[Wikimedia-l] Articles for Creation broken

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Articles for Creation broken

cro0016
So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000 pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since 2008 - it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a particular day were on one page, and people could come along and approve or reject based in certain criteria.

I think that system worked well. True, we have a lot more article creations, but I think it gave more visibility than the current system where everything is subpaged.

Some may think that the bar at AFC is set too high but this high bar discourages new users, especially when their submissions stay unreviewed for weeks at a time. And since editor retention is something we are trying to focus on, it seems a worthy project since many new users have their first experiences in AFC. The lack of volunteers in wikiprojects like AFC is not a new thing, so it's not that volunteers have reduced. I think we need to consider if AFC is something we still want to have, and if so, how can we improve it?


Steve Zhang
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Articles for Creation broken

Amir E. Aharoni
For those who don't know what "Articles for Creation" is: It's a page
in the English Wikipedia. Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFC

--
Amir

2012/8/17 Steven Zhang <[hidden email]>:

> So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000 pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since 2008 - it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a particular day were on one page, and people could come along and approve or reject based in certain criteria.
>
> I think that system worked well. True, we have a lot more article creations, but I think it gave more visibility than the current system where everything is subpaged.
>
> Some may think that the bar at AFC is set too high but this high bar discourages new users, especially when their submissions stay unreviewed for weeks at a time. And since editor retention is something we are trying to focus on, it seems a worthy project since many new users have their first experiences in AFC. The lack of volunteers in wikiprojects like AFC is not a new thing, so it's not that volunteers have reduced. I think we need to consider if AFC is something we still want to have, and if so, how can we improve it?
>
>
> Steve Zhang
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Articles for Creation broken

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by cro0016
I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has
processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking
at the wrong thing?

Andreas





On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Steven Zhang <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly
> 1,000 pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot
> since 2008 - it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a
> particular day were on one page, and people could come along and approve or
> reject based in certain criteria.
>
> I think that system worked well. True, we have a lot more article
> creations, but I think it gave more visibility than the current system
> where everything is subpaged.
>
> Some may think that the bar at AFC is set too high but this high bar
> discourages new users, especially when their submissions stay unreviewed
> for weeks at a time. And since editor retention is something we are trying
> to focus on, it seems a worthy project since many new users have their
> first experiences in AFC. The lack of volunteers in wikiprojects like AFC
> is not a new thing, so it's not that volunteers have reduced. I think we
> need to consider if AFC is something we still want to have, and if so, how
> can we improve it?
>
>
> Steve Zhang
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Articles for Creation broken

Katie Chan
On 19/08/2012 11:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has
> processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking
> at the wrong thing?
>

More than one someone, but you're looking at the right thing.

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
     - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Articles for Creation broken

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Katie Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 19/08/2012 11:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has
>> processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking
>> at the wrong thing?
>>
>>
> More than one someone, but you're looking at the right thing.



Sounds like the "someones" have done some hard volunteer work there ... and
are probably due some thanks.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Side discussion: Volunteer time is precious Re: Articles for Creation broken

Kim Bruning
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:48:29AM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Katie Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 19/08/2012 11:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> >
> >> I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has
> >> processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking
> >> at the wrong thing?
> >>
> >>
> > More than one someone, but you're looking at the right thing.
>
>
>
> Sounds like the "someones" have done some hard volunteer work there ... and
> are probably due some thanks.

Good plan. At the same time, here's a not-so common question: Is their level of effort sustainable?

Just because we get it for free, doesn't mean volunteer time isn't precious. It'd be interesting to go through
all our processes and see where we can make them more efficient, thus freeing up those same volunteer for other things.
(in theory;-)

Yes I know that volunteer time isn't 100% fungible, but saving volunteers time certainly won't hurt editor
retention or process throughput. ;-)

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l