for users I think
hardly any of them login! Are we looking at keeping editors who make
the first step or getting those who make an account to contribute?
00:19 < Fluffernutter> YairRand: And what do we do when they click "Yes"?
00:19 < Jsharpminor2> +1 YairRand
00:19 < geniice> people actualy read the guidelines?
00:19 < Prodego> I'm not sure this does either
00:19 < tommorris> Instead of just plonking out an article and working
on it, I'll store it up in a text editor until I'm sure it's long
enough an NPPer won't delete it
00:19 <+sgardner> StevenW has some interesting information about new
editors' first edits.
00:19 < tommorris> which is kinda stupid. it's a wiki. AGF!
00:19 < Jsharpminor2> Fluffernutter: Move the article to AfC
00:19 < YairRand> Fluffernutter: then we're toast. but that happens anyways
00:19 < Theo10011> Hello Alan____
00:19 < jorm> AfC is where articles go to die.
00:19 < BarkingFish> Hedgehog456: I think there are better ways of
helping new users than putting fences up that they have to jump over
00:19 <+sgardner> (tommorris: I do that too.)
00:19 <@Philippe> StevenW.... what do you have?
00:19 < Logan_> jorm: What makes you say that?
00:20 < Alan___> Hi theo
00:20 < GerardM-> what is AfC ?
00:20 < derp> howdy sgardner :)
00:20 < Hedgehog456> BarkingFish: what if we help them over the fence?
00:20 < tommorris> GerardM-: Articles for Creation
00:20 < Alan___> Hi Delphine too :)
00:20 <+sgardner> derp! :-)
00:20 <@StevenW> Okay
00:20 < Ironholds> sgardner knows derp. The end is nigh.
00:20 < Hedgehog456> With holes like WP:AFC and WP:WIZ
00:20 < Nihiltres> I like YairRand's reference prompter idea
00:20 <+sgardner> I know Ironholds too :-)
00:20 < delphine> oh my, recrudescence of Canadians ;)
00:20 < BarkingFish> Hedgehog456: We can help them over the fence, but
without herding them all through a narrow passage like sheep.
00:20 < tommorris> GerardM-: a process so that unregistered users can
submit articles and have them checked over by a user
00:20 < Hedgehog456> Ironholds: why :D
00:20 < jorm> I've been watching the lifecycle of several articles in
AfC. Some were good, but they were rejected. They might have
survived if they were just created in main space.
00:20 < Fluffernutter> everybody knows Ironholds, sgardner :P
00:20 <@StevenW> Yeah so we sometimes hear people wonder whether it's
fine we reject a lot of newbies, because most of their edits are
really bad and don't actually help improve the encyclopedia
00:20 < Logan_> GerardM-: AfC is Articles for Creation - it is a way
on to have IP editors and unconfirmed users create articles
with reviewers' guidance.
00:20 < Tyw7|pingme> Hedgehog456: what is wiz?
00:20 < GerardM-> Sue ... the problem is not confined to en,wp and as
always it seems to occupy everyones attention
00:20 < Hedgehog456> BarkingFish: which is what we should do
00:20 < Ironholds> sgardner: and you don't hate me! that raises
questions about your mental health, not questions about armageddon :P
00:20 <+sgardner> (StevenW is typing.)
00:20 * jorm does not know Ironholds.
00:20 < Hedgehog456> Tyw7|pingme: The Article Wizard
00:21 < Tyw7|pingme> oh...
00:21 < Ironholds> jorm: you lucky person
00:21 < Tyw7|pingme> never used it honestly
00:21 < Fluffernutter> lol
00:21 < Logan_> Ironholds: XD
00:21 <+sgardner> jorm: you WILL know Ironholds. And actually, I have
told you about him. All good, obviously :-)
00:21 <@StevenW> We decided to do a survey of a random sample of new
editors from this month and actually look at their first edits, see
where they were, and whether they were any good
00:21 * tommorris has looked into AfC and cannot find any motivation
to help with it
00:21 < Nihiltres> StevenW: ignorance can be corrected, less so ignorance
00:21 <@StevenW> and then compare that to say, back in 2004. Just to
pick a time in the page
00:21 < Logan_> tommorris: We have a backlog very often. Why not help out?
00:21 < Hedgehog456> BarkingFish: but how?
00:21 < Theo10011> wb Ironholds.
00:21 < Nihiltres> *insult
00:21 < Alan___> oh Hi to Sue too
00:21 < Tyw7|pingme> tommorris: me too...
00:21 <+sgardner> (Not really a survey: more an analysis.)
00:21 < Thehelpfulone> GerardM-:
- you can CTRL+F the abbreviation :)
00:21 < Nihiltres> d'oh
00:21 <@StevenW> The first results are here:
00:21 < Tyw7|pingme> I often edit articles of interest
00:21 < tommorris> Logan_: because it's not something I find
particularly interesting. I don't know why.
00:21 * Alan___ wonders how many members of his constituency are here :)
00:21 < Hedgehog456> Instead of axing an article down, move it to an
incubator and help the user fix it up?
00:21 < Shirley> WE'RE NOT GAINING ENOUGH USERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
00:22 < Tyw7|pingme> Shirley: cite your source!
00:22 <+sgardner> Hey Alan! (This is Canadian Alan, from Berlin, right?)
00:22 < Pharos> Alan of the Frozen North?
00:22 < Tyw7|pingme> Shirley: perhaps its time for Wikipedia ads on TVs :)
00:22 < Alan___> Yes, Sue.. Theo told me about this chat
00:22 < jorm> Logan_: I did for a bit, and then I realized that I was
going to spoil my neutral observation ability on it.
00:22 < Logan_> Hedgehog456: That's an interesting idea. Should we
utilize the incubator more often to fix up articles that are not ready
for the mainspace?
00:22 < BarkingFish> Hedgehog456: That's the issue. We need to look
at ways to improve the experience, not make it more restrictive. It
needs more discussion on other paths.
00:22 < tommorris> erm, guys, all this talk about incubators - you
know that Wikipedia was basically an incubator project for Nupedia.
Now we're talking about having an incubator project for Wikipedia.
00:22 <@StevenW> So it's pretty interesting, because based on that
sample, about half of all edits made by this sample ~150 newbies were
not something needing a rv
00:22 < Shirley> Source? I have plenty of surveys of dubious accuracy
that I can cite all day long!
00:22 < Hedgehog456> Logan_: put ALL articles in the incubator?
00:22 < delphine> StevenW: I launched the idea of an admin IRL
workshop. Idea would be to have admins look at their first edits and
try to imagine if they came across them in wp today
00:22 < delphine> how they would react
00:22 * jorm doesn't want to increase the number of people who join
per day right now since they'll just end up on the cutting room floor.
00:22 < Shirley> Because surveys are like the word of God.
00:22 < Logan_> Hedgehog456: No, I didn't say that. Just, instead of
deletion is some cases.
00:23 < Alan___> Delphine? IRL in real life?
00:23 < delphine> and what that teaches them about how they approach newbies
00:23 < Hedgehog456> tommorris: There is one, just no-one ever uses it
00:23 <@Philippe> delphine: I proposed something similiar yesterady :)
00:23 < Logan_> Hedgehog456: It's better than userfication in most AfD
outcomes, in my opinion.
00:23 < Thehelpfulone> Alan___: yep
00:23 < Hedgehog456> Logan_: the incubator EVERYWHERE would be better
00:23 < Prodego> delphine: well I would have gotten rid of myself
00:23 < SpitfireWP> Shirley, 76% of statistics are made up on the spot
00:23 < Shirley> Yes, in-person editing is the way of the future.
00:23 < Prodego> delphine: I've said that for a long time actually
00:23 < Shirley> It scales, it's cost-effective, it's perfect!
00:23 <@StevenW> The same sample of ~150 newbies from 2004 was here:
00:23 < Alan___> You know, I am an example of editor who put in 5000
edits and walked away
00:23 < Tyw7|pingme> Philippe: to get new users perhaps Wikimedia can
start advertising on TV and on the internet?
00:23 < Nihiltres> hah, in my newbie days I accidentally got involved
tangentially in an ArbCom case IIRC
00:23 < Logan_> Hedgehog456: Yes, but that would be highly
impractical. Only the articles pending deletion should go there, and,
of those, the ones that could benefit the most from community work.
00:23 <@Philippe> Tyw7|pingme: It's not about GETTING them... it's
about RETAINING them. :)
00:24 < howief> those charts are fascinating
00:24 < Alan___> The challenge I find in coming back to Wikipedia is
organizing the research to make real contributions to article content
00:24 < GerardM-> You can advertise but how do you get me to write in the en.wp
00:24 <@StevenW> Ah, I got a question
00:24 < Shirley> Charts, surveys, charts, surveys.
00:24 < Tyw7|pingme> Ummm...
00:24 < howief> are we goig to able to do one for 2006?
00:24 <@StevenW> Whoopes
00:24 < GerardM-> if you can not convince me that it is ok to do so ?
00:24 < Tyw7|pingme> give them an article of interst?
00:24 <@StevenW> tab complete failure
00:24 <@Philippe> howief: catch me later, I'll fill you in on the full
plan with that
00:24 <+sgardner> hahaah what is happening StevenW?
00:24 <@StevenW> howief we could for sure
00:24 <@Philippe> as much of it as I know :)
00:24 < howief> awesome :)
00:24 < Tyw7|pingme> is there a chart for 2010 and 2009?
00:25 <@StevenW> Anyway, Thehelpfulone had a question ...
00:25 <@StevenW> "at WP:ACC, Request an Account on the English
Wikipedia, when new accounts are created for users I think hardly any
of them login! Are we looking at keeping editors who make the first
step or getting those who make an account to contribute?"
00:25 <+sgardner> So the gist is: most new edits are good faith and
constructive, am I right? (I am always impatient for the upshot :-)
00:25 <@StevenW> Sue do you have thoughts about that?
00:25 <@Philippe> sgardner: yes, you're right,
00:25 < Shirley> sgardner: No, you're wrong.
00:25 < Thehelpfulone> thanks StevenW
00:25 < Hedgehog456> Logan_: better than having unreliable stubs in articlespace
00:25 < Nihiltres> One thing that I think would really help would be
to encourage social interaction… e.g. suggest articles that are
similar to articles the user has recently edited, that are being
actively edited by other users
00:25 < Shirley> I wouldn't say most first editors are good faith.
00:25 < Tyw7|pingme> Shirley: I think we are better off deleting users
that have no edits
00:25 < Shirley> At least not without evidence.
00:25 < Tyw7|pingme> and inactive for years or so
00:25 < Hedgehog456> What about C-class articles are released, and FAs
are protected with PC?
00:25 < tommorris> Nihiltres: on that point, the way WikiHow does that
is spectacular
00:25 < Shirley> Tyw7|pingme: That's a great way to lose editors.
00:25 < Tyw7|pingme> to free up namespaces
00:26 < delphine> Nihiltres: I would suggest articles that _aren't_
edited actively ;)
00:26 <+sgardner> Does anyone have the link to the very interesting
page someone made last week, where people talked about what their
first edits were, when they first joined the projects?
00:26 < Shirley> We don't have that many registered users, comparatively.
00:26 < tommorris> Nihiltres: it's not so much social but the
recommendations of "stuff you could write/edit next" is brilliant
00:26 < Nihiltres> tommorris: how do they do that? I haven't been to
WikiHow in a while
00:26 <+sgardner> (I forget who made that page.)
00:26 < Risker> Tyw7, a lot of those people are those who read and
keep watchlists
00:26 < derp> sgardner, whose hockey team are you cheering for during
the playoffs :P
00:26 < Tyw7|pingme> Shirley: but if they haven't made a single edit
for 6 or 7 years...
00:26 < tommorris> Nihiltres: not sure
00:26 < Logan_> Tyw7|pingme: I do not see the comparative advantage of
doing that.
00:26 < Jamesofur> Tyw7|pingme: The charts were randomly users from
April 12th 2011 and April 12th 2004 mostly because we wanted
comparison. We don't have one for others yet though
00:26 < Logan_> Tyw7|pingme: If anything, we want to retain contributors.
00:26 < tommorris> sgardner: it's part of the Wiki Guides thing
00:26 <@StevenW> sgardner, I think it's this?
00:26 <@StevenW>
00:26 < ChristineM> Tyw7: in that case, it'd be hard for people to come back
00:26 < jorm> Users with accounts and no edits are what we call
"candidates". there are lots of them. and there are many reasons
why they have 0 edits.
00:26 < Tyw7|pingme> Logan_: but then users can't have the username they want
00:26 < Risker> thanks for the pie charts....Our gut instinct that
vandalism has massively increased is borne out
00:26 < ChristineM> i created my account in '08, and then didn't use
it again until late last year
00:26 < Logan_> Tyw7|pingme: That is what CHU is for ;)
00:26 < Nihiltres> delphine: but that's an isolating effect… it
would make Wikipedia feel lonely! :(
00:26 < Tyw7|pingme> also there are tons of usless usernames such as ! and $
00:27 < Shirley> I think the real solution is to form more committees
and mailing lists.
00:27 < ChristineM> i'd have been sad if i had to start all over again
00:27 < Pharos> ooo, idea
00:27 < mindspillage> Tyw7|pingme: and then they don't get attributed
in they way they wanted to be attributed for what they di do, either.
00:27 < Fluffernutter> tommorris: Similar discussion on
00:27 < jorm> Hi Risker.
00:27 < Tyw7|pingme> Logan_: what is CHU?
00:27 < Shirley> And hire a few more consultants.
00:27 <@StevenW> Risker: that's only in registered accounts, remember.
00:27 < Pharos> make new users download a browser add-on
00:27 <@StevenW> We didn't actually measure how much total vandalism goes on
00:27 <+sgardner> tommorris: Yeah that's the page. It is fascinating.
00:27 < Shirley> With a third option of creating and using more
acronyms and initialisms.
00:27 < Thehelpfulone> Tyw7|pingme: change username request I think
00:27 < Tyw7|pingme> Pharos: -1
00:27 < Pharos> or offer them the option anywau
00:27 < Logan_> Tyw7|pingme: Change username - you can change your
username to another one that isn't registered or usurp one that has
hardly/no edits -
00:27 < delphine> Nihiltres: but sending a newbie on a heavily edited
article is like sending them to their death :P
00:27 < BarkingFish> brb
00:27 < Logan_> Pharos: Why make them download an add-on?
00:27 < Pharos> a tool to make reading more interesting, and encourage editing
00:27 < Tyw7|pingme> Thehelpfulone: there are tons of users there that
have silly or usless usernames that consist of absurd symbols
00:28 < Tyw7|pingme> that possible fail WP:USERNAME
00:28 < Risker> StevenW, that's kind of my point. It suggests that a
very significant number of new accounts are vandalism-only
00:28 < Shirley> We can re-implement Bonzi?
00:28 < Logan_> Pharos: Then wouldn't it be better integrated into the
00:28 < Pharos> so we don't lose them so easy
00:28 < Shirley> Was that the purple ape's name?
00:28 < Tyw7|pingme> Pharos: that would put them off...
00:28 < delphine> jorm: do you have some reasons why they don't edit?
00:28 <+sgardner> So it's interesting, right. Because the gist of that
page is that we all made terrible mistakes in the beginning. And many
of us were forgiven, and went on to become constructive editors :-)
00:28 < Tyw7|pingme> Shirley: what is Bozi?
00:28 < jorm> i have some suspicions.
00:28 < Alan___> I think people just need help with building the
articles and the experienced editors need to contribute to the article
instead of spending time arguing on talk pages
00:28 < delphine> (and jorm hi, btw)
00:28 < Nihiltres> delphine: in controversial articles, maybe, but
that's a subset and perhaps we could filter those from the suggestion
system a little
00:28 < Shirley>
00:28 <+sgardner> Risker: about a quarter are vandalism, right?
00:28 < Shirley> We need a Wikipetan equivalent.
00:28 < Alan___> Take for example the Qubec City article
00:28 < Theo10011> Hey WittyLama
00:28 < Logan_> sgardner: But of course. Some of the first articles
that I wrote were speedy deleted just because I wasn't aware of the
criteria at the time.
00:28 <@StevenW> Risker: yes, about 20%. But way way more are not only
good faith, but making content that isn't too terrible.
00:28 < Alan___> I am trying to bring it up to GA
00:28 < Logan_> Shirley: No thanks :P
00:28 < Shirley> A quarter of all statistics are made up.
00:28 < Tyw7|pingme> Shirley: but most users won't install adons
00:28 < Tyw7|pingme> at least I don't
00:28 < jorm> there are many, many people who create accounts so that
they can "be supportive".
00:29 < Tyw7|pingme> I keep adons to a minimum
00:29 < Alan___> I go into the article and start trying to bring it up
to par as per the GA Review
00:29 * mindspillage wonders if only people with interesting first
edit stories contributed to that page.
00:29 < tommorris> I think that one of the interesting things about
the new editor discussion is that it parallels that of the problems
for expert editors and that is WP:BOLD is problematic for new
users *and* expert users.
00:29 <+sgardner> Logan: exactly. I think the point of the page is
that we were all clueless once. So we should have sympathy for the
clueless today :-)
00:29 < Risker> StevenW, it is still an important factor. Do we have
much data on the edits of IP editors?
00:29 < Alan___> And I had two people jump on the talk page and insult
my choice of pictures to keep versus remove
00:29 < tommorris> We want people to BE BOLD but we don't want them to
do it until they've had some experience of how WP operates
00:29 < Thehelpfulone> Pharos: browser addon? Then updates to that
won't work - there are loads of users of IE who haven't updated for a
00:29 <@StevenW> Not nearly as much as we should Risker
00:29 <@Philippe> Risker, not yet
00:29 < Alan___> They didn't make a single contribution to the
article, but saw fit to beat me up for my choice of photos
00:29 < tommorris> you should lurk and learn, then be bold
00:29 < Shirley> Nobody's listening to my suggestions. :-(
00:29 <@Philippe> That's in the Grand Evil Plan.
00:29 < Shirley> And they're so good!
00:29 <+sgardner> mindspillage: yeah, there is probably some truth to that.
00:29 < Nihiltres> tommorris: +1
00:29 < Hedgehog456> Shirley: what are they?
00:29 < Shirley> Heh, Wikimedia's Grand Evil Plan: more consultants.
00:29 < Logan_> sgardner: Yes, it is interesting to regard new editors
from that viewpoint. We should help them along more, but it becomes
so difficult with even the evident onslaught of new articles at AfC.
00:29 < tommorris> by "be bold" we don't mean go into the article on
Israel and replace it all with an anti-Semitic rant.
00:29 < Shirley> Hedgehog456: Read scrollback.
00:29 < Alan___> This is the type of issues that is holding people
back from making real content contribution. It's disheartening to put
the effort in to tackle a big problem and only be heckled for your
00:29 <@StevenW> Part of it that makes it hard to measure IP editors
is that one IP could represent any number of people, or a single
person's IP could change
00:30 < jorm> Shirley, you're not being constructive right now.
00:30 < Pharos> yes, updates are an issue, but we're "losing" over 90%
of new editora- and we shouldn't be
00:30 < Hedgehog456> Shirley: I hate scrollback. Tell me in query then.
00:30 < Tyw7|pingme> more automaic bots to tag potientially un
noteworthy new pages?
00:30 < Prodego> Pharos: why shouldn't we be?
00:30 < Shirley> jorm: You don't like my idea of a Wikipetan version
of BonziBUDDY? I'm hurt.
00:30 < Alan___> More automatic bots is another problem
00:30 < jorm> god no. more bot tagging will be bad.
00:30 < Alan___> We need more constructive edits and less tagging
00:30 < Alan___> Less talk page, more article
00:30 < jorm> i can guarantee you that auto-tags are horrible.
00:30 < Pharos> because new editors are useful resources
00:31 < Tyw7|pingme> jorm: bots... or at least add a cat to warn admins
00:31 < Ziko_> hello, some people here are non native speakers of
english and have difficulties to follow. dropping the joke message
might help. thank you
00:31 < Logan_> sgardner: Furthermore, I've been seeing recently that
new editors have seen Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, which
makes it hard for us at #wikipedia-en-help and AfC to assume good
faith with new articles. How would you suggest fixing that issue?
00:31 < Alan___> What I need as a returning editor is someone to help
me find sources for City articles
00:31 <+sgardner> So if StevenW's analysis shows that a quarter of
people's first edits are vandalism.... what do we make of that? Does
that seem high or low?
00:31 < tommorris> "be bold" and "anyone can edit" only works if you
have the old-fashioned Internet assumption of lurking and learning the
ropes. In an era of Facebook basically serving everything up on a
plate, the principle that you lurk and learn before jumping in has
been lost
00:31 < Alan___> I was trying to find information to build up the
article, but I was really lost on where to look
00:31 < Logan_> I am sure that KFP can concur with me on that statement.
00:31 < Tyw7|pingme> Logan_: delete all promotional articles?
00:31 * Tyw7|pingme is having a hard time to keep up!!!
00:31 < Fluffernutter> tommorris++
00:31 <@StevenW> Not just my analysis, more like a few people. :)
00:31 < tommorris> sgardner: that seems about right with my experience
NPPing and RCing
00:31 < Alan___> A guide with the Wikiproject Cities, etc ... would
have helped me a great deal
00:31 <+sgardner> Logan: is there an increase in people wanting to use
Wikipedia for promotional reasons, do you think?
00:31 < Prodego> Pharos: yes, but if only 10% want to edit an
encyclopedia getting 10% is getting them all
00:31 < mindspillage> Hm. I don't think automatic tools are inherently
horrible. They're useful. But you can't let the bots do all the
interacting--it has to be obvious that there's a human at the other
end, and how to talk to them--and that they are going to be there and
respond in a human fashion.
00:31 < Hedgehog456> Shirley: no malwares on the 'pedia
00:31 < Logan_> sgardner: Yes, definitely. How can we change that image?
00:32 < Wizardman> on the 25% mark, I would have expected it to be
higher, so thatis interesting
00:32 < geniice> sgardner thats been pretty constant for some years
00:32 < Prodego> Pharos: you can't assume every person who edits once
would have contributed if x, y, or z
00:32 < BarkingFish> sgardner: I'd say that's pretty low, considering
sometimes we get a few hundred people a day registering new accounts.
00:32 < Tyw7|pingme> mindspillage: how about all the generic welcome messages?
00:32 < geniice> sgardner difference is they are getting smarter at doing it
00:32 < tommorris> BUT forcing people to lurk means that anyone who
doesn't need to lurk gets screwed, and we lose potentially valuable
00:32 <@Philippe> I agree, BarkingFish  :)
00:32 < Logan_> sgardner: If you just idle in #wikipedia-en-help, I'd
say that 75% of the help requests include people complaining that
articles about their own companies were deleted.
00:32 <+sgardner> tommorris: It's interesting because in a previous
chat, or maybe on a list somewhere, I think someone guessed (maybe
facetiously) 99% of first edits were vandalism.
00:32 <@Philippe> geniice: not really, not based on the ones I saw.
00:32 < Risker> geniice, it's a rather massive leap from 2004, but I
think the real turning point was late 2006/early 2007
00:32 < Tyw7|pingme> BarkingFish: but I presume most new editors edit via ips
00:32 < geniice> Risker yes
00:32 < mindspillage> Tyw7|pingme: what about them?
00:32 < jorm> mindspillage: the most common interaction for a new
editor is a reversion via huggle/twinkle and then a talk page template
saying "thanks but no thanks."
00:32 < Tyw7|pingme> mindspillage: what about what?
00:32 < Jamesofur> BarkingFish: We had 2000 new accounts (who edited)
the day we made the 2011 chart
00:32 < DanielB> observation: trying to follow a conversation in here
is headache-inducing
00:32 < geniice> Philippe people promote things in ways I can't delete on sight
00:32 <@StevenW> geniice, it was interesting, because when we looked
at 2004, the amount of vandalism was way lower. Like 2% of first edits
by accounts. Maybe there was just more IP vandalism, we don't know.
00:32 < Jamesofur> it's around that every day
00:32 <+sgardner> geniice: yeah, that's not surprising.
00:32 < Thehelpfulone> I would agree with Logan on that, I refer many
people to WP:COI = Conflict of Interest
00:33 < BarkingFish> Tyw7|pingme: That's true. I edited as an IP for
almost 8 months before registering an account
00:33 < Tyw7|pingme> so its hard to count the edits from new editors
00:33 < geniice> StevenW in 2004 manual RC patrol was doable
00:33 < Prodego> BarkingFish: and I did not. One datapoint does not
make something true
00:33 <@StevenW> Yeah
00:33 < Tyw7|pingme> when you are supporting and promoting ip edits
00:33 < jorm> So, okay. What would make RC patrol easier?
00:33 < Prodego> geniice: even in late 2005 it was
00:33 < Theo10011_> I went close to two years with anon edits before
00:33 < Prodego> geniice: though not easily
00:33 < BarkingFish> I got into the swing of things first, worked my
way round wikicode, asked questions and then registered an account
00:33 < Tyw7|pingme> jorm: automatic tools...
00:33 <@StevenW> +1 to jorm's question
00:33 < jorm> that automate what?
00:33 <+sgardner> Theo10011: me too. Why did you edit as an IP for so long?
00:34 < Risker> geniice, I think it would be do-able today too, if the
manual editors weren't being walloped by all those using scripts
00:34 < geniice> jorm everything
00:34 < mindspillage> jorm: right. There's no indicating that there's
anything personal or considered there. But then a person writing
manually would end up saying basically the same thing; you don't know
the individual and have to file it in a category in your mind, too:
test edit, or vandalism, or who knows what.
00:34 < jorm> i'm seriously asking this because i think a lot of
newbie bite comes from oldbie frustration with tools.
00:34 < Logan_> jorm: Maybe a clearer indication of a user's
experience and automatically suggested ways to respond to edits that
look like vandalism from said user? I'm not sure how that could be
coded, though.
00:34 < Theo10011> sgardner:I would only make incidental edits I came
across. vandal revert and the likes.
00:34 <+sgardner> (I did it because I was lurking, testing, learning
the rules. I did not want to be exposed to ridicule or criticism, espy
since Wikipedia retains it forever.)
00:34 < tommorris> jorm: something like patrolled edits. to know that
if I punt on a particular decision whether to rollback/warn/whatever,
that someone else will catch it. Pending Changes does this to some
extent, but is not the only way to implement it
00:34 < jorm> it can be coded. anything can be coded, with enough resources.
00:34 < geniice> mindspillage thats were the test templates came from
00:34 < Tyw7|pingme> I think auto scripts and bots to perform tedious
things would free up editor's time to do usefull things
00:34 <+sgardner> Theo10011: but why? Just because you weren't that engaged?
00:34 < jorm> Logan_: I've been thinking about something that does
just that, actually.
00:34 < Hedgehog456> Tyw7|pingme: Cluebot NG
00:34 < geniice> Tyw7|pingme already exist
00:34 < BarkingFish> jorm: That's very true. I admit to having bitten
more than a few new users in the past, and this is why I'm interested
in finding better ways to help them.
00:34 < jorm> Sue's idea, but I'm running with it.
00:35 < Theo10011> at that point, I felt I didn't have a lot to contribute
00:35 <+sgardner> jorm: I've been thinking about how to make RC patrol
better :-)
00:35 < jorm> sec.
00:35 < Logan_> jorm: Huh, interesting.
00:35 < Theo10011> and didn't have enough time.
00:35 < Tyw7|pingme> BarkingFish: better generic templates?
00:35 < jorm>
00:35 < Prodego> sgardner: make it collaborative, and that's about it
00:35 < Tyw7|pingme> much more openess to the help channels
00:35 < BarkingFish> Tyw7|pingme: I'd say lose the templates
altogether with newcomers
00:35 < geniice> sgardner
00:35 < mindspillage> I think that a person who doesn't know what
she's dealing with is no better at interacting with newbies than a
template message is.
00:35 < Tyw7|pingme> sgardner: How about more opness to the help
channels and a "help section" plastered in the nav bar
00:35 < jorm> okay. so, 1:1 stuff? chats, or maybe mentorship programs?
00:35 < BarkingFish> You can't be personal with someone by slapping a
whopping great box on their page
00:36 < delphine> We need to start an AA (admin anonymous) club. I've
read how many times tonight "I have bitten newbies too"
00:36 < Logan_> jorm: I've just been trying to brainstorm recently how
we can make editors seem more personal on Wikipedia. Since there are
so many edits at once, especially on, you lose that sense of,
"Hey, he's a new editor and may need some help." Thus, we need an
automated way to determine how to respond to newer editors in a
personal manner, if anything.
00:36 < delphine> ?
00:36 < BarkingFish> if they need personal help, be personal.
00:36 < Prodego> RC patrol is 1 person vs a massive stream of edits.
You can't see what the many others patrolling have checked or are
00:36 < GerardM-> just read that IPv6 addresses will be mandatory in
Asia because they ran out of IPv4 addresses
00:36 <@StevenW> lol delphine
00:36 <+sgardner> jorm: StevenW's new analysis suggests to me that
it's correct for patrollers to warn/revert the 23% of edits that are
vandalism., and it's correct to lightly warn/correct the behaviour of
the low quality edit people....
00:36 < Nihiltres> While there are surely usability issues with IRC,
[insert net newbie litany here], #wikipedia-en-help is a great
00:36 < Prodego> but that requires someone write a very interesting program
00:36 < Tyw7|pingme> BarkingFish: but if you explain everything in
detail in the template...
00:36 < Prodego> which won't happen
00:36 < Alan___> I agree the templates are not helpful
00:36 < Logan_> Uh, well, may not be the best time to mention this,
but there's a 4chan attack thread...
00:36 < jorm> So, okay. One of the ideas being kicked around is an
automatic "new user" flag. it sets people more obviously as newbies,
and might give them a chance to say a bit about themselves.
00:36 < Tyw7|pingme> if I type it, it may be offensive or I may miss
out some points
00:36 < Alan___> You feel rubber stamped when someone puts a template on you
00:36 <+sgardner> But what I really took away from the analysis is
that our tools need to be capable of thanking and praising the 57% of
first edits that are good. That to me is th epiece that's currently
00:36 < tommorris> BarkingFish and others: what's the alternative to
templates though? When I did NPPing, I'd do 50-100 pages a day, with
potentially that many IPs behind them. Am I supposed to write each of
them a damn essay?!
00:37 < delphine> I have a theory which says that Wiki editing is
actually a lonesome task. You _could_ actually go on for ever and edit
without having to talk to anyone.
00:37 < tommorris> s/IPs/users/g
00:37 < Alan___> Number 1, when you see a template it feels like they
didn't look hard enough to care enough to write a comment
00:37 < delphine> The asynchronous things does that.
00:37 < Tyw7|pingme> tommorris: +1
00:37 < jorm> youtube is doing a "send you to school when you screw up
too much" thing.
00:37 < delphine> -s
00:37 < Tyw7|pingme> tommorris: more personal templates?
00:37 < tommorris> how personal can you get though?
00:37 <@StevenW> tommorris makes a good point. There's no way to
handle that scale of patrolled pages in a personable way.
00:37 < jorm> the whole "Gratitude" spike.
00:37 < Tyw7|pingme> like replacing the hello user with the user's actual name?
00:37 < geniice> jorm it's called a redlinked user page
00:37 < Logan_> jorm: +1 about that new user flag.
00:37 < mindspillage> yeah, totally. I am guilty of nly feeling moved
to comment on something when something has gone wrong--good things
don't need correction, they can happily happen! But you don't know
that those people who are doing good things are feeling unsure, or
unwelcome, or...
00:37 < Tyw7|pingme> to seem "personal"
00:37 <+sgardner> (catching up reading. Delphine that's funny: AA for
newbie biters :-)
00:37 < jorm> geniice: my first edit was my user page.
00:37 < Alan___> Even if it's a personal template, it is still a
template and you feel like you have been tagged by a robot
00:37 < BarkingFish> tommorris: maybe if we keep the templates, we
need to reword them to be a little more polite than they are, and a
lot easier to understand.
00:38 < geniice> jorm most people's isn't
00:38 < Tyw7|pingme> my first edit was... idk what was my first edit
00:38 < jorm> what if you could "thank" someone for a revision?
00:38 < Ziko_> my old idea is to force people to get an account so
that you can at least communicate with them better, and they build up
a wiki editing history
00:38 < mindspillage> So totally agree that there should be more
"thank you" intereaction, especially in someone's first few forays
into editing.
00:38 < delphine> jorm: mine too. My second was a whole article.
00:38 < delphine> Those were the days.
00:38 < Nihiltres> mindspillage: good idea
00:38 < ChristineM> What if NPP worked differently? Like, say for a
new page to be deleted, several NPP'ers would have to agree
00:38 < Tyw7|pingme> Alan___: and BarkingFish make exerlent suggstions
00:38 < ChristineM> that could give each page more eyes
00:38 < mindspillage> My first edit was a totally correctly-formatted
paragraph in an existingarticle. I am boring. :-)
00:38 < geniice> ChristineM nope
00:38 < James_F|Busy> mindspillage> A "like this" feature on edits?
00:38 < Tyw7|pingme> ChristineM: that would produce more backlogs
00:38 < Thehelpfulone> ChristineM: it would take too long I guess
00:38 < geniice> ChristineM most deleted stuff is utter junk
00:39 < mindspillage> James_F|Busy: less facebooky. :-)
00:39 < Doh5678> What about having a peronal user template?
00:39 < Logan_> ChristineM: No, per Tyw7|pingme .
00:39 < Nihiltres> my first edit was to add a wikilink. I am a
natural-born wikignome :P
00:39 < geniice> Doh5678 alread xist
00:39 < Tyw7|pingme> Problems with impleting more checks is backlogs
00:39 < James_F> mindspillage> My wording was deliberately intended to
get that reaction. :-)
00:39 < geniice> exist
00:39 < Logan_> ChristineM: We have enough backlogs already ;)
00:39 < Tyw7|pingme> Logan_: no what?
00:39 < jorm> I don't think that "like" is the right term.
00:39 < mindspillage> James_F: troll.
00:39 < geniice> Doh5678 you just keep them as a sub page of your userspace
00:39 < Theo10011> Dispenser was here earlier complaining that the
current welcome method on en.wp is like someone running up in the
middle of the street to someone and then running away after saying Hi.
00:39 <@StevenW> Yeah it seems like the ability flag in some way
helpful newbies so that they are easy to spot during NPP etc. would
make it easier to swat vandals while not biting newbies
00:39 < Doh5678> ge
00:39 < tommorris> I reckon we need to start doing "Social Media User
Tracking and Thank You-ing" (or SMUTTY for short) - basically keeping
an eye on sites like Twitter to see people complaining about their
Wikipedia edits getting deleted/reverted and then following up with
them. I've done it once or twice and it's been really positive. and a
few people I know now ask me stuff about WP through Twitter.
00:39 < ChristineM> yeah but "utter junk" is in the eye of the beholder
00:39 < ChristineM> *shrug*
00:39 < Ziko_> Templates are not a good solution, yes. Even short, not
unfriendly, but formal answers can be understood as quite rude by
00:40 < Alan___> Wow, tracking people on twitter, sounds like the
Conservative Party of Canada
00:40 < aude> tommorris: +1
00:40 < delphine> tommorris: that's cool.
00:40 <@StevenW> I "like" that observation jorm ;)
00:40 < Austin> Theo: well, the alternative would be something like a
mentoring program?
00:40 < Logan_> tommorris: Agree.
00:40 <+sgardner> +1 :-)
00:40 < jorm> Ziko_ is totally correct there.
00:40 < Nihiltres> Alan___: lol
00:40 < geniice> ChristineM nah it the eyes of CSD
00:40 < Alan___> Why do you need to track people?
00:40 < Tyw7|pingme> Ziko_: but templates makes NPP job much easier
00:40 < delphine> tommorris: although I have a creepy experience of my
bank calling me because I complained about them on twitter. Need to
find the right tone.
00:40 < Alan___> Just focus on helping improve articles and giving
guidance to those who are struggling
00:40 < BarkingFish> Austin: We have a mentoring program as I
understand it. I believe the "adopt a user" program still exists?
00:40 < mindspillage> Los of people's untemplated comments were much
worse that the test templates, before their usage was as widespread.
00:40 <@Philippe> Templates are powerful tools: used carefully,
they're fantastic. Used poorly, they're a disaster.
00:40 < Tyw7|pingme> Alan___: but do people ever follow up on it?
00:40 < tommorris> Alan___: keep an eye on the twitter stream for
wikipedia, "wikipedia deleted" and stuff like that and follow up with
those people
00:40 < Theo10011> Austin: I have no idea what Dispenser had in mind.
But I'm hoping the welcome template improves.
00:41 < Logan_> BarkingFish: Yes, but it is not as popular as it was
in the past, IIRC.
00:41 < Ziko_> Yes, I am not again templates. Maybe they have to be
rewritten and e.g. explain why we can't give a nice individual
00:41 < geniice> mindspillage personal templates were also an issue
00:41 < Tyw7|pingme> I was an adopt a user but dropped as I can't be bothered
00:41 < Austin> BarkingFish: and I'm questioning the effectiveness of it.
00:41 < mindspillage> geniice: that too.
00:41 <@StevenW> BarkingFish: thanks for the reminder about the
adoption program.
00:41 < jorm> So, i'm very interested in talking with pretty much
anyone who wants to talk about their ideas on things regarding this.
Feel free to talk on (after
we're done here; i'm not walking away or anything)
00:41 < tommorris> Alan___: it's distinctly less creepy than the
Conservative Party of Canada probably do it
00:41 < Thehelpfulone> StevenW: flagging helpful newbies - how would
you define helpful, who would grant the right, etc etc?
00:41 < Tyw7|pingme> Ziko_: but you better put t hat as a small texts
00:41 < Alan___> If you're going to revert someone, put a post on
their talk page
00:41 < delphine> How about no template but a plain and simple "welcome"
00:41 < Alan___> Try to engage people 1 on 1
00:41 < jorm> Most welcome templates are walls of text. No one reads
them. They're impersonal.
00:41 <@Philippe> Thehelpfulone: I'd be more inclined to define
"helpful" as "Making productive edits"
00:41 < Alan___> You can't catch everyone, but as long as the
community is recruiting new people who learn how to be polite
00:42 < jorm> And it's almost like the first thing that happens to a
new user is that they're told to "Go to School"
00:42 < Austin> They were impersonal from the beginning, really.
00:42 < Alan___> They will spread that attitude and the community moves forward
00:42 < Tyw7|pingme> delphine: just one letter?
00:42 * mindspillage had a personal welcome template. There's only so
much in the way of oroginality you can manage after your 100th time.
00:42 < Tyw7|pingme> welcome....
00:42 < Austin> In 2004 I got my first welcome message from Angela.
00:42 <@StevenW> So we're almost 45 minutes in and there have only
been a few questions
00:42 < jorm> They're kindergartners and we want them to be highschoolers.
00:42 < jorm> as it were.
00:42 < Tyw7|pingme> I got my first welcome message from no one
00:42 <+sgardner> I have a question!
00:42 < Thehelpfulone> Philippe: sounds more logical, but then would
admins grant the right, or would helpful editors themselves/NPP
patrollers grant that right?
00:42 <@StevenW> Shoot.
00:42 < Austin> And I later got to know Angela on IRC, but it really
was the "run up and yell hi at someone in the street" phenomenon.
00:42 <+sgardner> I do! :-)
00:42 < jorm> The chair recognizes Sue Gardner.
00:42 < delphine> Tyw7|pingme: as a first step, that's personal enough
00:42 <+sgardner> yay
00:42 < Alan___> I have a question too
00:42 < James_F> jorm> The social media extension that was talked
about on wikitech-l (from Wikia?) might be a good start.
00:42 <@StevenW> lol jorm
00:42 <+sgardner> Okay, here's my question.
00:42 < Tyw7|pingme> delphine: but a bit boring
00:42 <@Philippe> Good question, Thehelpfulone :)
00:42 < delphine> Tyw7|pingme: welcome, happy to see you here.
00:42 < Tyw7|pingme> and rude...
00:42 <+sgardner> I think the 'first edit story' page was really useful.
00:42 < Tyw7|pingme> delphine: hi :)
00:43 < Tyw7|pingme> sgardner: what is first edit story?
00:43 <+sgardner> And I am really interested in better understanding
the characteristics that suggest people will become great editors.
00:43 < Tyw7|pingme> And IMO most people won't be intersted to tell a
bit of themselves first.. most want to roll their sleves up and dive
right in
00:43 <@StevenW> The page Sue is talking about:
00:43 < tommorris> sgardner: modesty is a big one for me.
00:43 <+sgardner> Not just the characteristics of the person
themselves ... I am interested in what happens to people in their
early days that helps them become good editors.
00:43 < Nihiltres> StevenW: perhaps we need "un-office hours" called
out where people can ramble about stuff like this and have it
"officially" logged by someone
00:43 <+sgardner> So.... I am assuming that everyone here is an
excellent editor :-)
00:44 < delphine> StevenW: you're the (link) man! Thanks.
00:44 < jorm> "What are the evolutionary traits that make you a survivor"
00:44 < delphine> sgardner: I am a very poor editor.
00:44 < Tyw7|pingme> btw any newbys here?
00:44 < Pharos> probably number is just that they're really into it
from the beginning
00:44 < Austin> Nihiltres: that would only be effective if anyone read it. :)
00:44 < Tyw7|pingme> sgardner: I'm a poor editor... look at my contributions
00:44 <+sgardner> So I am curious to know: what happened to you in
your early days ... what do you remember that was encouraging to you,
and kept you going until you became successful?
00:44 < Tyw7|pingme> I barely made any edits in the past months
00:44 < Tyw7|pingme> sgardner: nothing...
00:44 < delphine> and frankly, for one, I still have to think, 5 years
later, how to make an outside link to a wiki... ;)
00:44 <+sgardner> (Let's assume we are all excellent editors! :-)
00:44 < tommorris> sgardner: what made me get back into WP was meeting
Wikipedians IRL.
00:44 < Alan___> Obsession!
00:44 < jorm> I started fixing typos.
00:45 < Nihiltres> Austin: the interaction would be the goal, logging
would just be a formality to make it slightly less ephemeral
00:45 < Tyw7|pingme> sgardner: I just wanted to express myself and
change incorrect infos
00:45 <+sgardner> Were you welcomed, were you thanked, did you find a
00:45 < delphine> sgardner: irc is what hooked me. I came here to ask
for help and got it.
00:45 < Tyw7|pingme> sgardner: I don't believe I was welcomed...
00:45 < BarkingFish> That's another thing I'd like to raise. Calling
new users "Newbies". Newbies gets confused so much with "n00b" and
stuff, that it starts to feel a little derogatory at times. Maybe if
we call them "newcomers" instead?
00:45 < jorm> Many typoes before I felt confident enough to actually
edit something.
00:45 < Keegan_> No, no, and no
00:45 < delphine> but that's a geeky thing. :/
00:45 < mindspillage> I was pretty much totally left alone in my early
days, until I ran across some editors who shared my interests and
leaving friendly comments on talk pages. (I got welcomed maybe 2
months in.)
00:45 < Alan___> Sue: I always appreciated the people who posted on my
talk page to teach me things
00:45 < Tyw7|pingme> BarkingFish: how about student wikipedians?
00:45 < Keegan_> I started poking at people who's names I saw in the history
00:45 < Austin> Nihiltres: well, there's always a space to rant
00:45 < geniice> sgardner I walked into an edit war and was involved
in my first arbcom case within a year
00:45 < Keegan_> Whose
00:45 < delphine> sgardner: that and being a woman. ;) Everyone was
soooo helpful! (really)
00:45 < Alan___> Sue: Templates never impressed me, but the people who
left notes and tried to explain things... they were encouraging
00:46 < Ironholds> geniice: well, you are rather a "what not to do" model ;p
00:46 < Tyw7|pingme> sgardner: I too walked into a arbcom war and walked out...
00:46 < Tyw7|pingme> when things got too heated
00:46 <+sgardner> BarkingFish: I'm sorry. I don't mean it to be
derogatory, but it's true that lots of people think it is. I will try
to stop :-)
00:46 < tommorris> sgardner: for me, what put me off editing was
various objections I had to the very idea of Wikipedia and the
implementation of certain policies and so on. talking to real life WP
editors fixed that for me.
00:46 < geniice> Ironholds hey I wasn't banned as a result of the case
00:46 < WittyLama> I had my userpage replaced by a picture of a Baboon
several times a day for a while when I was newbie and an admin helped
me out, which was nice.
00:46 < BarkingFish> Thank you :) I appreciate it, sgardner
00:46 < Alan___> LOL Liam
00:46 < Thehelpfulone> sgardner: in my first week of joining the wiki,
I was put straight onto WP:ANI for learning too quickly -
00:46 < Theo10011> lol
00:46 <@StevenW> "A priest and a rabbi walk into an ArbCom War..."
00:46 < Tyw7|pingme> sgardner: how about we call new wikipedians
Student Wikipedians...
00:46 <+sgardner> WittyLama: that is not true!
00:46 <+sgardner> hey jorm has a name for them...
00:46 < Tyw7|pingme> or Learners...
00:46 < Austin> Novices?
00:47 < Thehelpfulone> maybe that suggests a bit more WP:AGF is
required of newbies
00:47 <+sgardner> Freshmen?
00:47 < Nihiltres> WittyLama: yeah, I had a similar experience of one
of my peers pulling stuff like that on me
00:47 < Austin> It doesn't really matter what we call them
00:47 < Theo10011> heh @ freshmen
00:47 < Austin> It's what we do with them that counts :)
00:47 < Thehelpfulone> although that was over 3 years ago ;)
00:47 < delphine> sgardner: what about freshwomen :P
00:47 * mindspillage edited in one of the least contentious areas on
the wiki. That helped too. If I had been a politics junkie....
00:47 < whym> sgardner: In my early days, it was most encouraging to
receive comments from experienced editors in the same domain, far
beter than just a welcome template :)
00:47 < Theo10011> recruits!
00:47 <@Philippe> sgardner - I had someone "signing" my name to talk
page posts I didn't write. Thank goodness for User:FisherQueen
00:47 <+sgardner>
00:47 < Pharos> i don't think ppl are offended by "newbie" at all
00:47 < Alan___> +1 to whym
00:47 < Tyw7|pingme> Thehelpfulone: there is so much AGF we can have
before we become ABF
00:47 < Nihiltres> "initiates of the wiki-mysteries" XD
00:47 < Tyw7|pingme> assume bad faith
00:47 < YairRand> the fact that they're so clearly different is the
biggest problem...
00:47 <@Philippe> Pharos: Nah, I've talked to several.
00:48 < jorm> In my user model, new users go through Prospect ->
Candidate -> Freshman -> Sophomore -> Junior -> Senior -> Graduate.
00:48 < Pharos> whenever i use it in person, they smile :)
00:48 <+sgardner> whym: yes. I think that's true for lots of people.
Lots of people say they find barnstars and generic welcoming/thanking
00:48 < whym> I guess people care more about their writings than themselves
00:48 < Austin> Pharos: I don't think so, either, but whatever the
case, I don't think terminology is the issue
00:48 < Thehelpfulone> jorm: where graduate is?
00:48 < jeremyb> sgardner: BarkingFish: NYC has newbie used in a
positive context: newbie nights to introduce novice editors or people
who've never edited to the community
00:48 < jorm> each "class" has a set of known strengths and vulnerabilities.
00:48 < Nihiltres> Philippe: yeah, same here, but a different
admin/established user
00:48 < jorm> graduate is basically "over 100 edits"
00:48 < Alan___> Oh yeah, barnstars are LAME
00:48 < Keegan_> jorm: so it's a motorcycle club meets high school?
00:48 < Theo10011> that's quasi-military academician jorm
00:48 < aude> best help as a newbieish was mentoring through the FA process
00:48 <@StevenW> Man, I don't want to go back to school...
00:48 < WittyLama> sgardner:
00:48 < jfelipe> sgardner: Hi, Sue. You're also assuming that
Wikipedia is now receiving the same type of new editors that came 5
years ago, right?
00:48 < Austin> Also, we're totally being English Wikipedia-centric, here.
00:48 < jorm> it was better than referring to them by edit count ranges.
00:48 < Thehelpfulone> jorm: you can accumulate that in under 10
minutes with some serious vandal fighting
00:48 < geniice> me I think we need to get back to the old 6 months to
admin cycle
00:48 < aude> after being here for ~1 year
00:48 < Austin> Other Wikipedias already have hierarchies, for instance.
00:48 <+sgardner> Philippe: I remember that happening to me too.
00:49 < Nihiltres> Alan___: barnstars are fun when you're starting out
00:49 < James_F> Austin> Indeed.
00:49 < tommorris> jeremyb and Fluffernutter: how do "newbie nights"
work out in NYC? how do you recruit people?
00:49 < BarkingFish> jeremyb: Ok, so that's a good context, but there
are more unpleasant contexts that it's used in, than good ones.
00:49 * Alan___ looks a Liams picture
00:49 < Nihiltres> later on you know they're just for the fun of it
00:49 < Tyw7|pingme> tommorris: ads?
00:49 < Alan___> Nih, I never liked barnstars
00:49 < jorm> well, it's not just edit count. it's also a series of
"confidences". "know what a template is, what a talk page is, etc."
00:49 < Austin> The Chinese Wikipedia has had ranks for years.
00:49 < Tyw7|pingme> give some insentives to recruit new people like games...
00:49 <+sgardner> jfelipe: not necessarily, no. Why?
00:49 < YairRand> if there are 8 levels of cluelessness ranges for
wiki-editing, there's something wrong with the amount of necessary
learning before being unclueless
00:49 <@StevenW> haha nice diff Wittylama
00:49 < Theo10011> +1 to barnstars.
00:49 < Thehelpfulone> Austin: what do the hierarchies consist of?
00:49 < jfelipe> I mean, editors now might have different profile
00:49 < barts1a> I never got a barnstar :(
00:49 < jorm> they are roughly sketched here:
00:49 <+sgardner> YairRand: funny :-)
00:49 < jfelipe> before they could be more tech savvy
00:49 < Nihiltres> jorm++
00:50 < delphine> barnstars are jargon. And en.wp jargon mainly :/
00:50 < Austin> I was puzzled the first time I saw someone apply for a
Wikimania scholarship and say "I'm a senior chief editor."
00:50 < jfelipe> or have stronger tendency to join a project in earlier stage
00:50 <+sgardner> Austin: wow. I have never heard that.
00:50 < Tyw7|pingme> but hirachy may put some people off..
00:50 < Alan___> Utoh, Delphine are we agreeing on things now?
00:50 * Alan___ smiles
00:50 < Tyw7|pingme> if we have a caste system in Wikipedia
00:50 < Theo10011> delphine they do affect retention, really. :)
00:50 < delphine> Alan___: lol
00:50 < jeremyb> tommorris: well, first of all it's part of an events
series at a coworking space
00:50 <@StevenW> That's kind of crazy Austin
00:50 < jfelipe> but now you cover a broader audience, who may have
different driving incentives to engage in the community
00:50 < Alan___> Ahem
00:50 < Ziko_> Certainly, a personal encouragement is important. Then
again, we often see that after having done so, the newcomer still
leaves. It seems to be wasted time.
00:50 < Alan___> I have a question for the group
00:50 < Alan___> It's a big one for me
00:50 * Philippe has to dash off to a meeting. See ya'll later. :)
00:50 < Jamesofur> Barnstars and other rewards are good for people at
all levels. Encouragement is incredibly important
00:50 < delphine> Theo10011: it's a highly cultural thing, the
"reward" or recognition thing.
00:51 < jeremyb> tommorris: so it was promoted by them
00:51 < jorm> These terms are internal. they're useful for us to
think about where someone is in their confidence arc. they should not
be used as "badges"
00:51 * Jamesofur follows Philippe to the meeting
00:51 <+sgardner> Some people have commented in surveys that they like
it when people do small helpful things to their articles, like adding
categories. They seem to feel like it means they're part of a club;
they find it encouraging. Did that happen for people here?
00:51 < Tyw7|pingme> I have a question...
00:51 < tommorris> jeremyb: coworking space. that's a really good idea
00:51 <+sgardner> Bye Philippe :-)
00:51 < ReaperEternal> Yes it did
00:51 < BarkingFish> Tyw7|pingme: In many respects, considering we
have different usergroups already, admins, reviewers, bureaucrats and
so on, I'd say that a ranking system for new users would simply be
00:51 < Tyw7|pingme> StevenW: how can we deal with innappriote
userames like User:AMD64
00:51 < Alan___> Sue: I didn't find that
00:51 < mindspillage> I used to solicit people to add things to my
user page, after seeing other people do it.
00:51 <+sgardner> Tyw7: go ahead :-)
00:51 < geniice> sgardner I predate categories and no
00:51 < delphine> jorm: do graduate stay? Or does the lifecycle have
more stages?
00:51 < delphine> *graduates
00:51 < BarkingFish> *s/new users/users
00:51 <@StevenW> Why is AMD64 inappropriate?
00:51 < tommorris> jeremyb: may approach London coworking spaces and
ask them if they want WMUKers to turn up
00:51 < Theo10011> recognition i s universal delphine, and thats
coming from a different culture.
00:51 < mindspillage> (and many people did! I felt loved. Mostly
because most people played nice.)
00:51 < Austin> The Asian languages tend to have a more strictly
defined hierarchy, and the lack of communication leaves us all
ignorant of it until we actually deal with them in person and go
00:51 < geniice> sgardner thing is category edits are cheap and semi automated
00:51 < jeremyb> tommorris: also, outreach to local groups like girls
in tech, etc. that might have a group of ppl that want to learn
00:51 < YairRand> barnstars are too "big", and too reserved for big
00:51 < Alan___> Has anyone here participated in voice chats with
other wikipedians while editing?
00:52 < Tyw7|pingme> StevenW: its a name of an AMD product
00:52 < jorm> editors tend to follow what i call the "life insurance"
pattern. the longer they live, the more likely they are to continue
00:52 < Tyw7|pingme> and maybe promotional...
00:52 < delphine> Theo10011: it is, but the way to show it isn't.
00:52 < Theo10011> hmm
00:52 <@StevenW> Oh. Well, there's already a policy isn't there?
00:52 <+sgardner> geniice: It's interesting because I don't think new
people recognize when they're interacting with something that's
00:52 < Nihiltres> YairRand: yeah, I tend to just give out little
wiki-sunflowers as thanks
00:52 < jorm> thinking beyond 100 edits gets into different territory.
00:52 < Tyw7|pingme> I tried having him/her banned but got rejected
due to a previous case that says its ok
00:52 <+sgardner> I got an automated copyright infringement warning
just this past weekend.
00:52 < jorm> After that, the problems are primarily social.
00:52 <+sgardner> :-(
00:52 < BarkingFish> StevenW: It depends on the context it's used in.
If the person was only adding to articles about AMD products, it would
be hit as a promotional username
00:52 < delphine> sgardner: huhu
00:52 <@StevenW> Oh, on what Sgardner?
00:52 < James_F> Sue> Correctly?
00:52 < jorm> sue, i get those ALL THE TIME from bots on commons.
00:52 < Tyw7|pingme> BarkingFish: well s/he was
00:52 < Theo10011> heh Sgardner
00:52 < Nihiltres> sgardner: yeah, those are something I think are
really unfriendly
00:53 <+sgardner> jrom: really?
00:53 < jorm> ohyeah.
00:53 < James_F> Sue> 'Cos we all know you're out to undermine the
Wikimedia copyright agreement.
00:53 < Tyw7|pingme> but it was due to the previous case that my
request was rejected
00:53 < jfelipe> maybe they don't notice, look at the automated
welcome messages in Russian Wikipedia
00:53 < Alan___> So......... anyone using voice to chat with other editors?
00:53 < Pharos> yes
00:53 < Ziko_> Barnstars are too much, yes. I once put a photo with
flowers on the tp of my mentee, and he was so happy he copied it to
his user page.
00:53 < jfelipe> I think they're a good way to welcome a new user
00:53 < Ironholds> Alan___: yup
00:53 < jorm> and all i ever upload are screenshot mockups.
00:53 < Nihiltres> wall of text, bot, and scary deletion warning… the TRIFECTA
00:53 < geniice> sgardner oh yes there are a couple of traps in the
english wikipedia upload form. I recently had to tell someone how to
get around them. Problem is I put them there in the first place
00:53 < Pharos> see Wikivoices/NotTheWikipediaWeekly
00:53 <+sgardner> It was awful. (The one I got.) It actually gave me a
bunch of rules about how I could respond: like, I could not take off
the warning, but I could dispute it on the talk page.
00:53 <+sgardner> I deleted it anyway.
00:53 * tommorris votes firmly in favour of reviving Wikivoices.
00:53 < James_F> Wow.
00:54 < Risker> Alan___, there used to be a few users who got together
on skype to discuss things, and there were some Wikivoices sessions
00:54 < jfelipe> Other times, people don't know how to react
00:54 < James_F> tommorris> What about Wikipedia Weekly?
00:54 < delphine> jorm: Commons admin is a thankless job. I did some
"copyvio stuff" a few days ago. I don't know templates any more, so I
wrote on the talk page, and realized the person was probably just on
commons by chance, so went to their wikipedia and told them there
about their pics being deleted
00:54 <@StevenW> jfelipe: yes, it would be great to be able to A/B
test the effectiveness of different welcome messages
00:54 <+sgardner> But I think if I had been less experienced (and I am
not THAT experienced) I would have been frightened away.
00:54 < tommorris> James_F: that too.
00:54 < mindspillage> Alan___: nope; I'm a text person. (I do like IRC a lot.)
00:54 < Alan___> I was considering setting up some kind of Ventrillo /
Teamspeak thing for Wikimedia Canada
00:54 < geniice> sgardner actualy we have bots that pic up template removal
00:54 < jfelipe> StevenW: That'd be very useful, indeed
00:54 < Alan___> I thought it would be neat to have a coffee house
type deal where people could show up and talk to eachother
00:54 < Nihiltres> Alan___: if that's what I think it is, that might be cool
00:54 < tommorris> Alan___: a Wikipedia teamspeak would be a good idea
00:54 < Tyw7|pingme> Alan___: for promotion?
00:54 <@StevenW> not sure what you mean geniice?
00:54 < Ironholds> tommorris: we have about a dozen of those
00:55 < tommorris> Ironholds: link?
00:55 < Tyw7|pingme> you mean going out on the streets promoting Wikipedia?
00:55 < geniice> StevenW which comment
00:55 < Ziko_> StevenW: Yes, test the effects
00:55 < Theo10011> We would only end up listening to the loudest person.
00:55 < jfelipe> 2 weeks ago, I had few students in our master, the
class went on to comment on their experience as new Wikipedia editors
00:55 < delphine> what's a teamspeak?
00:55 <+sgardner> (got lost, catching back up :-)
00:55 <@StevenW> "pic up template removal" geniice
00:55 < Risker> The audio meetings might be useful, Alan
00:55 < jfelipe> Some edited both in Spanish and Galician
00:55 < Alan___> Teamspeak is a server, that when you install the
client, you can log in and talk to people
00:55 < Theo10011> which might be a competition considering us. ;)
00:55 < delphine> k
00:55 < tommorris> delphine: a voice chat server, basically IRC for
voice - used mostly in online gaming
00:55 <@StevenW> ah gotcha Alan
00:55 < Alan___> So you log in with your username, it support
registered and unregistered visitors
00:55 < geniice> StevenW there are bots that notice deletion templates
being removed and react to that
00:55 < Theo10011> VoIP
00:55 <@StevenW> oh
00:55 < Alan___> It has rooms like IRC
00:55 <@StevenW> thx Geniice
00:56 < Nihiltres> I'd love some sort of IRC integration widget, personally
00:56 * Nihiltres is hugely visual
00:56 < Alan___> And the admins have moderator abilities
00:56 < jfelipe> and for instance, one of them had trouble to intepret
where the templates for "orphaned" or "no categories" came from
00:56 < tommorris> you could have a teamspeak but you only get to
speak if you've made five edits in the last hour. ;-)
00:56 <+sgardner> geniice: oh really!? So maybe I have not heard the
last of this bot :-)
00:56 < jfelipe> specially orphaned was somewhat obscure
00:56 < Keegan_> Nihiltres: You just wanted to say Widget
00:56 < Ironholds> tommorris: that would exclude most of the staff P
00:56 < Keegan_> I bet you even said it out loud :P
00:56 < Ironholds> *:P
00:56 < Tyw7|pingme> tommorris: bad idea...
00:56 < Ironholds> and the admins, for that matter
00:56 < Alan___> Well I was thinking more open than that morris
00:56 < tommorris> Ironholds: did I suggest that was not totally
intentional? ;-)
00:56 < jorm> I've been thinking about a WikiProject-level "group
chat" thing. Kicking that idea around. So if you're editing, say,
"Luke Skywalker," you could ask for help from WikiProject:StarWars,
and get IRC-like feedback.
00:56 < Tyw7|pingme> tommorris: because then people would make rubbish
edits just to team speak
00:56 < Alan___> I often skype with our director from Quebec
00:56 < Alan___> I drink beer, he drinks wine
00:56 < BarkingFish> and pretty much everyone not using twinkle or
huggle too, tommorris :)
00:56 < jorm> kind of like facebook's "group chat" thing.
00:56 < Nihiltres> Keegan_: widget gadget flickit … technologic :P
00:56 < Alan___> He works in french, me in english
00:56 < tommorris> anyway, skype/teamspeak stuff is getting kind of offtopic.
00:57 < Tyw7|pingme> but some wikiprojects are dead
00:57 < Alan___> and we help eachother out
00:57 < Alan___> Being on voice makes it easier to understand eachother
00:57 < ragesoss> jorm: I think, better than live chat, would be
something like an integrated statusnet system.
00:57 < jfelipe> jorm: yes, Wikiprojects could be also a good way to
improve things
00:57 < jfelipe> they can make interaction more social
00:57 < Alan___> Wikiprojects are key in my opinion
00:57 < Tyw7|pingme> first off how about an easier IRC system?
00:57 < ragesoss> so each WikiProject would be represented by a group.
00:57 < Nihiltres> Tyw7|pingme++
00:57 < Alan___> But they need support writing more comprehensive
article writing guides
00:57 < jfelipe> we know Wikipedia is not primarily a social network
00:57 < Tyw7|pingme> the catcha IMO is particularly off putting
00:57 * Risker has never joined a wikiproject, or seen one she'd want to join
00:57 < Ziko_> jfelipe: thanks for informing about what people think
about templates. indeed they often wonder where those messages come
00:58 < Keegan_> I left myself
00:58 < Keegan_> :(
00:58 < Theo10011> I love the IRC as it is, wouldn't want to part with them.
00:58 < YairRand> dead wikiprojects should always flow to a
wikiproject that includes the dead one's scope, if one exists
00:58 < geniice> oh yes the social wiki theory
00:58 < Tyw7|pingme> jfelipe: Wikipedia is already on Facebooks and Twitter
00:58 <+sgardner> jfelipe: it's not _primarily_ a social network, but
it does need to have social network aspects.....
00:58 < jfelipe> But I've heard more and more frequently, specially
from new editors, that it should support more social interaction
00:58 < Tyw7|pingme> Theo10011: I mean own client
00:58 < jorm> Wikipedia is not a social network. It's an
encyclopedia. The set of WIkipedia users who are its editor community
ARE a social network, however.
00:58 < mindspillage> ragesoss: oh, I like that.
00:58 < Tyw7|pingme> not depdent on webchat
00:58 < jorm> Not like Facebook, mind you. But it is one.
00:58 < jfelipe> sgardner: you read my mind :)
00:58 <+sgardner> :-)