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

In a discussion on the Village Pump, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights proposed preventing users creating new articles until they gain autoconfirmed status. The Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) rationale was:

1. This would reduce the workload on New Page Patrollers;
2. New users would be "bitten" less due to the resulting reduction in stress on the part of those most in contact with them;
3. New users are less likely to be disenchanted by their article being deleted – because they would not be able to create them automatically, but instead send them through WP:AFC;
4. Autoconfirmed users with 10 edits to existing articles would enjoy an easier learning curve than trying to create an encyclopedic article with their first edit.

Notes: autoconfirmed status is automatically given to editors who reach 10 edits and whose account is at least 4 days old. Under the proposal, editors without the status would not be able to create articles in mainspace without some form of assistance. Possible forms of assistance include the Articles for Creation system, the Article Wizard (an exemption can be engineered for non-autoconfirmed editors using it) and the use of userspace drafts in combination with a request to move the draft to mainspace.

Individual views

View from User:Fetchcomms

This is basically repeating what was discussed at the Village Pump. I don't think this RfC will result in anything conclusive, because the change is so massive that we will probably end up having a community-wide vote on whether or not to do this.

I propose two things:

1. This RfC be ended or put on hold for a short period of time (one month?) as the arguments from the VP will only be repeated.
2. A more efficient AfC, article wizard, or other article creation system—possibly even a MediaWiki extension later—be designed and tested, and data collected.

I hate to bring up the words "pending changes" again, but I think a strict PC-type trial (maybe just one month long, no questions asked) that collects data we can use to analyze both the a) editor retention rate and b) the article retention rate, would be very helpful here. Because otherwise, we're going off random opinions that have no solid backing other than Wikipedia philosophies.

Users who endorse this view

1. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Hits all the right points. NW (Talk) 20:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Didn't understand this one at first. But yes. I see broad support for change. If it's short of a consensus, we should run a controlled trial, rather than letting speculation stop a potentially good idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Not sure about putting it on hold, per se, but I think that any trial with a very clear scope would cause much less drama. bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Yes, we should fix the software then test it. I'm not comfortable with telling newbies we don't want their articles, but getting this in place first would certainly reduce the damage. ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Sadads (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC) - very good, we need time for other options which have been in the making for a while to work, instead of wholesale banning new users from article creation

View from User:Ironholds

This is going to be a bit TL:DR, so I apologise for that, but this is a pretty big topic, and a pretty important one. New users and new articles are primary to Wikipedia. We are a project built around a simple goal; to be "The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". That is our mission statement. An encyclopaedia, that anyone can edit; two clauses which sometimes, inevitably, conflict. When they do, one has to be partially sacrificed for the other - be it restricting editorial rights to protect our encyclopaedic status, or tarnishing our position as an encyclopaedia in an effort to include more people in the box marked "editors". In this case, we are being asked if we support the former - a restriction on who can edit, or who can edit in a particular fashion, to protect our position as a compendium of that knowledge we judge to be notable. When making changes which impact on part of our statement, we need to take a lockean balance-of-rights approach; restrictions must be:

1. necessary for the upholding of the mission statement as a whole, or other elements of the mission statement, and;
2. the smallest possible restriction necessary for the upholding of the mission statement (or elements thereof).

So, does this restriction pass that test? In my opinion, no.

There are various arguments put forward in favour of this proposal. The first is that it will reduce the workload of those who patrol Special:NewPages. I admit, this is the case, but is that workload reduction necessary? Special:NewPages has a 30 day "buffer"; after an article is more than 30 days old, it falls off the back of the log. Fairly simple. At the moment, the buffer has 20 days remaining - in other words, even with the complaining about how difficult and stressful being a new page patroller is, we could happily not touch it for 3 weeks and not suffer an issue. I don't mean to ridicule those complaining, because I understand the issue. I'm a patroller myself, and I've cleared the entire backlog twice. I'm not ignorant of the workload patrollers face. But the workload is not as bad as it's being made out to be, and people are failing to take into account the long-term possibilities; that if an effort is put into accepting and tutoring new users, they will become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Any issues with more people needed at Special:NewPages can be solved simply by getting more people involved.

Another argument is that shifting people from Special:NewPages to WP:Articles for Creation will reduce the "bitiness" new users experience, and thus the problem with retaining them. I disagree. Special:NewPages is a place categorised by stress and a siege mentality, which comes from having a backlog, a small number of contributors, and the feeling that Everything Will Break if things aren't done immediately. That's where bitiness comes from. Shifting people from Special:NewPages to AfC will not fix the problem, it'll simply move it - by ensuring that the Articles for Creation people become stressed, backlogged and overworked. Sound familiar?

New users are less likely to be disenchanted from editing if their articles are sent through AfC, yes. However, a lot of new users simply won't bother trying. The AfC interface is problematic, and many new editors create articles for the immediate thrill of doing so. Denying that thrill will send a lot of them off, never to return, during a period when we're having significant problems with attracting users. If you want to do this, you have to improve AfC to a decent standard first; you can't just shove this into place and then scramble to fix things afterwards.

This proposal does not address actual problems, alternating between shifting the burden to another party and simply driving off contributors. If you want to fix the issues, fine, but don't kill our intake of new users along with it. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. HighSocietyCanada ([User talk:HighSocietyCanada|talk]]) 21:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: user's only other edits consist of promotion in own userspace. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. very strongly. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. ^ Juliancolton (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. The proposers intentions are pure but I just don't see the current proposals for locking down article creation (or trying to push them to AfC) as helping the issues stated. History shows that the amount of good faith editors that will be lost is under appreciated and the amount of bad faith editors who will give overestimated. The AfC idea makes logical sense but the current structure of the process and the significant historical precedence we have on wiki shows that the backlog, and the problems, will likely only move from one place to another. James of UR (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. I tried AfC the other day as an IP. I managed to do it only because I was proposing a redirect. There are too many steps and too many options. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Hear, hear. Stickee (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. ϢereSpielChequers 07:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Ruslik_Zero 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Protonk (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. I don't see the length of the New Articles backlog as particularly problematic. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
12. At the moment, we need that influx of users. Long processes are scary. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 04:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Definitely agree. This change would discourage a lot of potential contributors and merely shuffle workloads. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Agree. A bureaucracy is more likely to drive away new users who have potential than a pack of bitie wolves at NPP. Abductive (reasoning) 07:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Strongly agree. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Agreed. The bottom line is: "to be "The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". Any measure that conflicts with that is bound to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences and must be avoided at all costs. André Kritzinger 11:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Strongly agree. This is a terrible proposal and contrary to the principal of wikipedia. There are enough editors here to sort out the new articles anyway. We need to be doing everything we can to encourage growth and new content from new editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Strongly agree. Some of the best content I've seen in recent months has come from non-autoreviewed editors. It would be more than a shame to force them to go through extra hoops to create articles. I don't believe the patrolling backlong to be that severe as yet. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    If some of the best content you've seen in recent months has come from new editors then you and I are obviously inhabiting different universes. In any case, the aim ought to be to make patrolling less necessary, to reduce the burden on existing editors. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

20. Timneu22 has expressed his frustration with new articles to me in the past, so I understand that patrollers may perceive inexperienced users as nuisance. Nevertheless, I don't believe that shifting the burden to a new group isn't going to reduce the overall levels of frustration. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Strongly agree, I don't think I would have ever started contributing if I had not been able to start immediatiely by creating an article and then got hooked. Davewild (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Unquestionably agree. The encyclopedia has survived thusfar on these principals. LiteralKa (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
23. I agree strongly. The problems that come from this openness are far outweighed by the credible invitation to become part of the encyclopedia's future through contributing. I have seen great work come out of the blue that this would frustrate. Wareh (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Strong endorse - the project is not served by selling part of its soul for a modicum of convenience, even if that be substantial, which this arguably won't be. What's that, an encyclopedia anyone can edit? See fine print for qualifications and restrictions, other conditions may apply. If the intent is to solve the problem of biting, making the entire project less open and friendly isn't a solution, it's a surrender. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
25. I largely agree with Ironholds here, and I am surprised there is so much enthusiasm for this poorly thought out proposal. It is indubitable that further restricting what new editors can do will lead to fewer new editors. How could it not? Chick Bowen 22:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    Here's a statistic for you. According to figures published in The Signpost, in February more than half (52%) of the 21,366 articles created by new editors were deleted. In what way is that a desirable state of affairs? What's more discouraging? The likelihood that your new article will be deleted, or being asked to at least superficially familiarise yourself with some of the ropes before creating your new article? Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    Notwithstanding the amount of work it creates for new page patrollers, 52% doesn't seem that high to me. That means 10,000 articles were kept. Chick Bowen 23:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    It means that 10,000 articles weren't so obviously crap that they met the CSD criteria, which is a pretty low bar. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

26. Ironholds makes a lot of good points on this; I particularly agree with the last paragraph. CT Cooper · talk 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. Strongly agree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. --Gwern (contribs) 23:46 7 April 2011 (GMT)
29. Agree. If this policy had been in place when I created my first article, I would not be an editor today. This proposal will not be appropriate until the AfC process is simplified and streamlined. --E♴(talk) 01:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Very well put. Just like Pesky below, I very much doubt that I would have become a regular editor if such "safeguards" had been in place back in 2004. The principle of "anyone can edit" also means that if you notice an article missing (like I did on 20 March 2004), you can create it without having to jump through some hoops. I fully understand the reasons for this proposal but I also think that there are ways to reach those goals without practically dismantling a founding principle of this project. Any restriction that basically says "You have to first prove your worth before you can create an article" (even if the requirements may be low) is not creating a welcoming and collegial editorial environment but instead adds more unneeded "classes". On a side note, while I do support the principle of self-government, I do think that such a drastic change should probably be approved by the Foundation. This proposal effectively makes it impossible for anyone to create articles without first editing and thus has potential to change the way Wikipedia is perceived by others. SoWhy 08:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Agree, especially with Denying that thrill will send a lot of them off, never to return, during a period when we're having significant problems with attracting users. I would like to add that auto-confirmed is awarded on a per-project basis, and therefore experienced users from sister projects would be surprised to find they first have to prove themselves here first. That seems like very condescending behavior to me! Jane (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

    There's already a workaround for that; all you have to do is go to Requests for Permissions and ask for the autoconfirmed flag. It's not that hard, and an experienced user from another project would almost certainly know how to do that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

32. Strongly agree, though I can see the point of the proposal. I'm one of those who would most likely not have come back if I;d had to go through a clunky process to get my first article (2006) in place. I think a lot of people "want to do it NOW!!", and curbing the enthusiasm of new editors who may well have some real potential in future is probably not where we want to go. Pesky (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

    And you have to take a look at this user's history. You really do. And their article. I really think that the kind of editor who has the bodlness and energy and enthusiasm to want toleap right in at the deep end and just do it is, in the long term, also going to be the kind of editor who has the enthusiasm and energy to stick with it as and whn it gets a bit tough, who can see their end goal clearly, and is likely to turn out to be one of the best. We just can't afford to lose those because the first thing they come across is a clunky 'prove yourself first' attitude which may well make them say "Bugger that! I'll go where I'm appreciated instead." Pesky (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    While the statistics somewhat agree with you, they also show that it's not a sustainable way to attract users. Users who create an article that gets kept have an extremely high retention rate. However, since 75-80% of new users see their articles deleted, the overall retention rate for users who start by creating articles is fairly low. Mr.Z-man 13:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

33. Absolutely. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
34. All makes sense. And so too does Jane023's perceptive comment three above this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
35. I suspect the proposal is more likely to deter useful editors than spammers. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
36. Agreed on all points, the autoconfirmed requirement would be the step too far that pending changes narrowly avoided. Res2216firestar 06:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
37. This proposal would move Wikipedia further in the direction of ossification and sterility. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
38. Agree. What if the user is only interested in a pair of articles/topics. Would be obligated to edit 10 existing articles before obtaining status for creating a new page? JuanR (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
39. Agree. Goes against our mission statement. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
40. Agree. The proposal seems to go against the whole concept of Wikipedia, and the "problem" with backlog isn't really a problem anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    Oh really? Exactly how much NPP have you done? For my part, I've done 11,000+ pages since last June. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    Last time I checked, this was not a "mine's bigger than yours" competition - this is about logical oratory and rhetoric. "I've patrolled more pages than you, therefore your opinion is invalid" or "your opinion contradicts mine and must be subservient because I have patrolled more pages than you" is not how it works. If it was, I'd point nicely towards my 38,942 patrols and invite you to kindly swivel on it. Ironholds (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    Then I wasn't particularly clear, that's my fault. I'm trying to get an idea of how much Dennis has done with new pages; the purpose of pointing to my patrol log is to show that I have experience. Someone who's done 1 day of NPP will likely have a somewhat different take on the situation then after 150 days of doing it. I'm not trying to turn this into a competition, I really didn't mean to come off that way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

41. Agree. I've spent a long time thinking about this and come to the conclusion that it is totally contrary to WP's mission. Preventing users from creating articles based on their status is simply wrong. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
42. Agree. I think that this is the best approach. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
43. Agree. Placing more hurdles in front of new editors really moves us further away from the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Ironholds has summed this up very well. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
44. Very strong support. The way to stop pissing off new users is to stop pissing them off (ie take a damn sight more care before speedying good faith, but Wiki-incompetent contributions) not by giving them more damned hoops to jump through. SpinningSpark 15:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
45. Many good points here. I agree that this proposal wouldn't do much beyond moving the backlog from NPP to AfC, along with all the associated problems. Also, reading Ironholds' view led me to look at AfC closely for the first time. I agree that (a) the interface is problematic, and (b) the disappearance of the thrill to which Ironholds refers would be a big problem. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
46. Well Said --Mactrac (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
47. As above, you're just shifting weight. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
48. Agree. Well put. --EnOreg (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
49. Agree. I created a new article on my third edit way back in 2002 (we were a little more relaxed back then). Anyone notice the irony that all the opinions here are from people who are already autoconfirmed? twilsonb (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
50. Agree. Requiring a user be auto-confirmed (which is an off-putting name, without looking it up I have no idea what auto-confirmed means, which I guess is a slight burden, but again off-putting) gives at least the impression of non-openness. I realize that the criteria for auto-confirmed is rather objective (I think, I'm actually still a little unsure if I understand auto-confirm-ness exactly, by the way is there any way to check to make sure you're auto-confirmed? I realize this is probably just me, but something about the terminology strikes me as confusing), I think an impression a new user might get is "we need to make sure you're good enough for our club" - which is the opposite of what Wikipedia is trying to promote. Jztinfinity (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

    See WP:AUTOCONFIRM. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

51. Agree. Excellent presentation of the issues.Roberterubin (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
52. Agree. /Julle (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
53. Agree. Sindinero (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
54. Strongly agree. I'm very leery of this proposal. There's an aroma of unintentional elitism wafting from it. My first edits were admittedly clunky complete articles, some of which have become rather nice articles through the advice and contributions of others. I can state with confidence that if I had been barred from doing so by a policy like this I would have thought to myself "What the eff? Doesn't it say anyone can edit", and I would have walked away.Glorioussandwich (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
55. I strongly agree with Ironholds. Restricting potential new users will not make them want to stay. You can say that 4 days and 10 edits isn't all that much, But as Ironholds mentioned, Its the thrill of making an article. If you cant do that when you first join up (especially if its an article you are passionate about), you might not even bother trying. Some people may not be able to maintain their enthusiasm that they had when they signed up to create the article. To be honest, i dont think i could. Bailo26 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
56. Agree. Wiki ian 04:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
57. Sadads (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
58. Indeed. Hobit (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
59. Aye. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
60. I agree with Ironholds. I'm a contributor of the Catalan Wikipedia (Viquipèdia) and there, the motto was slightly changed: "the encyclopedia that anyone can improve." Maybe we should adopt it here as well. - Al Lemos (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
61. Bulwersator (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
62. Agree. I don't know enough about WP yet to give proper comment, but if it helps, from the vantage point of a new user, this makes absolute sense to me. — Gk sa (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
63. Wholeheartedly agree. Disabling page creation is incompatible with Wikipedia's anyone can edit philosophy. Forcing the article wizard for non-autoconfirmed users is a much much more reasonable and measured action to the situation than having a knee-jerk reaction to a "crysis" whose impact is greatly exagerated (backlogs are at perfectly reasonable level, situation is no worse today than it was a few months ago). Minimal changes [Article wizard for non-autoconfirmed users] have to be tried before paradigm shifts [no one but the in-crowd gets to create articles]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Jayron32

Lets keep this short and sweet (which is very hard for me to do). Edit is not the same thing as create articles. Newly created accounts can still edit existing articles, so there is no loss to Wikipedia's core mission by disallowing new users to create articles. By restricting article creation to autoconfirmed users, we substantially reduce the number of deleted articles without affecting the core mission, since new users may still contribute. Since creating a proper article (one which will survive deletion and stick around) is very hard, this will allow new users to "get their feet wet" and to learn basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. 4 days and 10 edits is enough to do that, without being so long as to drive away potentially serious users. Restricting article creation to autoconfirmed users is a change we should make.

Users who endorse this view

1. --Jayron32 20:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (as writer)
2. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. agreed A ntv (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Pol430 talk to me 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Users who do "get their feet wet" rather than diving into the deep end right away are more likely to have positive experiences. Mr.Z-man 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
9. There's something to be said for letting them learn to drive in the parking lot, instead of jumping onto the highway. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Even restricting article creation to editors who had ever made one edit in an existing page might help. The people at the biggest disadvantage are the ones whose only main-space edits are at a page they created themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
11. To recycle my favourite metaphor for this issue: creating articles is like learning how to drive. The status quo is an Angry Dad giving his kid the carkeys and saying "off you go, try not to crash and burn, WHAT ARE YOU DOING, YOU IDIOT, DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO DRIVE?". This is why driving instructors exist. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
12. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Basket of Puppies 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Silverseren^C 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Rd232's metaphor is a true one --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
17. MER-C 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
18. A sensible approach - one must crawl before one can walk. And of course, WP:AFC remains an available option for new users with a desire to create new pages.--JayJasper (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Racepacket (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Per Rd232. The metaphor is apt. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Rschen7754 06:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Giving potentially serious users a hoop or two more to jump through is not a bad idea. It might make them feel more important and give them a sense of belonging to the project, rather than those who don't give a hoot and just breeze in to to vandalise, make hoax, attack, copyvio, and test pages, or paste huge chunks of foreign languages they have no intention of translating. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Hut 8.5 10:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
24. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
25. -- Donald Albury 10:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
26. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
27. To avoid repeating what others have written already – my views mirror those of 7 (Mr Z-Man) and 21 (Kudpung) above Apuldram (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
28. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Danger (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Tentontunic (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
32.  Sandstein  19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
33. Rd232's metaphor is perfect. bobrayner (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
34. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
35. Brammers (talk/c) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
36. Killiondude (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
37. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
38. Elekhh (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
39. Yoenit (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
40. Shrike (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
41.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
42. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
43. Jayron32's reasoning is clear, concise, and—in my opinion—correct. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
44. My thoughts exactly. Excellent points. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 03:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
45. Agree completly. Lugnuts (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
46. Wikipedia has changed from the slap and dash days when we wanted to grow and any content was welcome. We did grow, though we also gained a reputation for publishing unreliable and poor quality material. We are now in the days of more demanding quality article building, and our reputation is improving. Article editing and article creation is more difficult now, and it requires an editor with more than a five minute attention span, and who has the patience and willingness to read guidelines and follow consensus. Editors who are not prepared to wait, listen and learn are not the editors we want. SilkTork *^YES! 11:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
47. Sole Soul (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
48. Absolutely. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
49. This makes more intuitive sense to me than the counter-proposals. We should at least try this and figure out which fears and hopes voiced in this RfC turn out to be true. Pichpich (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
50. —mc10 (t/c) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
51. Steve2011 ^Chat 00:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
52. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:48pm • 06:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
53. eo (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
54. Also agree with JayJasper --- User:Shuipzv3 Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
55. I've been expecting this for a while now. About time. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
56. Very persuasive argument. - Artoasis (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
57. --BelovedFreak 11:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
58. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
59. --Coemgenus 12:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
60. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
61. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
62. patitomr (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
63. Works for me. It takes just a little time to "learn the ropes". If the new editor is serious about contributing, then a break-in period won't hurt. As an encylopedia, we still expect minium standards, don't we? Cuprum17 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
64. Well said. SheepNotGoats (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
65. I made quite a few IP edits before registering to create my first article. Definitely helps with acculturation. I see only an upside to requiring some of that. Ntsimp (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
66. Well said. Sounds like good justification to me. Ruby2010 talk 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
67. Agreed TomorrowsDream (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
68. Yes. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
69. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
70. Probably a good idea TheTechFan (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
71. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
72. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC) - Spend some time patrolling the User creation log and you'll begin to see the patterns that gave birth to this discussion: Almost all new articles created by new users fall into two types: Pure vandalism, and piles of incorrectly formatted text. Thus my endorsement of the above viewpoint.
73. This. Newcomers should be encouraged to enhance and improve existing articles. Get them used to things there, then they can create. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
74. Imzadi 1979 → 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
75. This will decrease the pressure at on new page patrollers, AfD patrollers, and admins who patrol CSD's by quite a bit. And this comes from a user whose first non-IP edit was to create an article (which later went on to be a GA). I don't think that having to get auto-confirmed would have stopped me from creating the article. —SW— ^babble 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
76. THANK YOU! Nobody leaves in 4 days, esp when they're allowed to make edits from day one. Ratibgreat (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
77. Yes. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 18:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
78. Otelemuyen (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
79. I know this is a contentious issue but--as a vandalism patroller--I believe it may result in a net improvement. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
80. This will help make the encyclopedia a bit less of a target for trash edits. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
81. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
82. yes, wholeheartedly agree. Soosim (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
83. If they can't wait 4 days, it wasn't meant to be. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
84. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
85. Agree; would like to see the autoconfirmed requirements go up and hope that as an added plus we might curtail paid article writers and COI's by making them provide other productive work apart from what they are after.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
86. I appreciate the clarity of this presentation by Jayron32. A better balance of rights with responsibilities, no doubt. Sunray (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
87. Agree. Reduce the number of bigheaded proud people who make self-glorifying articles about themselves. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
88. Agreed. I don't put much weight into the concern that new users who want to create new articles won't bother with WP:AFC (I probably wouldn't have even noticed or cared about this mechanism as a new user, so who cares?). I think most would just wait a short while and do the small amount of edits to get their credentials (autoconfirmed), and many of those eventualities will seem like a sudden, delightful surprise for the user. I'd much rather have new users get their chops by learning how to edit properly before creating an article, which literally requires several wiki skill sets. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
89. Schlitzer90 (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
90. Very well said. I'd like to add that improving existing articles is often more important than creating new articles, given that there are no longer so many broad topics not yet covered. IPs are of course welcome to improve existing articles, and statistics have shown that they do that more than they contribute bad-faith or good-faith nonconstructive edits. But articles created by IPs are many times more likely to have to be deleted than their simple edits have to be reverted. --Jsayre64 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
91. Agree Openskye (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
92. Agree - the best start by putting a little toe in the water first to test the waters before going in, and adding an article-create restriction means that new users have to take time to twiddle with things a little bit before expanding things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
93. Agree There are so many good points being made, all spurred on by Jayron32's core argument: "edit is not the same as create article". And I would add this: mechanisms are already in place that make distinctions between IP and user (q.v. semi-protection). I don't think it degrades the "openly editable" model, it merely refines the permissions. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land   02:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
94. This is exactly the comment I hoped to make. Further, people who try to create their own article to promote a business will perhaps think twice before sending it through AfC. Whereas, they might hope that it wouldn't be noticed if they made it themselves. Strong support, Cliff (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
95. Fair and well said. DP76764 (Talk) 03:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
96. — Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
97. Concur.  Ravenswing  04:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
98. A key reason that autoconfirmed status exists is so that those who may wish to vandalize or disrupt are deterred. Someone wishing to create a junk article just for giggles might not want to go through the process of having to make 10 other edits and having to wait four days first. Conversely, a new editor wishing to make a constructive new article probably has a better head on their shoulders, and wouldn't find having to go through a very small confirmation process a hindrance to their goal of adding something worthwhile to our community. Restricting new article creations to autoconfirmed users is a proposal I endorse. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
99. Herostratus (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
100. canticle (talk)09:13m 8 April 2011 (UTC)
101. It might mean that the number of people needed at AfC is going to increase dramatically. The people at AfC are competent and used to backlogs though. This is needed, I think. This is doable too. So let's do this and hope for the best. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
102. Agree. --Phospheros (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
103. Your opinion is correct! --Ghostshock (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
104. Sound argument Warren (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
105. Agree. It's a very small hoop to jump through and it's much better that a new editor has a couple of minor edits reverted in the process of learning what's what that an article that many have taken a significant time to produce. PRL42 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
106. Ditto? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 12:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
107. Editing is not necessarily the same as creating. Anyone can set up an account, and make 10 edits over 4 days. The mission is not compromised. The proposal brings new editors in on a more gentle learning curve; We'll have a better chance of retaining them. --Kvng(talk) 13:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
108. Reluctantly agree Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
109. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
110. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
111. Based on thousands of hours I have spent patrolling new articles and edits by new editors, this is a sound proposal. Edison (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
112. Endorse. Shajure (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
113. Agree Mo ainm~Talk 17:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
114. Agree - Provided this does not stop creation of user-space sub-pages. Currently, if, as recommended, a new user prepares an article in their user space, they must be autoconfirmed to move it. However, they can create a main space article with their first edit - crazy. Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
115. Well put Jebus989^✰ 19:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
116. Ten edits over four days is a very minor hurdle. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
117. good idea Bentogoa (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
118. Makes sense. Users who come to edit first rather than specifically make an account to create an article they want usually seem to end up being much greater contributors as a whole in the long run. A simple message saying some brief editing is required before an article can be created would put off only the users who have no interest in staying around, just the ones who are more likely to create jokes, ads, or articles on themselves. Plus, if we encourage starting creations in userspace, I think most confused new users would still be satisfied. And there's always AfC.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
119. Should save everyone some time. Albacore (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
120. Quality, not blind quantity. — Coren ^(talk) 23:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
121. Makes complete sense that new editors should take some time to get to understand the project and how to edit before attempting to create an article. Based on the experiences of those working in the trenches (NPPers), I believe it's completely reasonable to require a few days and edits before being given the option to create. Just make it very clear to new users why this restriction exists and what they can do to prepare themselves to create a successful article. Lara 01:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
122. Agreed. Parrotistic (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
123. It lessens the effort needed to monitor new articles that should have been put into improving existing ones. Moray An Par (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
124. I agree to the proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mittgaurav (talk • contribs) 12:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
125. Makes sense. Mystylplx (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
126. --STATic message me! 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
127. Makes sense to me. Baby steps. The more you edit the more likely you are to get a feel for the place, become a better editor, and maybe get hooked and branch off into other articles and 'behind the scenes' stuff.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
128. Agree USchick (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
129. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
130. First Light (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
131. A few days and a few edits are not too much to ask before article creation is enabled. If someone declines to participate in Wikipedia at all because of that minor restriction, it is unlikely to be a major loss to the project. Neutron (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
132. Absolutely. Would probably vastly reduce silly non-notable autobiographies, attack pages, and G11s. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
133. Yep; not more for me to say beyond my view below. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
134. Personally I waited about six months before I created a new article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
135. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 05:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
136. Same thoughts. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
137. Jclavet (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
138. Agreed. You wouldn't believe how many new article creations from recently registered editors get smacked because of the CSD. Someone who is serious would not really need to (or want to, since (s)he would be more cautious by virtue of the fact that (s)he's more serious,) create many articles (I myself haven't created a single article yet, all I've done is do complete overhauls on a few, like Alkali metal.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
139. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
140. AussieLegend (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
141. This is a good move to help confirmed editors manage their time more effectively and help new users contribute in meaningful ways. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
142. Open to changing my mind if the data shows otherwise, but tentatively leaning towards this view. T. Canens (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
143. Completely agree with "edit is not the same thing as create articles".--  Forty two  06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
144. Agreed for auto confirm users to create new articles User:PREVRAVANTH Prev Ravanth 07:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
145. Yep. It's time to shift from article counts to quality control, and this is a really small requirement. A data-collecting trial should be done. --JaGa^talk 08:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
146. —DoRD (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
147. Yes, that makes sense. Wikid^as©
148. Even in 2005, when there were lots of notable, easy topics still missing (lots of notable ones are still missing today, but not so many easy ones anymore), I made 13 mainspace edits and was around for 6 days before creating my first article. If someone or some rule would have said back then that I should have made ten, or twenty, or fifty edits before starting to create an article, I would have considered this to perfectly normal. Everyone can edit, sure, but you have to learn a bit how things are done before you can start, and first editing some articles before actually creating new ones is a good method to get a bit more used to Wikipedia culture and style. Fram (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
149. Right on. Makes sense to me. Most of the new articles I see, from accounts created today are crap. Love letters to their schoolmates, hoaxes or vandalism. Few new-inexperienced editors can create decent articles that can pass muster on their first day. They still can edit and gain experience, and they still can request a new article be created. I see no problems with this approach. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
150. Agree I am currently about 8 hours from being auto-confirmed. I would say I'm probably the exception as opposed to the rule. I've been on Wikipedia for 3 years, but just under 4 days ago I decided to make an account to start regularly contributing. I've made close to 100 edits over the past 4 days- most of that copy editing and wikifying. While I am making efforts to expand a few regional pages, I would say I am not ready to create a page yet. And I am an educator- a writer- and technically comfortable. So if I'm not ready, I have a hard time believing the vast majority of non-auto-confirmed users are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
151. The "getting their feet wet" way of viewing it is a really good idea.  A p3rson ‽ 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
152. Agree - 4 days and 10 edits is a low barrier to entry. Greenshinobi (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
153. This will be for the good of the wiki in the long run. Kansan (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
154. I would be interested to see how many articles created by non-autoconfirmed users actually last, get expanded, and become a useful part of the project. My gut instinct and experience tell me that people who come here with a particular article in mind, that they immediately create, are rarely of benefit to WP as a whole. Indeed, they often seem to be responsible for some of the more egregious and problematic content.--Korruski^Talk 08:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
155. Absolutely support. Restricting creation is an effective way not only to get newbies more experience with editing, but to encourage them to get the feedback they need on their new contributions and how they can do better next time from processes like AfC before they get bitten by rapid deletion. Dcoetzee 09:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
156. Huzzah! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
157. Support --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
158. Short, sweet, and exactly why we should implement this. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
159. Spencer^T♦C 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
160. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
161. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
162. DavidHobby (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
163. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
164. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
165. Hkcd1265 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
166.  Badgernet  ₪  10:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
167. --Teukros (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
168. Short and sweet and completely right -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
169. Should be more than autoconfirmed status - several hundred edits, in my view. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
170. Baseball Watcher 01:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
171. Agree, Wikipedia is a fascinating project, but quite honestly a bit of a maze. I have made about 100 edits I guess, have managed to familiarize myself with some cite templates and a couple of dozen policies and guidelines, but do not feel sufficiently experienced to create an article yet. This proposition demands a very low-level of commitment (4 days, 10 edits) and if it reduces the workload and stops 50% of new articles being deleted then I say "yo". Captain Screebo (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
172. Agree, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
173. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
174. Agreed with this view. It is very sensible to follow through with this. Gb105 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
175. Absolutely agreed.YuYuNinjaGaiden (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
176. It's a good point. - Al Lemos (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
177. Alfie↑↓© 08:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
178. Agree নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC).
179. Agree. The Helpful One 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
180. Agree. - Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
181. Agree Zlqq2144 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
182. Strongly agree. Not only is this proposal very reasonable, it really should have been implemented a long time ago. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
183.  Support -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 07:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Mr.Z-man

Will shifting the NewPages backlog to AFC just result in a bigger backlog at AFC? Almost certainly. Are "restrict article creation and have new users use AFC" and "no change" the only options? Absolutely not. The restriction of new article creation should be accompanied with a shift in focus to improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. If new users create their articles at AFC, they're still going to fail in large numbers because its still difficult. We should be encouraging users who want to contribute to contribute to our existing body of stubs articles. We have over 3.6 million articles; how many notable topics are there that are so unrelated to anything we currently have an article on that a new article is necessary? People seem to read WP:N as some sort of commandment: If its notable, then it must be in a standalone article. By using a quantity over quality approach, we're doing a disservice to readers by scattering related information all over lots of tiny articles and we're doing a disservice to new users by encouraging them to start editing by doing one of the most difficult editing tasks first.

Users who endorse this view

1. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. My point exactly. There's no shame in making existing articles better. Quality over quantity. --Jayron32 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Mergism does have its appeals. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. This approach is particularly valuable for subjects described at WP:ORG. We do newbies no favors by permitting them to write articles that nobody ever wants to read, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
6. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Sturgeon's law applies to Wikipedia, too. MER-C 04:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. --JayJasper (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. That's basically my editing/mainspace philosophy in a nutshell. It's not how many pieces on the Wikipedia globe, but how they fit. –MuZemike 07:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
11. -- Donald Albury 10:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Apuldram (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Indeed. At this point in the game, we should redirect new users toward improving rather than creating. Less cruft, fewer n00b roasts. (Oh what shall I eat then though!) Danger (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Brammers (talk/c) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Permastubs are evil and utterly useless to our readers. Yoenit (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
17.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
20. ... with the caveat that "improving the average quality" is best accomplished by actually improving articles, rather than deleting articles on encyclopedic topics but deemed too problematic to fix. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Useful thought. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Yes, "shift in focus to improving existing articles rather than creating new ones" is wave of future. Herostratus (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Bloat will kill off Wikipedia. Too few eyes on too many stubs and other junk will lead to problems. We could probably stand to shed a few hundred thousand articles as it is. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Wikipedia has matured. New articles are not as valuable as they once were. Policy needs to reflect this. --Kvng (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
25. As well as expanding stubs there's also Category:Redirects_with_possibilities. In both cases we have "placeholders" for subjects that the community has already decided are "encyclopedic". (Well mostly, stubs do go to AFD) Turning these into articles instead of creating new ones is less likely to get a newbie nastygrammed off of Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
26. Lara 01:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
27. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 05:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
28. — anndelion ※ 23:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
29. --Nyswimmer (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Fair point, especially with all the backlogs there are currently! The Helpful One 22:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Sven Manguard

I am of the longstanding view that Wikipedia has too much bloat already, possibly as high as 300,000 articles worth of it. We're inconsistent at best and deliberately manipulative at worst when it comes to interpreting notability guidelines, especially for things that touch on modern popular culture. I don't participate at NPP because I know that I will personally be more heavy handed with deletions than most, and I don't want to be the direct cause of other people's suffering, so to speak.

The answer, I believe, is to make all non-autoconfirmed users go through Articles for Creation, and to refocus Articles for Creation with an eye on efficiency. Recently, AfC got rid of the 'hold' option for nominations, which is a step in the right direction. In reality, it needs a policy shift towards the very explicit:

"If it can be made ready easily, do the work yourself and push it live. If it can't be, userfy it at the creator's namespace, leave them a message, and then if the person comes back (which is rare) work with them in the namespace then push it live. Anything that can't be saved gets declined, anything that needs deleting gets tagged."

I say this because while de facto policy is moving in this direction, too much of AfC's time is still wasted on waiting for people that will never come back to help fix problems that can be done by the reviewers themselves.

This has three benifits:

• The RPP will shrink dramaticly, I would expect.
• Because AfC has a focus on getting articles ready before going live, this will result in less articles needing wikification, less unsourced articles, less articles with major problem tags, etc. If you don't think that's the case, consider this: By making all non-autoconfirmed users use Files for Upload to upload images, the amount of copyvio images has gone down.
• Ideally, because we'd have more human interaction and personalized response, we'd be able to have more positive responses to Wikipedia by the new users.

There is a downfall:

• Fixing articles is more time consuming than placing deletion tags on them. This will likely cause backlogs if the current level of AfC participation remains the same. However hopefully AfC would be able to recruit people that were doing NPP, and the people that do wikification and cleanup, and have them do what is essentially a similar task in a centralized location.

I think this will work, and I think it's the best option. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. My idea, so... Sven Manguard Wha? 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. I like this as a next step if this RfC passes. AfC can indeed use some streamlining, and doing it in the style Sven recommends will help with the "But then AfC will be backlogged instead of NPP!" problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Pol430 talk to me 22:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. That would help. Rd232 ^talk 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
6. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. The only issue is that we would need to have these "drafts" deleted 3 months after the last time they were edited so we don't have a glut of these that need to be taken care of. I would be more then happy to help improve brand new articles if this goes through. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Seems reasonable. Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Definitely worth further discussion. -- Donald Albury 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Yes. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Yoenit (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
15. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:50pm • 06:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
16. --JaGa^talk 16:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
17. I agree. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Well, "make all non-autoconfirmed users go through Articles for Creation" ... yes, that would be a valid alternative (to simply forbidding article creation by non-autoconfirmed) and would be OK to try this instead. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
19. I also think it will work. --Kvng (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Baseball Watcher 01:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Bloat kills. Safety Cap (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:HominidMachinae

This is a tough issue for me because I see good points both ways, but my opinion remains that the quality of Wikipedia, and its long-term prospects would be better served by limiting article creation.

Wikipedia is at a turning point of sorts, we already have almost all of the high-visibility and vital articles created (in other words, the articles that an encyclopedia must have to be taken seriously as a source of knowledge have long been stable articles). That places less importance on the creation of new articles and more importance on focusing on creating and maintaining a high level of quality.

The problem with allowing new users article creation ability is that they don't understand the community norms. I would say of my work at NPP fully 80% of the material meets the criterion for speedy deletion. They're not vandals, that's important to point out, they just don't know any better. They don't understand that 'well he exists' isn't a good reason for making an article about their 9th grade biology teacher, or their garage band or why they can't use myspace as the only source for an article. They could be good editors in time, but giving them immediate article creation access does not serve that purpose.

It is inherently bite-y to delete someone's first and only article, but just because we wait an extra week doesn't make it less bite-y either. An article about a garage band that meets three different CSD categories will always be an unsourced article about a non-notable garage band, no matter how long we wait. The solution to not biting these newcomers is to help make sure they have read the "big three" (wp:RS WP:N and WP:V) and understand what they can and cannot do before the user and established Wikipedia community are both faced with the uncomfortable situation of dealing with their unsuitable rookie article

In summary, as Wikipedia moves from its teenage years into adulthood the focus must necessarily shift from growth to maturity, from the desire to get as many new articles included as possible to the task of sorting, filtering and polishing those articles. There is little to lose from forcing pre-vetting of articles from the very newest editors and much to gain in terms of reducing the undeniable tide of poor articles that are creating a significant backlog.

Users who endorse this view

1. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Pol430 talk to me 22:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. With one minor tweak: They don't necessarily have to read the policies, just understand them, learning by experience is the key here IMO. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
6. A slower introduction is likely to retain more editors in the long run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. What WhatamIdoing said. Rd232 ^talk 23:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
8. --Jayron32 00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Silverseren^C 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Quality over quantity. I somewhat disagree with the bit about noobs contributing garbage don't know any better -- the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia obviously forbids schoolyard nonsense, spam, band advertising, vanity and the like. MER-C 04:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
11. --JayJasper (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. In fact, giving them immediate article creation access may be detrimental to their long-success as editors. Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Rschen7754 06:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Giving potentially serious users a hoop or two more to jump through is not a bad idea. It might make them feel more important and give them a sense of belonging to the project, rather than those who don't give a hoot and just breeze in to to vandalise, make hoax, attack, copyvio, and test pages, or paste huge chunks of foreign languages they have no intention of translating. And in my experience at NPP, although 80% is about right, at least half of that is from the 'don't care' creators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. -- Donald Albury 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Yes. Quality, not quantity, should be the aim Apuldram (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Danger (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Kudpung says exactly what I was thinking (but more eloquently). bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
20. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Brammers (talk/c) 22:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
22. The times, they are a-changin'. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
23. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Yoenit (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
25. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
26. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
27.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
28. I wasn't going to worry about participating in this discussion, but I had to support this excellent statement of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Yes. We are now in the quality development stage. And we do also need to pay attention to the thousands of pages of unsourced original research that was created in the early days of Wikipedia, and often lies hidden in orphaned or uncategorised pages. SilkTork *^YES! 11:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Agree completely. The priority should not be creating yet more articles. Efforts should be much more focused on significantly improving the vast number of poorly written, unreferenced, etc. articles that we have already. -- Alarics (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Agreed. Hekerui (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
32. --BelovedFreak 11:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
33. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Very well stated. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
35. --JaGa^talk 16:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
36. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
37. ... noting that WP:N is still not a policy, I don't disagree with it being one of three key things that normally torpedo new articles. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
38. I likey. Ratibgreat (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
39. Yup. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
40. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
41. Mgcsinc (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
42. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
43. Herostratus (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
44. Well said. GRAPPLE X 12:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
45. Definitely will take some of the WP:BITE out of Wikipedia and we desperately need that. --Kvng (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
46. Extremely good analogy in a well-written summary. Agree completely. Lara 01:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
47. The key to this philosophy is that we aren't discouraging users from contributing content, we are in fact providing them "on the job training," as it were, by directing new articles from brand new users to a place where they can be given a once-over or twice-over by editors with both experience, and the patience to explain the basics to a newcomer. Users who might have searched and found an article on Wikipedia who want to contribute content, can just poke around as they always have, without being bitten too severely and chased off forever by surly, over-worked NPP and RC patrollers. This may also help reduce that group of editors on NPP who just seem to perversely going around deleting articles by newbies, without bothering to see if the article could be rescued, just because it isn't standards-perfect and ready to achieve "good article" status. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 07:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
48. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
49. Golgofrinchian (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
50. Absolutely. First Light (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
51. Well put. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
52. —mc10 (t/c) 05:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
53. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
54. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 23:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
55. —DoRD (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
56. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:My76Strat

I think every perspective highlights valid consideration; To this extent, I think we have the best balance achievable, currently in place. After consideration, I believe we should keep everything related, as it is. I would agree that the Article Wizard could be improved, but that is a separate consideration.

Users who endorse this view

1. My76Strat (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

User:jtbobwaysf I agree with 76strat and oppose this proposal. This is an effort to make it more difficult to create new articles, and is i am sure widely supported by the "Deletes." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:DGG

I cannot easily think of a better way to kill Wikipedia. It should be obvious to everyone that our medium- and long-term survival depends of new editors joining, becoming active, and staying active. Many people join in order to write articles on something they want to write about--let's say half, though it may be greater. About half the time, what they write is capable of being a decent article. Probably of those whose first article is not possibly useful, half are capable and willing to learning how to write a good article, if treated nicely and the standards explained to them. This suggestion proposes to discourage about 40% of the people who want to join Wikipedia. It would really need to have amazing benefits in order to be worthwhile, and the benefits would need to be proven in advance.

The benefit that is proposed is eliminating the half of new articles that are not good. Actually, it won't even do that. Of the hopelessly bad articles that get written, probably half the people are determined to write them in any case. This certainly includes any POV pusher, and any serious vandal. But we catch these pages usually- fewer get through now than was the case a few years ago, based on my experience actually working on the problem: I've deleted over 12,000 articles in my years as an admin--and most real junk is now removed before that by the edit filter. In general, I do think new users should start making trivial edits and work up from there, and that's the advice I always give. But people have many ways of doing things, and there are many perfectly OK editors who started with an article. I'm not at all sure all of them would have started if there were any blocks at all to the process--considering that so many of the complains of people who tried to use Wikipedia and stopped has been the difficulty with even the current interface. I didn't find it difficult myself, but I was used to HTML, and used to other forums.

The real thing we need to do is positive work with new editors. In a sense, this will solve the problem of insufficient experienced editors to help the new ones--there will be so many fewer new ones.

Users who endorse this view

1. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Scray (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Agree esp. wrt "Easiest way to kill Wikipedia." --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Agree, people join to write 1 thing (We almost all started as a SPA). Taking away things like that is much more significant then recognized. James of UR (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. I wouldn't be here today without Akin Ayodele – I created an account just to create that article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. It is a quarter rather than a half of those who start editing. But we should be trying to keep more of the good faith newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Creating articles is one of the primary reasons why new accounts are created, including mine (and that had to survive CSD and PROD in its first week). Perhaps some sort of stricter quality control should be introduced, but a blanket ban on non-autoconfirmed users creating articles? I think not. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   What's proposed is "a blanket ban on non-autoconfirmed users creating articles" without any assistance (via AFC and/or Article Wizard and/or userspace draft+request to move to mainspace). Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

   Right. But for most new users, that equates to the same thing. AfC and userspace drafts are techniques that few new users could easily find out about unless they'd spent a fair amount of time editing anonymously, in which case they're probably well suited to independent article creation anyway. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, probably, but that's fixable. eg we should make MediaWiki:Nocreatetext ("you can't create this article" message) more like MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext ("you can't edit this article" message), pointing to relevant options. (We should really do that regardless.) Also at the moment I think search hides the redlink "create a page" option if you can't create a page, and it would probably be better to provide the redlink and let it go to MediaWiki:Nocreatetext. Rd232 ^talk 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

8. Ruslik_Zero 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Agree, other than with the figures which are rather arbitrary (see WSC above) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Agree very strongly. NeilK (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Totally agree. -- Orionist ★ talk 12:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
14. it's dead already, but this is dancing on the grave. Slowking4 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Agree. We need fresh blood to prevent further calcification of the project. This proposal would limit the supply. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Agree. If one considers only those users who will mature into useful editors, it is a bad idea to restrict them. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Very well put. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Agree 100%. Newbie users need freedom to create articles. --Marcusaurelius161 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Agree with DGG completely that to prevent new editors from creating articles would be extremely damaging to content in the long term. Wikipedia depends on new editors from different parts of the world to write new content. It is then up to us established editors to sift through it and built upon it and delete the non notable stuff. We need need new contributors on wikipedia to have the freedom to route out new topics. The obvious no notable ones are usually speedied anyway♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Prettily put. Especially as someone whose first substantial edit (on another account, lo these many years ago) was a new article. This cannot but discourage new article creation. And yes, the people who want to put crap up will simply put it up there regardless; a lot of what I see in newpage patrol is POV-pushing stuff that keeps coming back again, and again, and again... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Just as an example: Hoge Heren, UP 6916, Isabella Cortese, 2011 Rio de Janeiro school shooting, Márton Illés - all recently created, perfectly correct articles that were not created by autopatrolled users. The problem isn't as significant as is being suggested. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
22. New users won't commit themselves to meeting the new requirements. Requiring autoconfirmed status is a turn-off. The only new users willing to commit themselves to the extra effort will be the determined, ideological POV-pushers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
23. its an issue of trust. We need to trust these new contributors. Errectstapler (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Davewild (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
25. While this may be seen as contradictory, I agree with this position as well--at the least, the cautions need to be heeded. While "Autoconfirmed" isn't a particularly high hurdle, it is a hurdle, and one which we should mark (if adopted) with well-documented guidance of the pathway between a new user and their ability to create new articles. The hurdle should serve to educate, rather than outright eliminate, the clueless newbie. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
26. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. Tibetologist (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. I don't think it will kill Wikipedia, but I agree with the point that whatever happens, this should be approached with caution. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Very strongly agree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Hits the nail on the head. Frickeg (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Eloquently put. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
32. I don't always see eye-to-eye with DGG, and I can't speak for the numbers, but yeah, I strongly agree with this view. J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
33. Absolutely. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Perhaps there's a hint of hyperbole in DGG's choice of words, but I agree with the sentiments. A Very Bad Thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
35. C628 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
36. Unable to believe this RfC even exists and even more ashamed this is the first "against" viewpoint on the list. - filelakeshoe 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
37. Neither HTML or American english are universal languages so more hurdles for the majority of people who use neither is a very bad idea.Jnast1 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
38. This is very well put, and I agree completely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
39. After creating an account, my first edit was starting the article Book League of America. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
40. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
41. Agree SpinningSpark 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
42. I agree, and the backlog will not be eliminated, just shifted. --Bejnar (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
43. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
44. I agree and add that to a new user, they are there to add some knowledge that they have and the easiest way to get them committed is to allow them to write a dreadful article, and allow an experienced editor to correct, encourage and guide them. What is impenetrable to a new users are the waves of bureaucracy, the layers of Ruritanian style status, and the hijacked words- 'auto-confirmed' what has that to do with a ritual in the Anglican church untaken by commoners wishing to marry princes? This week I was speaking to several museum curators, trying to persuade them to become involved and they already were put off by the rigmarole of the editing process, so now it is suggested that they, experts in their field must do random number of copyedits before they add material we want? I vigorously disagree with more pfaffing around. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
45. I agree User talk:Blackrock01 —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC).
46. I agree. I created my first real article as my fourth edit, which wouldn't have been possible under this current proposal. To borrow another experience of mine - On the Scots Wikipedia, one of our top article creators is an IP. They do tons of quality work there, and I'm sure there are similar persons here. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:40, 11 Nisan 5771 / 15 April 2011 (UTC)
47. Sadads (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
48. Agree we shouldn't do anything that would discourage new people from participating. I got started after creating my first article. Dream Focus 06:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
49. I think deleting new people's work (edits or new articles) is what really drives them away and not letting them create new articles is likely going to be even worse. Hobit (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
50. Very well said. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
51. Agree as well. It seems that a lot of people who are trying to push this are underestimating the impact of such a seemingly small change. User:Duttler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

View from User:Cardamon

If we make this change, I suggest automatically creating a sandbox for every newly registered user, and automatically leaving each new user a message explaining how to get to their sandbox, how it can be used to work on a new article, and how long it will be until they can make articles. Cardamon (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. I suggested something like this recently. It could just be a subpage in the user's userspace, with an additional tab added via CSS/Javascript to access it, with a nice helpful header in it (like MediaWiki:Welcomecreation, perhaps, only the user can actually get back to it). Obviously the new tab would need to be deactivatable via a Gadget - I think many would find it useful, but it's bound to irritate some. Rd232 ^talk 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. This is a seperate issue from letting new users create articles, but it seems like a very good idea --Jayron32 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Sure. It could also be done manually along with giving them welcome templates. Rivertorch (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Brilliant idea, I'm all for making it easy for them to contribute if they have something to contribute I'd even be all for having a way for them to contact an admin saying "I think this is ready, can you move it?" HominidMachinae (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Great idea. Sandboxing helps to improve quality and build confidence Apuldram (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. I agree. Strongly encouraging article creation in a user sandbox would help new users experiment in a safe place. Would be good to make this and "Your first article" more prominent on the Welcome template --CharlieDelta (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Worthwhile compromise. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Yep, that's a good idea, and I think we should carry on with it regardless of the result of this RfC. -- Orionist ★ talk
10. A good idea, with the caveat that sandbox edits ought be dated somehow (to prevent them from becoming forgotten WP:WEBHOSTs). Danger (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Anything that gets the user used to the way WP works, before diving into the main article space has to be good  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
12. I didn't sign on for this one already? Oops. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
13. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:57pm • 06:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 10:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Interesting idea. --BelovedFreak 11:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
16. ditto Cuprum17 (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Strong support! That would be really helpful for new users. Farscot (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Sandbox, or an article wizard, or something. We should redirect, rather than outright block, new users. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Useful idea. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Yes, something like this. Direct them to a sandbox, or an article wizard, or some place, rather than then just saying "no you can't do this yet". Herostratus (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Agreed. It should also contain a link to AfC and the guidance boards. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Others have argued here that the main reason people create accounts is to create articles. If that's true, shouldn't we be setting new users up for the regardless of whether we make the proposed policy change? --Kvng (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
24. I believe this is a very good idea if it's causally added into a welcome message that mentions various other ways they can contribute. I think it's not a great idea to make it a focus or, you know, put greater emphasis on article creation for new users. But I think it is a great idea insofar as it lets users who have registered in order to create an article know exactly what the requirements are and what they can do in the meantime of meeting those requirements. Lara 01:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
25. Golgofrinchian (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
26. Interesting idea. —mc10 (t/c) 05:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
27. I support this or some other meaningful process to encourage competent editing. Could we make the creation of a sandbox automatic for every editor's first new article? Ten edits in four days doesn't accomplish anything. It only adds another hierarchical layer to the burgeoning bureaucracy. I see a lot of optimism here about the general quality of articles, and how major subjects are already covered. Present on a page, maybe; but humanities articles as a whole are still not at the level of science and math articles. I'd say that most articles I see about literature are either woefully outdated, or generally poor. So there are major coverage gaps, despite some excellence. This may seem tangential to the issue of new-article creation, but if we want to recruit more competent editors, this proposal should be part of an overall strategy to make sure knowledgeable contributors aren't driven away by learning the daunting rigmarole. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
28. Excellent idea. 28bytes (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Very neat idea.--Korruski^Talk 08:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Great idea. Currently, explaining the concept of creating a subpage/sandbox in a userpages is very difficult. I think that's probably the reason why most of the users who ever go through the trouble of asking helpers how to start an article are those who will benefit from it - the COI's. Making the creation of drafts easier will help attract new users who will hopefully stick and lessen the number of new articles going live broken. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Safety Cap (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
32. The Helpful One 22:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Shooterwalker

Asking an editor to make 10 edits before creating a new article isn't a lot to ask. I see it as much more difficult to ask someone with no editing experience to create an article that doesn't run afoul of basic policies like verifiability, original research, and neutrality.

The difference of opinion comes down to the impact. Some people warn this will literally kill Wikipedia, because if people can't create articles in their first ten edits then they'll never want to participate at all. It's obvious that I agree more with those who think this will keep new users from wandering into a difficult area, reduce the clean-up workload, and lead to a more friendly learning curve for new users. But the problem is people are just going to advocate for whatever scenario they believe in, based on their ideological preference of what Wikipedia should be.

Why not be empirical about it, instead of being ideological? Why not test it?

I propose a pilot study. Not sure what the parameters would be: a particular subject area, or to try it for 14 days... But it would allow us to measure the real impact, and measure the benefits against the cost.

Users who endorse this view

1. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Yes, a trial, see my view at the very top. We should compare making all new users go through AfC vs. the current system. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Such a major change should be planned as much as possible to collect data and consider how it works in practice. However it's also enough of a culture shift that I think it would need to be more like 3 months to see how the community adapts to the new philosophy of trying to help newbies (as opposed to defending Wikipedia against a continuous onslaught of newbie jokes, spam and mistakes). Rd232 ^talk 23:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Unlike Rd232 I don't see this as a major change, just basic common sense. Nevertheless it's perhaps prudent to consider some kind of trial along the lines he suggests if that will assuage those who do not see the proposal as common sensical. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. I see no downside to attempting to test this in a careful manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. A trial will be the best way to accurately assess the effectiveness of this proposal. Airplaneman ✈ 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. A trial would probably be the best way to determine how effective this will be. Silverseren^C 02:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Agree in spirit, though I am not sure about technical feasibility, or on actual mechanics of how it should work. Afraid of implementing needed changes if something like this leads to "paralysis by analysis", so I have my concerns, but at least in spirit we should be open towards studies like this. --Jayron32 03:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

    This could probably be tied to the autoconfirmed right; rather than require 'user' (ie, login), the software configuration would require 'autoconfirmed'. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 01:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

11. MER-C 04:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. if technically feasable, I'd be all for it. It would be nice to be able to measure in percentage terms the reduction in CSD usage and deleted articles, and see if it impacts signups. I share Jayron's concerns about waiting forever while collecting data, however. It should be a defined trial with defined objectives. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Without a trial, all we have are speculations and conjectures. T. Canens (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Fourteen days, IMHO, is far too short a time to measure editor retention, and trials must be carefully constructed and analyzed (cf. the current arguments over PC), but we really could use some hard data on what works. -- Donald Albury 11:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. (edit conflict) I am unsure one can measure the ratio of "articles that newbies created that wouldn't be otherwise created and would miss important content". Then again, any study is better than no study, as it now stands (afaik). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. I agree; there are some widely conflicting beliefs on what the effects would be if the very newest editors were restricted to working on existing articles instead of creating new ones. I do not agree with those who feel that it would cause a serious problem by deterring new editors, but that concern is valid, so I think it would be very useful to run a trial to see what happens. Make the scope of the trial clear - we don't want another PC. However, I think that 14 days is too short:

    A: Part of what we'd want to test for is a behavioural change among existing wikipedians as well as newbies, and that might take a little while to settle down (as a couple of backlogs are cleared and existing editors gradually find new things to work on &c)

    B: It might be useful to see what happens to the newest editors over a slightly longer period; the effects could, presumably, last longer than the first two weeks of their life as a wikipedian. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

17. Would recommend a longer trial period, but I can see that a compromise will probably be required. Brammers (talk/c) 22:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Let us be empirical whenever feasible. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Always in favour of trials, rather than assumptions Yoenit (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Tests are good. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
22. A trial is sensible - though it would need to be conducted over a long enough period to measure impact. SilkTork *^YES! 11:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
23. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:59pm • 06:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
24. --BelovedFreak 11:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
25. Mainframezen (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
26. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. A trial would be welcome, BUT you to gather the right data, which will take at least a year. You need to determine not only if the new editors still create articles under the new rules, but also if their retention rate is affected by the new rules. Maybe they'll go trough the hoops to create their one beloved article, but still leave at the same rate as before, and their first article may still be junk. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Trial, yes. Tijfo098's point about needing a year to measure retention is well taken, but: this is not possible, a year-long trial is essentially the same as adopting for good. True, a short trial won't give any retention data, but you can't have everything. 14-day trial, or something like that. Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Two things: 1) The trial better have an end date, the community won't stand for another indefinite trial like PC turned out to be. 2) Cardamon's idea above should be incorporated into the trial. With those things, I'd say yes. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
31. A trial is an excellent idea, although I doubt 14 days is enough time for good data. But this could be hashed out later; if the community decides to look into a trial, we could get feedback from WMF or whomever about the proper time span. In this discussion on Jimbo's talk, it appears data collection over four-week periods has been discussed. --JaGa^talk 17:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
32. —mc10 (t/c) 05:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
33. As long as the trial is very clearly defined right from the start. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Kaldari

So much for all our campus ambassador programs, not to mention all the random college classes that have started integrating Wikipedia editing on their own initiative. Just when we were starting to get a large influx of serious scholarship into Wikipedia, we're going to shut the doors behind us. This semester alone, we have several hundred college students adding new Wikipedia articles through the public policy initiative. If we implement this policy, we won't be seeing any more of that in the future. Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is a very important issue to raise but it can probably be fixed by adding the autoconfirm flag to those who are part of recognized university programs. I am a Campus Ambassador and I know exactly what you are talking about. If it's not already I'll raise it on the CA talk page to see what might be done. I would like to request that if the proposal to require autoconfirm is passed then it specifically allow for granting of autoconfirm before the normal threshold is up. Basket of Puppies 01:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a conversation on the ambassadors talk page here. Basket of Puppies 01:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

comment We could also easily change the program to have people create their articles in user space as drafts which are then moved by an administrator involved in the ambassador program to mainspace when they are ready. I think that encouraging the sandbox draft as best wiki practice would be appropriate for a program encouraging people to get into editing in any regard. In addition it's possible for a user to be confirmed without being autoconfirmed, by editing their bits isn't it? HominidMachinae (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Most of the professors in the ambassador program already require their students to edit some (often random) articles before picking a target article, so this change wouldn't affect them. Many of the classes also require the students to improve an existing article, so they wouldn't be trying to create a new article for a while. I don't see any significant impact on the ambassador program from the proposed change. -- Donald Albury 11:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be the typical site moderator who screams "Source?!" at everything, but how do you know this? Juliancolton (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My comments were based on my personal observations from being an Online Ambassador. In many of the classes the students are required to pick an existing article to improve. All the classes I've looked at require the students to get their feet wet by making edits in existing articles before settling down on a specific article. Can you cite any classes where the professor has asked the students to create a new article without first doing some editing in existing articles? I would be interested in seeing any case of classroom assignments that would actually run afoul of this proposal. -- Donald Albury 21:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have had students create new articles in my college classes. In general it is their first contact with Wikipedia. I have not however done this as part of a formal 'campus ambassadors' programme. Tibetologist (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How did that go? Many of us are arguing that editing an existing article is a better way to get started on WP. Can you share any experience to the contrary? --Kvng (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I also had students create new articles in a specialized area, without editing experience. Since the goal of the class was for them to become experts on the topic, not to learn how to edit wikipedia in particular, it would not have made sense for them to have an assignment to edit other pages. As the professor, I made an effort to become familiar with Wiki policies and to help the students implement them. None of the articles was deleted or needed massive editing. All have been up now (with me continuing to monitor) for more than a year. A number of people have told me they are an important resource in our area. So I consider it a success all around. But I would not have contributed to the project under the proposed change. I think it will negatively impact contributions from colleges -- which are valuable. --Kfederme (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment This seems unnecessarily pessimistic and dramatic. I seriously doubt professors couldn't easily work around this change, were it to happen. Having students register on the first day of class, for example, and having them make 10 productive edits over the next four days. Having them draft the article in their sandbox first, as HominidMachinae suggested is also a very good idea and, as he noted, a good practice to encourage anyway. Lara 01:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And how exactly do you propose to inform all these college professors about how to work around this problem? Do you really think they are all going to take the time to figure this out rather than simply coming up with something less complicated that doesn't involve Wikipedia? Even if that means 1 fewer well-written article for Wikipedia, that's a net loss. Kaldari (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is preferable to encourage newbies to create articles in mainspace rather than in sandboxes, aside from the benefits of collaborative editing, if a sandbox is moved to mainspace doesn't it bypass newpage patrol? ϢereSpielChequers 20:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Assuming the article creation wizard is functional, they could just use that to make the article instead of starting from the ground up. Probably better articles anyway, and unless it's a web design class they're probably going to want the hand-holding anyway. SDY (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. ϢereSpielChequers 20:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:WereSpielChequers

We have several problems with the current New page patrol process, a large proportion of the articles coming in do merit deletion or being turned into redirects. Currently we are fairly efficient at deleting the vast majority of the new submissions that merit deletion. However we often do this in an unnecessarily bitey way and worse still a significant minority of speedy deletion tags and even deletions are incorrect. This annoys our newbies, and some of our longstanding if intermittent editors, and has brought us bad publicity because of mistakes and over zealousness by people deleting articles or tagging them for deletion. Much of our problem at newpage patrol is due to miscommunication between Wikipedia and the 25% of our new editors who start their wiki career by submitting new articles. The symptoms of that miscommunication include hundreds of thousands of articles every year that we manually tag and delete. Deleting those articles is an effective way of treating the symptoms of our miscommunication, but it does little to solve the problem.

So this is a complex multi-faceted problem and solving it merits several changes to Newpage patrol:

1. We currently communicate our requirement for new articles to be notable, verifiable and encyclopaedic by tagging the ones that aren't for deletion, and usually informing the author that we've done so. This is communication after the event, and would be much better done up front by edit filters or other software. We need the article creation screen used by new editors to include a routine that checks for the presence of a reference, and if one is absent asks the author for an independent source such as a newspaper article. This software needs to have routines capable of spotting links to Myspace, Facebook or LinkedIn, explaining that such sites are acceptable as a link to the subject's own website, then returning to the page that asks for a reference. We also need a clear prominent option for the creator to tick that "the subject has not yet been reported on by journalists or other writers unconnected to the subject" have that leads to a page explaining our notability requirement with an option to have the article emailed to the author.
2. Currently it is optional to notify the author when you tag their article for deletion, and occasionally we get newpage patrollers who consciously choose not to do this. I accept that there are some circumstances such as RTV where notifying the author is inappropriate or overkill. But it should no longer be acceptable to leave a newbie with a redlinked talkpage when you tag a newly created "good faith" article for deletion. Informing such authors should be seen as part of the process of tagging an article for speedy deletion.
3. Many new articles should be deleted on sight, especially those that are validly tagged as G3 or G10. But for most good faith contributions there is nothing to be lost and much to be gained by leaving the article a few hours for the second or third edit that gives it context or explains why the subject is notable. Giving patrollers an extra choice for a new article of a 24 hour pause would in effect create an incubator in article space with the author unbitten but give rescuers the opportunity to rescue the article before it risked being tagged for deletion. Full proposal at strategy:Proposal:Speedy_deletion_-_24_hour_pause_for_some_articles.
4. Some templates are needed to warn our readers that an article is spammy or unreferenced. Others may be useful in they are proven to persuade some readers or newbies to fix the article. But many templates serve neither purpose,so we have no benefit from them to outweigh the cost of template bombing an article. such templates should be replaced with hidden categories. We don't need to warn a reader that an article is uncategorised or an orphan, and we certainly don't expect newbies to start their wiki career fixing such issues, hidden categories would serve our purposes just as well and without the disfigurement of templates.

Users who endorse this view

1. ϢereSpielChequers 00:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Airplaneman ✈ 02:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Totally agree and I think focusing on things like that are going to help both NPP issues and new user issues. I do think many of our templates need a bit of a rework as well :) We seem to like mean looking templates..... James of UR (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. We can change NPP, or we can change article creation requirements. The latter is process-based and easier to implement, the former avoids most of the issues but is harder because it's people-based, and people can be ridiculously stupid at times. NPPers are always working hard and many of them follow these types of informal guidelines, but having something written that tells new users "your article must be V w/ RS etc. and might be deleted in 24 hours if you don't come back" could help. And re. templates, can we just make them not fake-sounding? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. (except that it is not unreasonable to create a p. in several edits, and the ref need not be added in the very first, as long as it is promptly added. The difficulty in allowing for this in screening is the only reason why I have not made a similar proposal to his #1.) DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Indeed we have several problems with the current New page patrol process, many newbies might start their career by making new articles - ironically, many start their wiki career by policing them at NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Agree. Perhaps together with the Sandbox idea proposed by Cardamon above which would provide for a "not ready for mainspace" option to move a poor/embryonic article to the user's sandbox along with the a menu of a few links to the basic requirements. That would be a lot less bitey.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
10. -- Orionist ★ talk 12:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
11. These are good ideas worth discussing whether or not this change goes through. Danger (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Good ideas. They need further consideration regardless of what happens in this current discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 11:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
13. This could fix some of those times where a patroller nukes a new page, and the page turns out later to be a notable-enough topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
16. These are excellent ideas. Frickeg (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
17. In addition to the idea above a link to the wikipedia-en-help IRC channel and a talk page for help should be given in an editnotice. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 03:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
18. I'm not sure how effective these proposals would be, but they, and any similar bright ideas, should be tried before embracing the dreadful idea of requiring autoconfirmed status to create new articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
19. The Land (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Agree entirely. And, if I knew where to begin trying to work towards #1 I'd start today. An automated, as-I-edit-am-still-here interface that tells me what I did wrong and helps me do it right is a thousand times less bitey than tagging, deleting now, deletting later, or any other option. The lack of interactive feedback is the at the core of the majority of new user bite, in my opinion. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Perhaps we need a deletion patrol, or an admin-bot that can track the tagged pages that get deleted before creator is notified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Glorioussandwich (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Aye. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

View from MER-C

Something we can do right now as a stopgap measure (via a couple of lines in MediaWiki:Common.js) is to force all non-autoconfirmed users through the article wizard. Hopefully this will flatten the learning curve a bit and slow the inflow of crap while we work out a more permanent solution.

Users who endorse this view

1. MER-C 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Support as a short-term stopgap measure.--JayJasper (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. If that can be done, I think it's a good idea, especially as it can be done quite quickly. Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   From my post at VPM, the code is like: if ( user is not autoconfirmed && url.contains("action=edit") && namespace == 0 && page does not exist && !url.contains(some parameter in the URL that signifies the user went through the wizard ) { location.href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AW2" } (though not sure if location.href works now). Everything here can be discovered through pre-existing JavaScript variables -- wgAction, wgNamespaceNumber, wgUserGroups, wgCurRevisionId (==0) and whether the URL contains the preload from the wizard. To avoid the wizard, one needs to be quick to stop the page from loading or add the preload parameter to the URL (unlikely). MER-C 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

4. no mater what the outcome is we should do this --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Should be done only as an interim solution if and only if the outcome is to require autopatrolled status to create articles.Marcus Qwertyus 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Just by the size of this discussion, it looks like this will take a while. The stopgap proposal is an improvement to current policy. I'm not convinced it is uncontroversial. I'm not convinced that it is any easier to implement that the original proposal. I do support it though. --Kvng (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Lara 01:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
8. This might help, and it certainly won't make things worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Wholeheartedly agree. Disabling page creation is incompatible with Wikipedia's anyone can edit philosophy. Forcing the article wizard for non-autoconfirmed users is a much much more reasonable and measured action to the situation than having a knee-jerk reaction to a "crysis" whose impact is greatly exagerated (backlogs are at perfectly reasonable level, situation is no worse today than it was a few months ago). Minimal changes [Article wizard for non-autoconfirmed users] have to be tried before paradigm shifts [no one but the in-crowd gets to create articles]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Promethean

We have many different things to consider here and some of these things are: Are we trying to make it easier for ourselves at the cost of fucking new users over? Are we staying true to our "anyone can edit" motto? What impact this will have on our dwindling user base? I've briefly thought about all of this and this is my 2 cents on the matter. New pages are something that needs to be addressed, the ratio of crap to actual useful stuff being created is completely over the top in most cases and it has come to a point where we have to make the changes we want to see. Every competent user on Wikipedia wishes that new users would get an understanding of our policies before they started creating articles and we have to provide new users with a reason (and the time) to gain that understanding. If new users can just click the create button, why on earth would they want to go through all the hoops of checking whether the topic is notable and has sources etc? It would just be easier for them to play the hit (it doesn’t get deleted) and miss (it gets deleted) game of article creation. So no, if we restricted article creation to autoconfirmed users we would not be fucking new users over, rather we will be equipping them with the knowledge so less of their articles are deleted (which makes a happy user) and they will play a greater role in the community for a longer period of time. The only people we might be putting off are those who don’t give two hoots about what they are publishing and that is a good thing.

In regards to our "The free encyclopaedia anyone can edit" motto, I feel that people need to remember that building a free encyclopaedia comes first, the anyone can edit bit is secondary. So if restricting new page creation to Autoconfirmed users reduces the ratio of crap to useful stuff then I am all for that. I would like to add that dealing with this now WILL have a positive flow on effect to other areas such as cleanup, CSD and AFD, NPP etc.

The Article Creation Wizard is a great idea and my proposal is this:

• Restrict article creation to Autoconfirmed users only.
• Force any user to use the Article Creation Wizard for their first 5 articles.
• Make the Article Creation Wizard a preference option so people can keep being forced to use it if they wish after their first 5 creations.
• In the mid-long term (if not required for the above), make the Article Creation Wizard an extension.
• In the mid-long term, Allot of our project pages and templates are not 'New User' friendly by any means, some are quite technical and other require Mediawiki syntax knowledge to use properly. This really has to be addressed.

Creating articles is allot like uploading images and we don't allow non auto-confirmed users to do that, so this would also bring things into line with other areas.

Users who endorse this view

1.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Do note that creating articles doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "anyone can edit", since they can still edit Wikipedia as much as they want without creating an article. Also...I think 10 articles is a bit high, 5 seems more appropriate. After 5 articles, you should know what you're doing. Silverseren^C 05:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Even as a moderately experienced Wikipedia editor I wouldn't attempt to freehand a new article, there are too many steps to follow to make a proper article. I also very strongly support re-writing projects and templates and even policies to make them more readily understandable to newbies or perhaps creating a lightweight summary page to point new editors to that covers the most important points. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. This probably needs to be discussed as a separate issue, but I do like the idea. However, what changes to the software would be needed to make this automatic? Would redirects count as articles for this? Lots of things to consider. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. I think first five articles going through the wizard is excessive, but otherwise a good proposal. Lara 01:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Rivertorch

Recruiting and retaining editors is critical, but not just any editors. One hundred conscientious editors who are willing to take the time to learn the ropes and get it right, in terms of both the content they add and the procedures they follow to add it, are more valuable than 10,000 editors who neither have any understanding of what Wikipedia is about nor particularly care to learn.

The current bar for gaining autoconformed status is set quite low; four days and ten edits is often insufficient to reveal whether a new editor will be an asset to the project. It is likely that any person unwilling to cross that very modest threshold before being granted the privilege to create a new article is someone lacking the patience and diligence necessary to become a good editor. Considered in the context of the constant bombardment of "junk" articles that Wikipedia faces every day, requiring autoconfirmation before allowing new users to create articles seems like an entirely reasonable policy that should be enacted.

Users who endorse this view

1. Rivertorch (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Silverseren^C 06:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Rschen7754 06:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Go through your IRL circle of friends right now and ask around among them to see who edits Wikipedia regularly. We are a rare bunch. --Jayron32 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Apuldram (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Rd232 ^talk 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. MER-C 12:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Explains why this proposal will do very little damage. There are also benefits for new users in terms of a friendlier learning curve. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Danger (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Spot on. Brammers (talk/c) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Mr.Z-man 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Yoenit (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
20. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
21.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Yes. If Rivertorch hadn't written this, I would have written something similar. SilkTork *^YES! 11:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
25. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
26. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:59pm • 06:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. I have high standards for what I'd hope to see in Wikipedia, and I constantly find that people consciously lower their standards in the interests of being nice. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. We can greet, guide, and mentor, new users without having to accept bad articles, it just takes a lot more work than placing a delete tag. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
29. --BelovedFreak 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
31. --JaGa^talk 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
32. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
33. There is indeed a power law distribution in new editor productivity. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
35. I agree and would like to see the autoconfirmed requirements go up to serve as a filtering mechanism. If they don't care to make 25 edits & two weeks worth of editing...I don't care to see their article make it onto the Wiki.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
36. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
37. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
38. Herostratus (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
39. —Coroboy (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
40. The qualified editors we lose due to being bitten must be far greater than the qualified editors we retain by allowing them to create a new article within their first 10 edits/4 days. --Kvng (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
41. — Coren ^(talk) 23:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
42. Lara 01:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
43. Spot on.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
44. No-brainer. First Light (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
45. Yep. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
46. —mc10 (t/c) 05:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
47. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 23:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
48. —DoRD (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
49. This view is "spot on". I remember a thread on Wiki-en a few years ago about someone, apparently either from the Turkish government or at least with a pro-turkish POV complaining about the semi protection of some Armenia related articles and my first thought was "is it really that difficult to create an account and wait a few days?". Whoever it was wanted to push their POV RIGHT NOW. Many articles that are eventually deleted are created by new accounts that never edit again, this includes articles that are pure vandalism or LULZ articles about high school kids. In other words they were created by school kids on their lunch break. Requiring new editors to make a small jump through a tiny little hoop in order to create a new article will cut down on the number of "drive by" article creations. Someone who won't do something if they can't do it "right now" is unlikely to make a good long term editor. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
50. Exactly.--Korruski^Talk 08:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
51. Bingo! Interferometrist (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

View from The Blade of the Northern Lights

I seem to be the one who got this started, and I've made my view pretty well known. I'll only add the following points. One, the backlog is down, for now, but it's trending upward again. We had it down to nothing briefly, and to keep it there I was regularly patrolling around 200-350 pages a day. Secondly, it may be that 25% of new users start by trying to create an article, but that still means the majority of new users will be unaffected. When I joined, in March 2010, it was to fix typos; I didn't really get into it until a month or so after I joined. Furthermore, I would submit that a substantial number of these new users are only here to promote their wares; I strongly suspect that the vast majority of editors whose first edit is to post about their garage band have no intention of helping the encyclopedia. We have a system now where it's frequently difficult to tell who's here to spam and who could actually turn into a decent user; I will make any effort necessary to retain the latter, but I don't want to encourage the former. This is not only a problem for the new users, it makes NPP a very lonely, isolated job; new users get a bad impression of us when we tag their articles for deletion, and even a couple of misfires (which happen to everyone doing anything here) bring wrath upon us. This sort of job actually fits my personality pretty well, but I've learned over my 20+ years of living that my personality is extremely unusual. I would, however, agree that a trial run would be the best way to go; if it does turn out to be a complete fiasco, we can reconsider our options. I doubt it will, but stranger things have happened.

Users who endorse this view

1. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Well, just know that all of us established users really appreciate the work you guys do. :) Silverseren^C 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Rivertorch (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Brammers (talk/c) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Boo to backlogs. Yay to backlog patrollers. Danger (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
8. --BelovedFreak 11:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes trials are good. Herostratus (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

View from NickPenguin

Interestingly enough, my 5th edit was the creation of a new article, back in 2005. Would this appearing as a new page get deleted with today's standards? Probably. Would that have strongly influenced my decision to stay? Definitely. Would the current version get deleted if it showed up looking like it does? Maybe. Would everyone involved benefit from some guidance in the creation of their first article? I think so. And we are seeing the beginnings of this undercurrent with the Wikipedia:Wiki Guides program.

I think many of us, especially editors who have been here a long time, are subconsciously caught in the 'old tyme' thinking that increasing the article count is the only way to increase coverage, and thereby increase credibility. If the statistics show anything, regardless of silly things like facts and truth, Wikipedia is the go-to place for most people on the planet.

If we look around, it's easy to say Wikipedia has reached it's most current plateau. And I mean this in terms of the number of editors, the number of articles created per day and the quality of those articles. I think we are in the middle of a paradigm shift in how the wiki is improving, especially in the last few years now that most policies and best practices are considered long standing. Now, major improvements to coverage and quality are through existing articles, rather than new articles.

We should only allow auto confirmed users to create articles, simply because the kinds of articles that still need to be created, and the standards we hold new articles to now, take a little more effort and a little more knowledge of how the community operates. Investigating new articles should be done by editors who have been here a while, and know what it's all about. This would probably also increase the quality of both newly created articles and new editors, since you have to make an effort to stick around to create articles. No more of the driveby-delete-disappear cycle, instead we would include the word discussion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Editors who poke around a bit are also more likely to discover requested article lists. Danger (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
3. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Good points. People who start editing because they see something they think they can improve (typos, style, etc.) are more likely to become continuing contributors than are people who want to create an article about their pet topic. -- Donald Albury 21:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
7. "[M]ajor improvements to coverage and quality are through existing articles, rather than new articles" is probably wave of future. How about this: You only get to create a new article if you delete an existing one first. OK, just kidding. But do endorse NickPenguin's point generally. Herostratus (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Agreed. There is a plethora of random articles popping up just for the sake of creating a Wikipedia article. It is always better to ease a beginner into the community by allowing them to make edits, correct spelling mistakes and generally try and improve an article that is already there, before the next stage of allowing them to create an article. Gb105 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Danger

I like the proposal in principle, but I'm also concerned about the attention span of new users. I think that something like this would be a big enough deal to create a new user flag. Instead of using the current auto-confirm flag, use an alternative based solely on edit count so that a person can sit down, figure out how to use Wikipedia, make a few edits and then create a page. If I were starting over now and I were the sort to write new articles, I would never have the patience to wait four days doing nothing; I would probably make 100 edits in the first few days and then get bored. So, perhaps set the confirmation to 15 edits on 2 different pages, at least one of which is in article space (so the user has gotten out of the sandbox).

Danger (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I've changed my mind based on talk page arguments, but if others want to endorse this, okay. Danger (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Experience editing is the key here. I believe the time requirement on autoconfirmed is just to deter vandals. Mr.Z-man 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. I could probably accept this as a reasonable compromise if one is necessary. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Brammers

The slew of poor quality articles that new users create (80% are deleted, according to User:Yoenit) wastes potential contributors' time and that of the new page patrollers. I believe the statistics compiled by Mr.Z-man are telling: less than 0.65% of new users whose article is deleted will stick around, but many more users whose first actions are edits will be retained.

Wikipedia is no longer a young project. With every extra article, maintenance and vandal fighting becomes more work. At over 3.5 million articles, I believe that the bulk of future work will be (to quote Albert Michelson) "in the sixth place of decimals", i.e. refining and improving rather than article creation. After ten years, everything obvious has an article; the days of huge gaps in coverage which must be plugged are out. The days of MOS, REF and 3LA are in. The need for rapid numerical growth in the articlespace is a bygone, and quality requirements are much more stringent.

Our need now is for new editors who have the patience to develop a grasp of the tools and the guidelines with which we build this admirable project. My first edits were damn unencyclopedic, but after a dozen or so I was getting a better idea of things. I suspect that after ten edits and four days, any problematic editors would have been picked up and either coached (assuming good faith) or blocked (as vandalism-only accounts).

To summarise, forcing new users to make edits before they can create articles will:

• Expose them to what the encyclopedia is actually about (not a garage band directory, or repository for your CV, or a soapbox)
• Deter some instant-gratification vandals
• Help new users who really want to improve the project get assisted by established users
• Do no harm to the project: as I've said and as evidence has shown, most new pages are not kept
• Grand summary: this measure would encourage competence in new users and be less bitey than stomping on pages created by willing but inexperienced newbies.

In the long term, the project must adapt to its growing maturity or it will wither and decay.

Users who endorse this view

1. Brammers (talk/c) 22:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. As I noted above, I'm unconvinced that the age of an account matters, but otherwise, I concur. Danger (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   • Sorry for being ambiguous: I believe that the four day wait would give ample time for other users to see any problematic edits via their watchlists. Ultimately I think the number of edits is more important, but that the "cooling off period" is also a necessary restriction. Brammers (talk/c) 22:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

3. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
4. bobrayner (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
5. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
6.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
7. - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Yes. We are at a different stage. We must address our current concerns. Growth is not a priority. Cleaning out the existing poor quality edits is more important. SilkTork *^YES! 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes. As Wikipedia matures, focus must move toward quality control, especially a change like this that makes for a less bitey experience. --JaGa^talk 16:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
11. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Thanks for the statistics. I disagree with the MOS part: it's a perennially edit-protected page due to never ending opinion wars between regulars that should probably invest that time in improving some articles instead. I hope you're not suggesting new editors need to pass the MOS exam before being allowed to edit. Also, I disagree with "everything obvious has an article", unless by that you mean everything you see on pop TV. Plenty of book-length topics don't have an article. I can give you examples if you want. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    • No, not at all. Expecting new users (and even most regular users) to memorise a 70-page document would be unfeasible and extreme. I used MOS as an example of the "quality over quantity" approach to improving the encyclopedia. As for the "everything obvious" article, I used "obvious" in the sense of "obvious to a member of the general public". In specialised areas, there is still room for improvement. I've noticed that by the third year of an undergraduate chemistry degree, a few of the topics taught have either thin or no coverage on Wikipedia. But the chances of someone deciding to join solely to write one esoteric article would probably be fairly slim (e.g. a lot of the fungus articles are created by a few prolific editors, not new users). Off-topic: is there any list of "technical articles that are not yet created but we could do with", such as ones one might encounter during the course of an undergraduate degree? Brammers (talk/c) 13:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

13. Herostratus (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Actually agree with this too. I don't think it a) has been shown that a problem exists, b) that non-auto-confirmed users are responsible for this problem and c) that this proposal will actually address any hypothetical problem that may or may not exist. Basically, convince me why this matters first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
15. —mc10 (t/c) 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:bobrayner

The current system is a shameful waste; the large minority of new editors who start by creating an article will usually find that it's speedied (which upsets them) or, if they're lucky, it will languish under a heavy burden of tags (which frustrates them). Either way, much labour is wasted. Meanwhile, more experienced editors also spend lots of time trying to clean up this mess when they could be making substantial quality improvements elsewhere; or, if the surge of new pages slowed, NPPers could take the time to make deeper improvements rather than a ten-second tagging.

This is a huge waste of willing volunteers - wikipedia's most precious commodity. There's so much more improvement that they could make - new and old - on en.wikipedia's huge pile of existing articles. We shouldn't worry that a lightweight restriction will prevent some important new article being created - it's a low hurdle and there will still be thousands of willing & talented article-creators around.

Users who endorse this view

1. bobrayner (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC) NPPers are already supposed to be doing more than a WP:NPP|ten second tagging.
3. You're probably right, NPP is likely the biggest inefficiency we put up with in order to maintain "anyone can edit [anything at any time]" at all costs. Mr.Z-man 13:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Airplaneman ✈ 13:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
5. --Jayron32 14:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Well said. The labor and time of existing volunteers–especially NPPers and other maintenance workers–should not be taken for granted or wasted. Danger (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
7.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
8. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Rivertorch (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
11. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
13. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Herostratus (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Autoconfirmation is such a low standard, the idea that this will "kill Wikipedia" is ridiculous hyperbole. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
16. —mc10 (t/c) 05:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Radical view from User:Collect

Perhaps we are looking at this backwards. There is no doubt that new articles just created by new users do not generally meet WP standards. The current system is "delete new non-notable articles even if less than 1% of the new users will ever try again at all." This is not-good. I suggest that new articles be auto-tagged as "in progress - noindex" and allow editors to try contacting the new user to explain how to improve the article which, in the meantime, would not be "published" to mainspace. Indeed, the "pending chages" software would likely be of immense benefit for such a change in procedure. New editors who write about clearly non-notable topics (My Dad) would get a polite non-templated welcome saying that, while the editor personally would love to meet your dad, it is not really important enough for an encyclopedia article without something special others can look up about him. The purpose of this suggestion is to get the retention rate at least up to 2%. Clearly the current system fails at editor retention utterly. Second part: Also end the unfriendly "your edit was deleted" welcome message (other than for obvious vandalism). Tell the person why the edit has a problem, not just that it was an evil edit (yes - that may mean a menu of templates for those who do not wish to write sentences) . Collect (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Collect (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2. NeilK (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC) This is a step in the right direction
3. I've separately advocated that articles deleted for notability concerns should go into some sort of purgatory, where they remain available for imrpovement, but are not searchable from outside the site. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Did someone actually find a productive use for the Pending Changes functionality? Well, hell - this sounds like it might be a winner to prevent a quick speedy deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
6. I'd be willing to compromise to this. - filelakeshoe 23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
7. ϢereSpielChequers 16:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
8. A brilliant idea and a good use for PC. It does need a positive and polite explanation that will encourage newcomers to stay and earn creation rights. Certes (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Orionist

I didn't take part in earlier VP discussion, so this is hopefully a new view:

I thought we already have a way to deal with backlogs: we get more people to work on them. Ever wondered what all these unreferenced BLPs, Wikification and copyediting drives are all about? If we apply the same logic of this proposal to other backlogged areas, we'll end up sending to AfC or userfying every single article that is not Featured, and restricting any editing in main namespace to administrators. This proposition will only shift the load to AfC, and soon we will have editors working there complaining about the huge backlog and how we should add hurdles for new editors. AfC is not that helpful either, I can see there very good articles, better than many on the main namespace, that are declined for reasons like "needs more inline citations" or "wikify". Another thing, if 80% of new pages are really deleted for good reason, then why on earth would we want their authors to make 10 more edits - edits that they don't want to do in the first place? We'd be only multiplying the problem by ten, and adding a huge amount of questionable - if not vandalous - edits to the backlog of RC patrollers. And what if after a while, the number of NP patrollers goes down, and they - again - face the same problems? Should we raise article creation threshold to, say, 100 edits and 20 days? And what if the patroller numbers go down again?

Most new pages that are worthy of deletion do not constitute a real danger on the 'pedia. If they are about obscure or non-notable subjects, no one would read them anyway, except maybe the creators and their friends. If the subject is notable, but the article is crappy, people will stumble upon it and improve it, that's the whole point of the wiki, and that's how Wikipedia has become what it is now. The real danger comes from POV pushers, WP:POINTy editors, and uncivil editors who could be well established. These can not only destroy the quality of articles, but also chase away other editors, newbies and veterans alike. Hurdles should be set up for them, instead of the well-meaning but inexperienced.

Some alternative suggestions:

• Recruit more NP patrollers. Have a look at the methods used by successful projects and follow them. Spread the word, I think most Wikipedians have no idea what NPP is.
• Article Wizard can be a great tool, used by new and established editors alike, but not the way it is now. If it's ever going to be useful, it should be turned into a real wizard, not a bunch of instructions. The AfC can also improve. As a start, editors can lend a hand at creation instead of judging. Once these two processes see significant improvement, we can discuss rerouting new users through them, but in any case, that should happen because they are useful to new editors, and not because we want to "slow them down": We are checking new pages in the 'pedia, we are not defending it against a Hun invasion.
• To reduce the chance of "bitiness", several things can be done: a "grace period" can be set up, during which pages shouldn't be tagged or deleted, I guess a duration of one hour for tagging and one day for deletion would be suitable, with an exception for harmful material (e.g. libel, hate speech). Another thing could be tweaking the tags and templates, and including big, clear buttons or links to help areas, where newbies can ask friendly established editors (Wiki Guides for example) who'd have the patience to explain the policies, or talk on their behalf to the taggers/deleters, thus avoiding the bitiness or lessening its impact.

Other solutions can be devised. The proposal above, however, would cause many more problems, without solving any.

Users who endorse this view

1. -- Orionist ★ talk 12:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2. the thesis that "i will stop biting people, if we make it harder for them to put their fingers in my mouth" is farcical. behavior modification will require what you suggest, and above all leadership Slowking4 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
3. I tend to agree. The wizard is ugly, and AfC would need more volunteers. Why not just volunteer for NPP? Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Barriers to entry should not be raised ever higher, at least not explicitly. Implicitly they are anyway rising since I joined (2004), as citations etc become necessities and the language more and more technical. IP editors are likely to register to write or edit articles on subjects they are passionate about, not to correct semicolons and apostrophes. Forcing 10 initial edits is likely to either a) entangle and kill that passion in editing red tape, or b) ensure that those edits are hurriedly done, trivial (if not damaging) and do not really serve the cause of him/her learning the ropes, as the good-intention is.VishalB (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Though I'll note that there is tremendous consensus against providing a blanket grace period for articles (for PROD or AfD). Most times it has been suggested at WT:DEL or WT:AFD it has been quickly shot down. But I prefer people actually work on backlogs rather than offer dramatic faux-serious change in order to avoid backlogs. Look at the recent unreferenced BLP drive as an example of best practices. Rather than nuke/blank/whatever all of the articles because it was "impossible" to deal with them we just set out to deal with them. Harder work, but there is no free lunch. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
6. --V111P (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Ronhjones

As most have said, the need for new pages is not as great as years ago. We have an excellent range of articles, and the number of really good articles that need to be created must, by definition, be very low. Therefore why not stop all page creation in article space, making the users make all their new pages as user subpages. When the user thinks the page is ready he can ask for it to be moved. Move rights need to be the same as for files - i.e. for those who have the Wikipedia:File mover right. Will also stop new users moving articles unnecessary, and may also reduce cut and paste moves.

Nope - the need for new pages is as great as years ago. The geotagging study is just one famous example of that; there are many more. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

View from User:Malleus Fatuorum

Wikipedia has become so desperate to attract new editors that it ignores the retention of existing editors. There are plenty of articles, but far too few of them are even half-way decent. The new editors who need encouragement are those who pitch in and improve articles, not those who create articles on their newly formed garage band or whatever on their first edit, as I think the statistics clearly show.

Users who endorse this view

1. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Thank you for being so frank on saying this. Some of the above skirts around the issue (including me), but you say it well. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
3. More or less, yeah. Rivertorch (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Yep. MER-C 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Malleus makes a point, and I share Jayron's sentiment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
6. bobrayner (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Grabbed the nettle by the stem. Brammers (talk/c) 09:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
9. I agree, editors who come to WP to create an article about their garage band, something they heard at school or saw on YouTube, or their company or themselves, are not likely to become helpful contributors to WP. -- Donald Albury 10:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes. While there is an important focus on newly created articles, we should also look at existing articles. Try clicking on Random article 10 times and see if you're satisfied with all ten articles you encounter. We need quality editors who are willing to work on improving existing articles. It is a shame that so many WP:Vital articles are in such a poor state. SilkTork *^YES! 12:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
11. I wouldn't have worded it quite so strongly against attracting new editors, but how to encourage new and existing editors to improve existing articles definitely doesn't occupy enough of our mindspace. Encouraging prioritising of articles to improve (eg WP:Vital articles, per Silktork) is also important and not done enough. One point made elsewhere I think (this RFC is getting long) is that new articles on closely related subjects can easily end up pretty duplicative, so you end up with 2 crappy overlapping articles which then at some point take a lot of effort to merge and/or properly demarcate along the line the topic should be split. There is, in general, too much emphasis on creating new articles as a goal in itself, rather than taking the goal as expanding Wikipedia's coverage of encyclopedic topics in a way that is useful to readers. Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
12. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
13. a little freaked out that I'm agreeing with Malleus about something, but somehow I am. I wouldn't say that all new editors who want to write articles are of the garage-band type, or that we should not encourage editors who want to create new articles at all, but Malleus speaks the truth when he says that prioritizing those who want to create their own pet article over those who want to improve the 'pedia through various other methods is silly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Couldn't say it better myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
15.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
16. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
17. --JayJasper (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Shockingly enough, I agree completely. Mind you I'd go further by tightening up the notability guidelines and culling upwards of 500,000 articles (the 300,000 currently unsourced articles and the massive bloat that teeters on the edge of even the low standards we have now. I'm quite confident that we can cut half a million articles without really losing anything. That, however, is a separate matter.) Sven Manguard Wha? 07:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Sure, I agree with this. I don't have much of an idea how to improve the situation, though... Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Sound comment. Also tend to agree with User:Sven Manguard's OT point, especially if it results in a reduction in articles about (to me) non-notable schools and other educational establishments, many of which are of irredeemably poor quality and frequently vandalised. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
22. BelovedFreak 11:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Agree 100%. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Enric Naval (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
25. --JaGa^talk 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
26. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. One way to invest in the retention of existing editors is to devise ways to reduce the amount of janitorial work required to maintain the project. This change would result in a precipitous drop in the number of AfD's, CSD's, and new page patrolling required, and would free up experienced editors to do more valuable tasks. —SW— ^confer 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. We need to balance attracting new, productive editors to at least replace the actual attrition rate of our productive contributors. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Otelemuyen {talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
30. I agree with this feeling, but I don't know what if anything it entails for the question at hand here. We need some real statistics as to how many new junk articles are created by new editors relative to mmkay articles created by new editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Agree with this sentiment
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
32. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
33. Pol430 talk to me 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Fully agree. Pedro :  Chat  09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
35. A belief I have held for a while now (but at the same time, we should still be gentle with all good-faith and potentially productive newbies, regardless of their first edits). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
36. In general yes, though some areas are still woefully underrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
37. Wikipedia could easily purge a good half a million articles, maybe more, and be better off for it. We desperately need existing articles polished. Lara 01:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
38. Exactly. Wolfehhgg (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
39. Anytime me and Malleus agree on anything there has got to be something to it... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
40. —mc10 (t/c) 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
41. New users shouldn't focus on article creation, when they do create a new article it'll most likely get torn apart and destroyed. I agree with this wholeheartedly. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:47pm • 06:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
42. —DoRD (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
43. Yes, the quantity vs. quality issue... Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
44. As with others, disconcerted to agree with MF, but he is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
45. — anndelion ※ 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
46. Per this ANI incident which drove off another established editor and basically rewarding poor behavior on the part of a newcomer. That being said, I'm concentrating more on that first statement, which I think is clearly going on. –MuZemike 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

    Drove off? Sorry, I see no evidence of this. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

47. I agree. But what do you propose exactly? Xionbox^₪ 09:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Worm That Turned

A new article requires an administrator to delete. Sure, we can use speedy deletion criteria, but it still requires an administrator to do the work. Moving to this system will therefore reduce the amount of vandalism that cannot be reverted by normal editors. Autoconfirmed status does not take long to get, and there are alternative methods to creating articles. This seems like a good move to me.

Users who endorse this view

1. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
3. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. True, it would reduce CSD work as well as work at NPP (which has been mentioned before), so freeing up editor time for other things. That's probably not that important (I certainly think the key issue is the new editor experience), but it does, and that's obviously a benefit. Rd232 ^talk 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Yep. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
6. +1 bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
7. —Mojoworker (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Baseball Watcher 01:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
9. —mc10 (t/c) 02:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Rd232

Somewhat reluctantly I add an additional view to the growing list, because Jayron32's view (the leading view in support of the basic idea of restriction) does not mention some key points. So, in addition to everything said in favour of preventing brand new (non-autoconfirmed) editors from creating articles in mainspace without some form of assistance, it must be emphasised that such editors should still be able to quickly create articles with assistance. I see three assistance options, and I think all should be available if the restriction is implemented.

1. Articles for Creation. I think the key element of the immediacy of the status quo actually involves a form of feedback - of look, it's really there on Wikipedia, I CAN create it! (in parallel to the more common I CAN edit it!). The AFC system should provide much of the key "I CAN create it" experience. AFC may not put the article live into mainspace as quickly as the status quo permits, but it does (should) provide fairly quick feedback, and in particular, it gives new editors the crucial expectation of positive feedback, as opposed to the present experience of creating an article without knowing what feedback to expect (which feedback typically turns out negative, via deletion or tagging).
2. Article Wizard. An exemption can be engineered so that editors going through the Article Wizard can immediately create articles. This is partly to reduce the workload on AFC, partly to direct users who aren't really interested in feedback away from AFC. It also provides users who want it real immediacy of creation.
3. userspace drafts in combination with a request to move the draft to mainspace provide a way to quickly create articles without going through AFC or Wizard, which some find very offputting. This needs a little work to make it clear how to do (from the "you can't create a new article" message) and then how to request a move to mainspace if the user isn't willing to wait (possibly adapting the Article Wizard's userspace draft preload, which provides some help). user:Cardamon's view mentions a per-user sandbox which could work well to make this approach easier to grasp for the newcomer.

Users who endorse this view

1. Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
3. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. I'm flexible on which/how many options are available, but some options should be available and well-advertised. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Absolutely essential points to make this change work right. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Support options 1 and 2. These exemptions are reasonable ways for legitimate new users to create new articles. Some editors come here explicitly for the reason to create a legitimate article, and may not be interested in making 10 other edits to other articles. If a user created a userspace draft, however, they would probably (hopefully) already be auto-confirmed after they finished their userspace draft, so this option is probably unnecessary. —SW— ^comment 18:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
   1. They might well get to 10 edits, but do so quite quickly (< 4 days). Hence the need for a clear path for requesting moves (eg via WP:FEED or WP:NCHP) to avoid frustration. Besides which, a request ensures a second pair of (more experienced) eyes before the article goes live. The potential feedback there reduces the risk of deletion/tagging/etc. Rd232 ^talk 19:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
7. --JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
8. —mc10 (t/c) 02:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Marcus Qwertyus

If we are going to require autoconfirmed status to create articles we should also require reviewer status to review them. There are 5,500 reviewers already and it can easily be requested.

Users who endorse this view

1. Marcus Qwertyus 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from AGK

A suitable compromise would be that anonymous users can still create new articles, but that pages they create are not viewable except to them and to registered users until the article has been confirmed in much the same way as FlaggedRevs provides for. AGK [•] 14:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)re

Users who endorse this view

1. AGK [•] 14:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2. ...Or make it viewable but require that the article eventually be patrolled at some point Currently all articles that aren't patrolled after (3?) months disappear from the patrol log. Articles that are written by autoconfirmed users could still expire from the list after a set amount of time. This would prioritize page patrolling of articles written by new users by backlog patrollers. Marcus Qwertyus 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

   It's 1 month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

3. There is mileage in this. I think that "article incubation" is probably the sort of thing, though the term has been taken over by an existing process that holds deleted articles in a community userfication space. A process whereby articles created by unregistered or new editors are automatically placed in an incubator which is noindexed and not part of article mainspace would be great. I think that is what people have been looking for all this time, and keep missing. The article would remain in the incubator until an admin or reviewer checks it over and moves it into mainspace or deletes it. The current Article Incubator is misnamed, misunderstood, has been misused (people deleting articles out of process), and doesn't work. It might be an idea to hold a RfC on the existing Article Incubator to see if that can be made to work under a new name (Community Userfication?) or simply closed down so the Article Incubator name can be used for this idea. SilkTork *^YES! 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
   1. How is that different from my third point in my View (userspace drafts)? Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
6. I like the way this avoids the pitfalls both of incubation and of userfication. ϢereSpielChequers 20:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly contrarian view from Daniel Case

For one thing, I thought this was already a requirement. But with all the UAA work I do, I should have realized it wasn't. Perhaps I was confusing the semi-protection requirements with the creation requirements. It doesn't matter.

Now, if I were forced to take a stand on this RfC I'd say, do it. A lot of accounts that begin by creating articles are indeed SPAs that create an article about something non-notable and, no matter how politely you treat them about this, never edit again as far as I can tell (and by "as far as I can tell", I mean that I've actually had email dialogues with some of these people about this). Whereas a lot of accounts that begin by editing existing articles (and by editing, I should clarify that they are actually adding good-faith factual information, or copy editing, and not just spamming external links) seem to have more staying power. To generalize from my own experience, I had had my account for a month before I felt the courage to create a new article (clip show, if anyone cares), and I was still so apprehensive about doing it that I created it anonymously (that was still allowed at the time). It's been almost six years and I'm still here.

So as far as this proposal goes I will say at the very least, get data on whether editors who start by creating articles or editors who start by merely editing existing articles (again, as opposed to spamming or vandalizing them) before we make any decision.

But that's not as far as I want to go.

Everybody above seems to take it as a settled assumption that the decline in activity from newer accounts is a Really Serious Problem and that if we don't do Something Drastic Right Now Wikipedia won't be around in a year. Or a day. Those of you as long in the online teeth as I am may remember "Imminent death of the net predicted. Film at 11. The only difference is whether this proposal is seen as an acceptable tradeoff in light of this.

I do not dispute the facts about the editing patterns of new editors. I am, however, beginning to have second thoughts about the extent to which this has been seen, or been allowed to be seen, as some sort of existential threat.

We say this often enough to mock it as a cliché, but it's no less true for that: This is a project to create an encyclopedia. It is therefore about creating and maintaining quality content above all else. How we continue to grow and adapt as a community can only be considered within the context of that goal.

We should not consider it our goal to attract as many new users as possible. Yet we are on the verge of discussing this and fretting about this to the point that perception will trump reality, that the discourse about this will make any actual underlying facts, their implications or the lack thereof irrelevant. And when you have reached that point, you no longer have a problem but a moral panic or the equivalent.

Or to be a bit more restrained, I note that we presently have no article on the well-known organizational phenomenon of goal displacement (And no, I don't mean this; see here instead). Because it seems to me that without some skepticism at the right time (i.e., now), we're headed in that direction, with the usual deleterious effects likely.

The smaller amount of new accounts that become regular editors is an issue. A concern, perhaps. And certainly not without some relevance to the question of how welcoming we are to new users. But it's not a PROBLEM.

For it has been equally true that while this has happened, the total amount of edits has remained relatively steady as the existing core of editors has increased their activity. I see other indicators that, from an editorial standpoint, the community is doing quite well for itself. I note that we seem to be producing as many featured articles as we generally have, and the proportion of defeaturings to FA promotions has also remained relatively consistent. Likewise more articles have reached GA status in the last couple of years than the years before. The amount of new admin candidacies has declined, but no more than the amount of new long-term editors (IMO) (and maybe that's not such a bad thing, to be honest).

And is the decline in new editors necessarily the result of, or only of, our practices toward new editors and new articles? I suppose it is true that we have become more efficient at sizing up a new editor and assessing their potential than we were in 2005, allowing less time for a vandal to become a serious editor. But I also have to point out that, with five times as many articles as we had back then, perhaps new editors see less places where they can add new information (An interesting metric in this regard would be the amount of new editors in the last few years who have built up their edit counts on pop-culture phenomena that did not exist in 2005 ... episodes of, say, Lost that have aired since then and associated articles. Or newer TV shows that have become very popular, like Modern Family). Maybe we should find out what newer editors are editing and what we can do to encourage more of this, before we go throwing what may or may not be solutions at what may or may not be problems.

We may also have to consider that we have captured most of the user base that has the time and inclination to effectively write and edit open-content online encyclopedia articles in worldwide collaboration. Especially with strict requirements for sourcing and such ... a lot of us too easily forget, I think, that many people don't have pleasant memories of writing papers in school and approach the imperative to footnote their work with the same dread I'd have if I had to factor quadratic polynomials again on a routine basis.

And that such a user community is OK working with a decidedly retro editing interface that lacks WYSIWYG capabilities (believe me, when we solve that problem, we won't be worrying about what we can do to attract new editors. In fact, we'll have the opposite problem. And then, anyone who doesn't remember what that problem was like will be pining for the days when we had discussions like this.) Or true social-networking capabilities (We could stand to learn a few things from Facebook) that could enhance the editing experience. Within a few years web users will expect that sort of thing, and we will need to provide it if we want to get some of them into our community).

So here's to conversations that I think we should be having. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Danger (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Rd232 ^talk 18:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. --JayJasper (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Agree -- As a gnome-ish, for-the-most-part contra-vandal, I see the problem being not so much one of quantity as quality. There seems to be no shortage of people who think it's fun to trash articles. (Even the fictional Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory suggested they "vandalize some Wikipedia pages" for fun.) I'm not at all sure that someone having a millisecond attention span and unwilling to wait less than a week to create articles is the sort of person that will help build a good encyclopedia. But, then again, I could be wrong. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
8. --Jayron32 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Agree with the general tenor. Many excellent points. Settled assumptions part (para 3) overstated; I don't assume that at all. Rivertorch (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

   Good; I'm glad some people are keeping their heads on. That does seem to be the view on some of the mailing lists, though. Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

10. The reason we thought it was a requirement was because if the users follow the suggestions and create their article as a draft in their userspace, they are unable to move it into mainspace until they are autoconfirmed. So the people who follow the suggestions are punished, while those who dump new articles directly in main space are rewarded. Gigs (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    That is a very, very good point. Rd232 ^talk 21:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

11. Not sure I fully agree with everything here. But very well thought out... and more experience than me. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Lara 01:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Very well thought out and expressed. I would wager that if we eliminate from the Wikimedia study all SPAs that create new vanity and spam articles, then the new editor retention rate would rise significantly. The real question should be "how do we retain editors who are serious about writing an encyclopedia?" If anything, this proposal would help those quality new editors see that Wikipedia is serious about writing a quality encyclopedia. First Light (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Brief view from Anetode

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate metaphor which seemingly ignores everything said by proponents of the proposal. Also a "view" which adds nothing to existing ones, and ignores the instruction at the top of the page to avoid unnecessary proliferation of views - so I've moved it here. Rd232 ^talk 19:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved back. It's all right if you disagree with my view, but I would appreciate a respectful treatment of it. Although concise, the metaphor I brought up took some consideration. In order to save people the time of reading multiple paragraphs which would have detailed my reasoning I would much rather offer a thesis. My intention is to get people to consider this statement and comment on whether their conclusions are ultimately similar. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I gave your view rather more respect than it gave the proposal. Rd232 ^talk 19:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. You may have the impression that this view is in some way contemptuous, but that was not my intent. It's honest, if unorthodox. And speaking of unorthodox, please allow me the following parable:

Imagine wikipedia as a vast and empty plot of land where people are allowed to build whatever they want and help each other out. After the first couple of years the plot accumulated a sparse number of shacks and, oddly enough, the foundations for a number of skyscrapers. More people come and join the build as the years go by. Wikipedia is no longer a plot, but a sprawling city. Many fine structures are erected and people who occupy them feel a sense of comfort and achievement (and rightfully so).

Then something bad happens. The people in the nice houses become vary of the litter of small shacks from the continuing influx of builders. Such ghettos are blamed for lowering property values. A fence is put up wherever newcomers attempt to lay even a brick. Now they need a license, a security check and a complete blueprint to populate the wiki-metropolis.

Unsatisfied with the lack of camaraderie and the price barriers instituted by the emergent wiki-government, they leave to create their own suburbs, towns, dens and lairs. The mighty skyscrapers require constant maintenance, but the lack of new talent gradually turns them into a state of disrepair.

So the point is, you don't have to limit new constructions to established "citizens". We need fresh talent, more houses to store new ideas. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And with that metaphor, you can also end up like Rio or São Paulo, with a small elite that does a lot of good for society with a giant morass at the fringes progressively growing larger and degrading the overall appeal of the city. Or you can institute some building codes and prevent that from happening in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Very nice job describing the status quo. Now how does it relate to this proposal? Or did you think you don't need a license, security check and a complete blueprint to prevent your shack from being crushed by a bulldozer right now? Yoenit (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did have that impression. Your extended metaphor deflects that impression, but also fails to take into account that the issue here is not exclusion, but lack of skills. We don't allow just anybody to put up a building in a city anywhere they like, without any assistance or supervision. Even if they're trying to build something desirable, there's a good chance they'll make an almighty mess, and then get upset when they fail and the neighbours angrily point to the flaws. Much better to ask for help beforehand, getting the neighbours' help (see my View on the key assistance issue). The second house they build they'll still struggle, but at least have some degree of clue, plus be clearer about the community's expectations. Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I take exception to your assumption that the issue boils down to a lack of skill. It's premature to gauge skill potential - or lack thereof - from a couple of simple contributions. The issue here is experience. Without the opportunity to engage in article creation at the base anonymous level there's no incentive to pursue editorial experience. And while a few contributions may acclimate a user to wiki markup or layout, they are no substitute for starting of with an idea (new article) to build on. User status (anon/new/old/admin) is a formality where the actual content is concerned, so the definition of a community must be widened to include the entire readership as potential contributors. This is the very premise of a wiki, the nose or eyes or what have you, the principal distinguishing characteristic. If it is encumbered by too many layers of bureaucracy then the growth and development of the project is compromised. Requiring autoconfirmation effectively destroys the first couple of steps to experienced contributorship and isolates the idea of a community to an internal wiki that not just anyone can edit. This is just another case of the neighbours crying NIMBY. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't distinguishing skill from experience here; it's not about "gauging" skill since anyone can attain autoconfirmed status purely off their own back without anyone else getting involved. The issue is that creating new articles (which most new users do not start off doing) is a difficult thing, and 80%+ of them fail. That right there suggests that something is broken and needs fixing for the sake of the newcomers, not for the sake of the existing editors. Insisting that new editors go through a creation route which involves a modicum of assistance if they want to put something live in mainspace in less than 4 days is very very far from putting up barriers. It's repeatedly asserted that only unwanted editors like spammers will be willing to wait 4 days; well what sort of editors refuse to create an article merely because they're required to get some assistance in doing so? Are these editors actually a loss to the project? I would say not. There are both quality and quantity issues about converting readers into editors, where those readers wish to begin by creating an article (most don't), and on both counts, insisting that they get some help so that they don't flat on their face 80% of the time (WP:BITE) ought to be an improvement. Finally, whether this is formally done as a trial or merely kept under review for possible cancellation, we should keep a close eye on the impact. Speculation only gets you so far. Bottom line: the status quo is really crappy [it worked very well when Wikipedia was young, but as of 2011, it's crappy], and we ought to try something different. Rd232 ^talk 23:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You make some very good points and a trial might be a workable idea. Overall though, I think that this proposal runs counter to the model that's made wikipedia a success. 10 years is still pretty young for such an ambitious project. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If we were writing a paper encyclopedia, I would agree. But 10 years on the internet is basically a generation, if not several. 10 years ago, IE6 was the top of line, there was no Firefox, Facebook was still 3 years away from being created, and Google was only about 3 years old. Mr.Z-man 01:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Grrr. Ten years ago, Netscape was top of the line and IE was more like bottom of the barrel ;) Your point is well taken, though; a decade at Wikipedia is an eternity. To Anetode: in general, I like methodical trials and careful analysis of hard data, but I'm not sure that would be workable in this case. If this proposal is enacted and then compelling evidence shows it to be having a deleterious effect on either clueful new editor retention or the creation rate of worthwhile articles, I'd be inclined to support its repeal. Rivertorch (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This pointless discussion should be moved to the talk page. Lara 01:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is pointless. It gave me a better sense of the issues than most of the rest of this page. Kathyfeller (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. It is a natural feature of any mature community to reject growth and move toward solidifying extant positive qualities instead (ie quality not quantity). This is poisonous in the extreme especially when the problem we face is not a lack of quality but a dearth of growth in our userbase. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

   "the problem we face is not a lack of quality but a dearth of growth in our userbase." - um no, clearly the problem is both. The response to this dual problem depends an awful lot on whether, or how, you weight users. Is a zero-experience user who only ever makes one edit worth exactly as much as a 1,000-edit Wikipedian making their 1001st edit? If not, is the relative value (to the quality/size of the encyclopedia) fixed, or changing over time? If it changes with the growth of the encyclopedia in quality and size, in which direction does it change? I think you know the answers many people would give to these questions; and that leads to certain conclusions about how to focus efforts to turn readers into contributors who actually make meaningful contributions. eg the proposal this RFC is about. Rd232 ^talk 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

   No we don't face both. the quality problem is endemic to any venture. Acting as though it is unique to wikipedia requires blinders. Second, if we face a declining editor to reader ratio and an increasing average account age, what in the world do you think this proposal will do to those figures? Improve them? Third, there seems to be this lurking notion that we can somehow quantify the quality of a contributor or that we are willing to build walls to new contributors in order to keep or privilege existing contributors. I invite anyone holding that view to please step back and think about it in context. If you had to bet money could you identify long term users, banned users, admins, FA writers, etc. from their first article (excluding blatant vandalism) or their first edit? Even if you could, what the hell kind of judges are we that we can decide what worked well enough for 10 years on wikipedia suddenly doesn't work now? Wikipedia was created in order to be the fastest means to add or retrieve information about the outside world. The competitive advantage to wikipedia was that it was faster than any other website which you could add information. It had less friction for potential contributors. And we succeeded beyond anyones' dreams. All the people who wanted to do exactly what we are proposing right now left for Citizendium content that they would weather the coming hordes of non-productive contributors (or whatever the euphemism of the day was). Look at them now. 10 years later we face a crisis--not a crisis of quality but a crisis of relevance. Fewer people can edit wikipedia (as more people are connecting to the mobile site), and among those who can fewer do. As those numbers continue to drop we will probably have a few years of inertia where the existing stock of information is still relevant to readers. But after a certain point people will have moved on to some source which allows them to make changes without some elaborate procedure or arcane set of policy pages. If you want to hasten that day, go right ahead, but I'll be damned if I am going to let it come sooner without protest. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Tijfo098

I looked at the data, and unfortunately it's not the right data for the question at hand here. If the new editor's fist edit is kept, the data gathered tells us nothing about whether their first article is kept or not (of if he ever creates one). Also there is no data (in those tables) on articles created by old editors in the same period (kept/deleted or total). The only thing you can answer is:

• Assuming your goal is just to retain new editors and nothing else (no regard for article quality, articles created, or retention of old editors), you're better off preventing new editors from creating articles: 1.33% retention for 1st edit being article creation vs. 2.57% for regular mainspace edit. (I did not consider the non-mainspace action relevant. Do we want more users that focus elsewhere? I also did not calculate the statistical significance of this.)

However, by not allowing the new guys to create article right away, you might not have gotten at least 2,375+ kept articles (and possibly more; they may have created more than one each). Maybe they wold have created them under the new rules, maybe not. There is no way to tell that from the data gathered. We also don't know if the "non-create" editors ever created any articles after their first edit (to compare with the 2,375+), or if their edits were plain reverted, which means they might also have been a net negative. Sadly, based on data gathered, you cannot even answer the question:

• Assuming you want to retain new editors whose first article is kept, are you better off preventing new editors from creating articles?

If you assume that among those new guys only those who created an article on their first edit ever created one (big if), the answer to the above is no (i.e. the proposed measure contradicts the goal of retaining new [minimal] quality contributors), because based on the data gathered the retention rate of editors who created a new article that is kept is above average for the mainspace sample. (4.4% vs. 2.32%) But, unless you have some data on the article creation of non-create-by-first-edit editors, you can't really answer the big if part. I doubt anyone followed this, but hey, everyone has an opinion, informed or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Blackwidowhex

As a new user, I see contentious points are points of pressure on Wikipedia. It's what drives the new Wikipedia users to contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia should make it mandatory that new wikipedia users be warned that their first articles will be deleted and be advised how to create articles that are not contentious, before the new user makes an article. Blackwidowhex (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• It is not a given that an editor's first article will be deleted. There are many of us who created a first article after having made a few edits over a few days, without the article being deleted. I believe that making new editors wait a few days and make a few edits before they can create an article will increase the chances that the first article they create will survive. I also believe that the potential editors who are not willing to make a few edits and wait a few days before they can create their first article are not likely to turn into productive long-term contributors to Wikipedia. Of course, we need to do more to help new editors. There are many ways to do that. Helping new editors does not diminish the benefits of adopting this proposal, however. I would also note that the problem is not "contentious articles". Editors may be contentious; articles are not. It is unsourced (and often unsourceable) articles about non-notable subjects that are the problem. -- Donald Albury 21:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It is though a probability that a new editor's first article will be deleted, according to what figures are available. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• We try to give new users advice. The problem is, creating a new article is just really hard. If we give people all the advice they need, no one will read it because it would be too long. However, the skills needed to create a new article do not have to be taught. The point of this proposal (as I see it) is to have new users learn from experience, rather than the community continue trying (and failing) to teach by passive advising. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so this is a rewrite for my flawed view. It's a definite phenomenon that people prefer getting it done to taking the time and get it done right. I would think that most people do not need to be introduced to the idea of citations. I would think it's a standard practice with today's education. The Article Request log is also backed up. So new users perhaps are overwhelmed if few Wikipedia articles come to mind that they like to edit. Here are two possible modifications to make: Wikipedia could detect if a new user adds an article without references and then stop the article from being created. And have the create new article pages written with "may be deleted" big and bold. Blackwidowhex (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Barts1a

I personally think that this proposal is a good idea. It will allow users to learn the basics by editing existing articles rather than learning only how to get a slap on the wrist for creating a non-notable article. Good faith but incorrect edits are much easier to correct and point the user in the right direction with than good faith but non-notable articles. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and support asking new page creators to register Tim bates (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That is already required. You seem to misunderstand the proposal here. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:NatGertler

I agree with those who say that this would set an unnecessary bar. However, I think in addressing this situation, we should be looking for ways of being less discouraging through our new page deletion, and be careful of doing anything that makes proper page patroling too difficult (as a frequent deleter, I can tell you that one of the reasons I do NPP is that it's simple; when I have a minute or two I can look at a few new pages, and with Twinkle I'm a click or two away from calling for deletion of things that qualify for deletion; if I had to engage in a conversation to justify each one to its author, I wouldn't be doing much patrolling.) If possible, I would like to see most categories of deletion not actually delete but rather userfy the page by default. I'd like to have Twinkle leave a message saying "Your page has been removed from the Wikipedia listing because we require articles about organizations to say why that organization is notable, and yours doesn't. However, your article is still right here (LINK TO USERSPACE COPY), and we encourage you to improve the article and resubmit it by such-and-such a process. Here (LINK) is a guide to the sort of content that suggests notability of an organization. And if you need any help or have any questions here (LINK) is my talk page." Make it seem less like we're rejecting their work outright, and that the time they spent creating the article is down the tubes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with NatGertler's idea. It may be that new users creating a new article not yet up to scratch would appreciate the kindness of a twinkle-generated anonymous loss, while still having the ability to continue work on their contribution until it's at an acceptable point for inclusion. There should be, in that case, an algorithm that counts their twinkle rejects so they get no more than 2 or 3 before an actual person reaches out to them with some helpful words. Sctechlaw (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Good Idea Jane (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
2. I like the idea about shoving the new poorly written article over to their userspace. It saves any work they have done and allows them to fix it to the standard. As it stands the vandal tools we use can sometimes be pretty harsh and I wish I had more options. Golgofrinchian (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:dankarl

Oppose. There are users who would rather jump in and create a new article and they may be the better informed users with writing and research experience in other venues; although they would be well advised to start offline or in user space, this concern is more a matter of mechanics than of content. If you have researched your topic and know the basic rules of notability you should be able to produce a decent start that will stand scrutiny.

Putting in something that amounts to advance peer review is contrary to WP:Bold and imo would encourage blandness.

That said, there will be new users who do not know the rules. I really like User:NatGertler's suggestion in the post above. I also think patrollers should back off a little bit and wait til a new page has not been edited for an hour or so before doing anything, to avoid both the impression of a slapdown and possible edit conflicts. Dankarl (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've said this before, and I'll say it again; that solution will lead to an enormous increase in spam. A huge percentage of speedy deletions are G11s, and if we delay deleting those we'll have even more businesses dumping advertisements on us to improve their search engine rankings. Not to mention that with just about all of these pages (see the talkpage for an example I gave), the chance of them becoming a decent article is mathematically zero. Userfication can work in some instances, and I too would like a better process for that, but we can't default to that; there'd be too much garbage floating around in userspace if we just userfied everything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:History2007

I see this as part of a larger trend. The "total freedom paradigm" in Wikipedia is gradually fading out - ever so slowly. And I see that as necessary, given that as the "value of the content" in Wikipedia increases, more protection will be needed. As the number of Wiki-pages increases, so should protection. Given that I am tired of reverting vandals (and the ever increasing number of skillful spammers) in general, I support this as another step along the path of the end to the "total freedom paradigm". Along that path we will encounter the 5 stages of the Kübler-Ross model of accepting the inevitable: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. At the moment a large portion of the Wikipedia community is in the first stage: Denial of the end to the total freedom paradigm. The other stages will gradually follow. Then in a few years, Acceptance will eventually arrive. History2007 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Other models notwithstanding, I more or less agree. Rivertorch (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I wouldn't have brought Kübler-Ross into the discussion but I fully agree with your views. If WP doesn't protect itself better most of it will gradually become a very unreliable and badly written heap of trivia. If it isn't already. Every single forum on the internet, from airplane model builders to the zoo cleaners association, is better protected than this. FCTS 142 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Nothing gold can stay. It has occurred to me that, as a supplement to my view above, that there is a certain amount of misguided nostalgia behind this. Was Wikipedia really ever more welcoming than it is today? (Take note of when WP:BITE was first written, after all). And even if we somehow reverted ourselves, the world around Wikipedia has changed since 2005. And there's no reverting that. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

View from 75.57.242.120 (talk)

WTF? You mean autoconfirmation isn't already required to create new articles? I thought it had always been that way (ever since IP's became unable to create articles) and I just got done proposing elsewhere that only reviewers should be able to create articles. The same should go for image uploads. Something like 80% of new articles are speedied, new users are constantly templated to death by bots for NFCC problems, and the inhumanity of it all is appalling. That tells us two things: 1) inexperienced users who think they have a suitable topic for a new article are usually wrong, and 2) inexperienced users interested in creating new articles are really better off with some guidance and handholding from an experienced user.

I actually think the above (making article creation and file upload require an advanced permission) is a pro-freedom proposal, since it puts IP's back at the level of autoconfirmed users (autoconfirmation itself was very controversial when it first arrived, I've heard). I used to be annoyed when that parity was taken away, but after submitting a few new articles through WP:AFC and seeing what crap arrives there, it became clear that shutting off completely unfiltered article creation was unavoidable. But, I think the stuff coming from brand-new accounts isn't much better than stuff arriving from the "fire hose". So adding more filtering wins in all ways: improves WP content, decreases newbie biting, and gets closer to the founding principles vision that editors without accounts still have something close to full privileges. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

View by User:Halo

Polls are evil. This will effect a large amount of users negatively, yet the only people contributing are self-selected hardcore editors of Wikipedia who will have their own biases.

The slow erosion of freedom, the ridiculous bureaucracy, and complete inaccessibility of Wikipedia process are why I don't contribute anymore and why editors are constantly dwindling.

I think this trend should be reversed. IP article creation should be turned on, autoconfirmation and rollback flags scrapped, the abolishion of the chronically abused semi-protection, and a promise that flagged revisions will never be implemented. -Halo (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I admire the firmness of your belief, I feel that in this case it is incompatible with the available evidence: The quality of new articles created by first-time editors; the NPP statistics; the user retention rates; the torrent of speedies; and so on. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

View by User:Chzz

I fully support the proposal. I will quote verbatim from what I wrote in Signpost 14 Feb;

As Wikipedia matures, we shift focus from "quantity" to "quality". This makes it harder for new users to join in. It is no longer a reasonable expectation for any truly new user to write a new article, from scratch, and for it to conform to basic policy and guidelines without help. I'm sure that less than 1 in 250^* first articles are - without considerable help to develop them - really, genuinely meaningful additions to the project. It is no longer a matter of mere competence; learning to edit takes effort.    ^*The figure is a very rough estimate; we desperately need to analyse this information.

A few people will learn things for themselves, but largely these are from the type we already have in abundance. The system lends itself to attracting the younger, more technical adept, mostly male, mostly American editors. To widen the demographic, it is essential we make the whole system more friendly and accessible.

There is a disparity with the way new users are treated if they make a live article, as opposed to if they use AFC. Most (truly) new editors creating a live article get a CSD-tag, and/or other template warnings. In AFC, they (mostly) get informed help. I think that creation of new articles needs general reform - and I'm sure it will happen, one day. The system is nasty, to new users - and really, that is why we don't get retention of new editors, and why the editorial mass becomes more and more of an entrenched community.

However, it is not a mere volume of new blood we need, it is quality editors. AFC is most frequently used for Conflict of Interest, so we may be focusing resources on the wrong people. Most new editors are not here to edit an encyclopaedia, they are here to have their article up.

We're approaching the stage where anything with good coverage in RS is already on Wikipedia, particularly for Western culture. We're not lacking in articles on e.g. (ex-) Kings, a (non-trivial) USA town, or some invention (that is known to a few thousand). So naturally, most new articles are either junk, (few) genuine new discoveries or - and this is the big one increasing - conflict of interest cases. At least, this applies to Western culture topics; the drive for new editors from other places can shift that, but raises other issues, as they often need considerable help with the language itself, and there are the difficulties in sourcing information in other languages.

The ratio of helpees to helpers is shrinking.

I think we will require a 'quarantine' for all new articles, similar to AFC, changing auto-confirmed requirements to e.g. 100 edits / 1 month, and thus force all new users to create articles in a 'holding pen', with a checking process. This would inevitably create AFC-type backlogs, but would considerably reduce new page patrol, speedy deletions, proposed deletions, requests to userfy, and annoyed new users, shouts for help, people blocked, and so forth. So instead of productive new users getting horrible nasty CSD template warnings, they'd get helpful advice - "Sorry, can't accept that because of x, y, z - if you can address those concerns though, sure, it'll be fine - ask again".

New users are the lifeblood of the project; we need to treat them much better.

I'll also repeat what I wrote on the AFC talk page a year ago;

As I understand it, back in 2005, Mr. Wales decided to stop non-registered users from creating articles (signpost article here). This was to prevent vandalism. AFC provides an alternative way for non-registered users to create pages, with various assistance and checks that the articles meet standards.

I am all in favour of keeping Wikipedia as open as possible. The questions is - which is it? Can non-registered users create articles, or not? If the community believes that they should be able to, that's fine - we can just enable it again (though whether we could cope with the vandalism is another matter). If not, then should we really be 'bending over backwards' to allow them to create pages via AFC?

OK, so we are helping them to format articles and make them pass the notability criteria, etc, but, why should they receive this special treatment, which is not afforded to people who do create an account - often the latter create a poor article which is speedy deleted, and we hope that we have processes in place to help them. In reality, those processes are poor - but that seems to indicate a general fault, and not a reason for an alternative system to create things via a 'back-door'.

There seems to be rather an overlap, and perhaps excess bureaucracy, by us having requested articles, articles for creation, and the ability to create user-space drafts.

Perhaps we are shooting ourselves in the foot here, by going to all these efforts to fix problems in this way. Perhaps we ought to say 'get an account' and that's the end of it. Surely users who do get an account should receive helpful advice and assistance with their first article - perhaps moreso than those who do not take this step.

I notice that, currently, the messages that a non-registered user will see if they try to create a page are not exactly user-friendly. If they type in a non-existent article name, it goes like this;

1. "There were no results matching the query", "You may create the page "(NAME)", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered."

(There may or may not actually be any results)

Note, this is a bit wrong already - the anon may not' create it.

2. Clicking on the red link produces; Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

• Start the (NAME) article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it.
• Search for "(NAME)" in existing articles.
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

3. Clicking on the 'Start' link then produces a page entitled 'Unauthorized', which says;

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact title. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

• Log in or create an account to start the (NAME) article. (which links to special:login)
• Submit the content that you wish to have created. (which links to AFC)
• Search for "(NAME)" in existing articles.

There are quite a few problems there, and it's certainly not a very 'friendly' start.

Surely, if a non-registered user tries to create an article, they should be seeing some nice, friendly message - suggesting that they sign up, offering alternatives, and certainly highlighting the basic need for reliable sources.

...and that is why this proposal makes sense - to provide a friendly, uniform interface to new users wishing to contribute.

 Chzz  ►  17:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who support this view

• You said it exactly right: As Wikipedia matures, we shift focus from "quantity" to "quality". The policies that drive an organization as a startup have to change as the organization grows. Successful organizations change policy as the world changes, and as they change. History2007 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Despite my sneaking suspicion—or just a wild hope—that there are lots more worthwhile, sourceable topics to write articles about, this is all very sensible. Rivertorch (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

   Oh, I'm absolutely sure that there are, Rivertorch. Especially as we widen our horizons (India, etc.) - but the best chance to assist those users is, to provide them with support from day 1. If we didn't have to worry so much about all the utter crap articles that are created every few minutes, we'd have more time to help 'em. And even the quality-standard required of brand-new articles has increased dramatically over the years.  Chzz  ►  20:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

2. To the extent there are folks in India (or elsewhere) who'd like to write for Wikipedia, it's far more important for them to do it in their own languages than English. En.wp has 3.5M articles and Tamil WP has about 30k, less than 1/100th as many. We're trying to give everyone in the world an encyclopedia in their own language, so in some sense a new Tamil-language article is worth 100x as much to the project as a new English article. I'm stuck here because English is the only language I can write, but someone who can write other languages is far more useful on the smaller wikipedias. Sure there will always be more things to write about, but we can make do with 3.5M for a while. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:BeenChanged

I think that creating a page is a far bigger commitment than editing one. Anyone can be on Wikipedia, find a mistake in an article they can fix, and fix it properly and quickly. Creating an article takes time and commitment. Time and commitment from a user would indicate that they would like to be a Wikipedia "user", therefore they most likely already have an account. Anyone can have an account, and you literally don't have to put anything on your userpage. Therefore, I believe only those who are willing to make a simple userpage and account should be trusted to make quality Wikipedia articles. BeenChanged (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what making a userpage has to do with it. There are veteran editors who apparently have never made userpages (not to mention the ones whose userpages just redirect to their talk pages). Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it either. Userpages are not required to create articles. Some choose to have them and some don't. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:30 am, Today (UTC+2)

"Creating an article takes time and commitment" - Creating a passable article takes time. The underlying problem behind this whole RFC is that the vast majority (75+%) of articles created by new users are so seriously deficient in some way that we speedy delete them. Mr.Z-man 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UT

Speedy deleting an article discourages new users from participating in the basic functions of Wikipedia. Sure not all articles will be kept. But we have to look at each article on an article by article basis to see if there is merit on keeping them. Any form of deletion is discouraging. So telling new users what they can do to improve the next article they create or how to improve the current article, than we would retain new users instead losing them because of deletions and not bother to work to coach them or work on the article. Most times I see people who tag for speedy deletion don't bother to see if the article can be improved to standards that meet the criteria for it being kept. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does discourage them, we already know that. Unfortunately, most of the articles deleted are entirely unsalvageable. They are articles about non-notable garage bands, things made up in school, amateur sports teams, videos on Youtube, etc. There are some problems that simply cannot be fixed by more editing. Even passing the criteria for speedy deletion doesn't mean it will be kept, it just means it won't be deleted immediately. Coaching would be great. Unfortunately, there are so many new users (tens of thousands per month) and new articles (several hundred deleted every day) and so few people patrolling new pages/working AFC (probably less than 50), its just not a realistic option. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion about making a userpage is simply a way for a new user to show that they are serious about contributing. Looking back on that, I didn't choose my words well. However, I do agree with Fishhead2100 that deletion, especially speedy deletion is discouraging. At the same time, speedy deletion is usually reserved for articles that have no real worth to Wikipedia, and discouraging users from making more articles of the that type can be useful. If you are taking the time to make an article that is good enough not to be deleted, you probably are smart enough to realize the difference between what was speedily deleted and the good article you are making. BeenChanged (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think one viewpoint expressed in this discussion is that creating new articles should no longer be considered a "basic function of Wikipedia". We have plenty of articles, most of which need a lot of improvement. While there's occasionally reason to create a new article, that should now be considered an advanced function rather than a basic one, as opposed to improving the existing articles. I wouldn't let anyone create new articles until they'd made a reasonable number of sourced contributions to existing articles. (They could still propose new articles through AFC or something similar). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Fishhead2100

From some of the views I've read, I haven't seen this issue addressed. Couldn't the number of days and edits be upped? Maybe to sevens and 15 or 20 edits with them being reviewed. Some people might do unconstructive edits to get the required amount of edits. I know monitoring new members might be hard to do, but I am sure there is portion of the new members who will make unconstructive edits and wait the four days to get autoconfirmed status so they can create articles that are POV (easy to fix), PROMOTE something, or create a vanity article which is on themself. A well intentioned editor wouldn't do that. But how are we to know if they are well intentioned? We need to find a way to monitor new editors. Since there is a user creation log, we could use that our advantage to monitor the creation of new accounts. But how we would monitor them is another challege unto itself. But this would make sure we are getting well intentioned editors and community members. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:30 am, Today (UTC+2)

Users who endorse this view

1. Yes. This needs to be explored. Rivertorch (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Yes - I did mention in View from User:chzz, above, about "e.g. 100 edits / 1 month".  Chzz  ►  01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
3. --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Dream Focus

How many articles are currently created by new editors? How many of them remain? Any way to actually find that out? I only edited by IP address when I first got here, not bothering to register a name until I wanted to start an article.

Solution: Just have it where when someone makes an article it says "if you want to make an article, you must include two references in it(click that thing that looks like an open book, and fill in a reliable source for something in the article)". Check to make sure they did that when they try to post it, and refuse to let them if no references are found. There, problem solved. Dream Focus 12:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

An overly simplistic view, no doubt motivated by your blinding case of rabid inclusionism. Here are the stats you're looking for. In the February 2010 study, 168 articles that were created by new users escaped deletion. The other 12,432 were deleted, at a considerable expense to the time of new page patrollers as well as those who monitor AfD's (i.e. experienced contributors). Your solution assumes that there is a practical, automated way of ensuring that a reference someone submits is valid and from a reliable source. Any half-witted new user would surely figure out that they could just put in "asdjfaofijwenrakwnfoasij" for the reference and get their article created. —SW— ^chat 13:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Those whose articles are deleted almost always have zero references in them. Done by people who make simple mistakes. I've patrolled new pages before and seen this time and again. By simply stopping them and saying they have to have a couple of refs in there, you will eliminate most of the problems. If someone adds in fake references, it'll be a small minority, and they'll be much easier to go through without all the rest there. New users aren't usually trying to put something they know won't belong here. Its just honest mistakes. Assume good faith. Dream Focus 01:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Brilliant solution! With just the right verbiage explaining why, this could solve many many problems and help to retain editors as well.
2. Excellent concrete solution. We can have the edit notice offer editors a '2 min quick start' guide to referencing in case they lack the patience for the article wizard. Dream's proposal wont frustrate newbies by making them wait and unlike interventionist solutions it doesn't reply on a large pool of good willed editors with the time to help new users. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Jamietw

I believe that most of the articles I flag as a New Page Patroller are by New Users who are not using the Article Wizard - however, sometimes articles written by new users can by really good, therefore I believe that we should force all users who are not confirmed or auto-confirmed to use the article wizard or articles for creation therefore new users can still create articles but if they use the article wizard then they are guided and thus more likely to write a better article. Jamietw (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

View from User:Arghyadeepd

Okay! I too agree with the motion. But what about the articles which is totally relied upon personal experiences? Means, there are certain articles and certain topics in which you can't cite any references. They are very common among new users. And by many people they are considered to be vandalism and thus removed. Arghyadeepd (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If no refs at all can be cited, such articles shouldn't exist. They're not vandalism, though. I have off-wiki drafts of several articles that need better sourcing before I'm willing to bring them online. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have myself seen an article to be made in front of my eyes and that too by a new user in a wikipedia seminar about a small town which eventually grew to be a full fledged article (Nirjuli). So should it be barred only because proper citation couldn't be placed?--Arghyadeepd (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. The standard is verifiability, and for non-BLP topics and non-contentious topics proper sourcing can be added over time. You said, "there are certain articles and certain topics in which you can't cite any references [my emphasis], and that was what I was replying to. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:A p3rson

I think that this would be a good idea, with limiting creation of new articles to auto-confirmed users. However, I have some of my own thoughts:

Give the user a choice for what they want to do when creating a new article. Either they:

• Use the Article Wizard, and they put their information that way, or,
• Give them the option to user-fy their new page, and once it is done, let them ask for it to be moved (also exposes them to Wikipedia's discussions). This would probably be used less, as most articles take more than 4 days to complete, especially for newcomers.

Maybe this has already been proposed (TL;DR), but I think this is the most practical (and easiest to engineer) option.  A p3rson ‽ 23:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:BarkingFish

NB this view was moved after being misplaced in the implementation-focussed Trial discussion section. Rd232 ^talk 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no way should this be put into effect. It does not benefit the project as a whole, and it does breach the spirit of the site. Saying "yes you can edit, but you can't make an article for 5 days" is like saying "we don't mind what else you do, but you ain't making something till we're sure we can trust you." This is absolutely wrong and you will drive a whole lot of new editors away if you implement this. Shelve it and get on with writing articles instead of working out how to stop people from doing so.

Fish^Barking? 22:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So experienced editors should be writing articles? Well it's too bad they have to spend so much of their time undoing changes by unverified users then, a high percentage of which are deliberate attempts at defacement and misinformation. And if an admin blocks that user, no problem - they can just set up another account and do the exact same thing! If new editors spend the first 4 days editing they won't even notice this change. There are freedoms to be protected here, but you're trying to protect the wrong ones. RedactionalOne (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Are NPP folks who would otherwise be writing new articles? I'm an NPPer, and I know I'm not. I've probably written one new article per year, and they're stubby things to boot, and I've never skipped doing one because I was busy doing NPP. I doubt many people start editing Wikipedia articles Because They Want To Be An Editor; they do it because they see something that needs fixing, or something that isn't covered and should be, and if we stifle that instinct and tell them that they have to go edit things they didn't particularly want to before they're allowed to do what they do want to, we're apt to start generating fewer "experienced editors" to do anything. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nat :) My point in a nutshell. The problem as I've been told is that we're gonna let people write articles through AFC, but not directly. Which is going to lead to experienced editors cleaning up the mass of AFC's put in the wrong place, the backlog of AFC's which will be generated by this "experiment", and all the general crap that comes with templates on the wrong pages, people sending absolute garbage to AFC, etc... We'll just create a shitload more work than we already have by doing this. Fish^Barking? 23:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please lend me some of your TRUTH^TM, you seem to have plenty of it. Yoenit (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My "TRUTH" as you put it, is that this whole idea is an utter abomination, and should be burned with fire. We're trying to encourage people to contribute, and this is not the way to do it. Fish^Barking? 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

BarkingFish, you were telling editors that they should be writing articles instead of engaging in a debate you don't support - not cool, btw. NatGertler was not supporting your assertion because she was discussing people seeing things in articles that aren't right and trying to fix them - which is editing. "...should be burned with fire" is an aggressive statement and not a very Wikipedian form of conduct.

NatGertler, I agree that many experienced editors would have set out with that as their motivation, and I don't think anyone here is trying to stifle that. The bar for becoming a Wikipedian is incredibly low, and users can edit - even extensively - without having cleared it. In fact, so extensive are a new user's editing rights on day 1 that an admin block is all but useless. If we are careful to be welcoming and positive in our wording to new users we can foster that motivation, by letting them know that they will be able to create articles in just a few days, and encouraging, for instance, sandbox experimentation in the meantime. (We already do this, and we do not emphasise to non-confirmed users that they can create articles.) If a signup isn't willing to wait just 4 days to create their first article that doesn't bode well for their attitude and value as a Wikipedian.

RedactionalOne (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from N419BH

As a regular participant in WP:NPP and a participant in WP:AFC when the backup gets big, I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Any New Page Patroller knows that the the vast majority of new articles are speedied, and most of the rest require tons of cleanup. Requiring new accounts to use AFC will ensure new editors get the help and support that the welcome template just doesn't provide. There is good content out there, and AFC does lead to good articles being written. Some are even written by account holders already. I think requiring AFC to be used will actually encourage new editors; the process of writing an article from scratch with wiki-markup is exceedingly daunting, and knowing there are people there to help will be a big plus to new editors and encourage content creation.

I'd actually be a fan of turning the "Autopatrolled" flag into an "article creator" flag. AKA we would require everyone to use AFC until one shows the ability to create content within the guidelines, in particular WP:N. Two or three articles would be sufficient to show this, but that's another proposal for another day.

With that said, the AFC process, while workable, can be somewhat clumsy to use from a reviewer standpoint (I have not tried it from a content creation standpoint). There are automated tools which can help, but it gets clumsy particularly when an article is submitted multiple times. Definite improvements can be made. Nevertheless, it works reasonably well, and can handle more traffic than it currently receives from both a content and reviewing viewpoint.

If this were implemented I think a lot of NPP people would migrate over to AFC and continue doing mostly identical work there. Really we have two choices: Implement this now and then improve AFC, or implement this later and improve AFC now. Either proposal works for me. I would strongly oppose a trial period as we all know how the last one of those went. Lots of drama and no consensus. We either need to do it, put it on hold and then do it, or we need to not do it. Doing a "trial" is just going to muddy the waters.

In short, this is going to improve the wiki, make a smaller backup at NPP, and make a larger one at AFC. AFC will give new accounts the help and support they need. Improvements to AFC can be made, but the system as is can handle a massive increase in activity provided more article reviewers step up, which I think they will. Just look at how many people stepped up for Reviewer when PC was trialled. Applying the lesson from PC, a trial will be counterproductive. Therefore, I strongly support requiring Autopatrolled rights in order to create a new article without AFC. N419BH 01:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I've put a few articles through AFC. It's tolerable but it should probably be reworked, or (it occurs to me) maybe even eliminated. It's always possible to write a new article in userspace and then ask a regular editor to check it and put it in articlespace. We should stop pursuing new articles in general. New editors should be encouraged instead to contribute to existing articles, and to join wikiprojects of areas that interest them. All wikiproject should develop some culture and process for editors wanting to write new articles, i.e. you'd write in userspace and then put a link on a wikiproject noticeboard. Preferably before the person even start writings, they'd get a few other editors' views on whether their article idea sounded worthwhile and if they had suitable RS to write from. I like the idea of autopatrolled as a "new article creator" flag. I had elsewhere proposed using Reviewer for that. There should also be a flag for file uploader, which is given only after a brief conversation/quiz to check that the person understood NFCC policy. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Dcoetzee

When discussing article creation, I often make a comparison to TV Tropes wiki, which has a very successful article creation forum called YKTTW (You Know That Thing Where). Although it is not strictly mandatory to use it, something like 95% of new tropes are created through YKTTW. The large majority of suggested tropes simply fall away either for lack of interest, or because someone discovered it was redundant, or because there was consensus it was not considered a useful trope. Even of tropes I've proposed, probably less than 30% ever got launched, and I'm not a newbie there. Sometimes experienced editors will comb the very old YKTTW posts for good looking tropes and revive them and clean them up - similarly, someone could comb through old AFCs and rescue the ones that look especially promising. We could learn a lot from this model.

And this model is not unlike AFC here at Wikipedia: just as a proposed trope can sit indefinitely on YKTTW, a rejected new article proposal can sit indefinitely on AFC without fear of contaminating the project, and an author can continue to learn from their experience of working on proposed new articles, whether or not they are ever launched. For a newbie, it hurts far less at an emotional level to see your rejected work face constructive criticism and then fade into obscurity than to see it summarily eliminated while still fresh. Everything we can do to encourage new editors to use this process will benefit them and benefit us, in the short and the long run. Fears of a backlog are unfounded for the same reason they are unfounded on TV Tropes: because the backlog itself represents the long tail of rejected and forgotten proposed articles. When your proposed articles are hanging out in user space, there is no real need to decide the ultimate fate of every last one of them. Dcoetzee 09:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Shipsview

Have I got this wrong?
Is it being proposed that we should encourage, no force, new users to make changes to existing articles as a means of testing their Wikipedia writing ability? How does the garage band publicist (to take an example from above) choose which article to edit? Should they work on The Beatles? Elvis Presley? Would you be happy for them to work on one of your articles just for the sake of it?

Whilst they spoil the appearance of many pages already, maybe a banner saying 'This article was produced by a new user' might be a way of going forward? Shipsview (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Guy Macon

While I support the basic idea of requiring autoconfirmed status the use of a wizard in order to create articles, I strongly oppose any proposal for a "trial" until I recieve some sort of assurance that the trial will not be extended indefinitely against clear consensus, as is currently happening with the pending changes "trail." See Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 for details.

View from User:Peter coxhead

I'm not convinced that we yet understand the potential impact of such a change. Statistical analysis of the data at User:Mr.Z-man/newusers (see User_talk:Mr.Z-man/newusers#Statistical_analysis) shows that being allowed to create new articles does have a small effect on staying on, but is far, far outweighed by the negative effects of first edit(s) being deleted. However, we don't know enough about why these edits are deleted. We may be putting off editors who shouldn't be here – because their only interest is to advertise or push some POV. We may be putting off editors who simply don't know enough about Wikipedia's policies and practices – in which case perhaps mentoring will help. So at present I'm against the change. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Steelpillow

There is a real danger here of using bureaucracy to override individual energy. Many of the best Wikipedia features subliminally leverage the user's attitude to advantage. We must not lose sight of that. (Ancient Oriental political and military philosophy makes some interesting parallels). If we do anything it should be incremental. One might begin by say watermarking suspect articles, and allowing only autoconfirmed users to remove the watermark. Would the watermark demotivate vandals? There's only one way to find out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

View from a Canadian

My honest answer? No, we should not limit article creation only to those who earn the AutoConfirmed status. My simple reason: Jackie Evancho. Yes, before August 2010 it probably should have been deleted because there was not sufficient notability for Wikipedia. Now, she is the youngest debut artist ever in the Billboard Top 10 and the biggest debut of the year for all of 2010 for O Holy Night. The creator of the biographical article created the page in her userspace and moved it into the article space, where it got a haircut. Since AGT 2010 however, it's quintupled its original size and then some. If the article wasn't there when I found it right after the show, I would have watched its creation for sure, but this user submitted something that is going to get a lot of clicks for the next few years. I'm currently keeping an editorial eye on the page and am in the process of cleanup across articles as some information appears to be duplicated across the articles. CycloneGU (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember, the current proposal would allow non-autoconfirmed users to create drafts of new content in userspace and then request the content be moved to mainspace. So a scenario like you the one you described could still take place under the new proposal as well.--JayJasper (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't undertand the point of this Jackie Evancho story. Somebody wrote an article that might not have appeared for a few more weeks otherwise? WP:NOTNEWS, the delay doesn't matter. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

view from User:purplepox01

Agreed. That would be a good tool as considering the recent articles that appears to be based on crap. jeez... But honestly, if and when this is implemented, we should be able to see vandalism drop sharply.

users who endorse this view

That's right. Ianlopez12 (user talk:Ianlopez12|talk]]) —Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

View from Quintucket

I had a lot to say, but I realized most of it was just a complaint about how picky Wikipedia's new article standards are, even for non-controversial topics. I know from experience that it's a lot easier to start a stub and watch people edit it, or edit a stub, or both than it is to make a decent article in one go. I stopped regularly participating in Wikipedia once my stubs started getting deleted because I was using that strategy.

My other point: I haven't used this account for five years, editing anonymously for most of that time when the mood struck me, after Wikipedia required new users to go through AFC, I simply stopped trying to create articles. It would have been easier to retrieve the password to my old account, and damned if I was going to do even that. --Quintucket (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Crisco 1492

Support proposal. Naturally, we must remember that Wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and therefore limiting anonymous and new users' permissions too much will make us stray from that mission. However, I must note that anyone could still edit articles, they just can't all create articles on their own. Semantically, we'd still be true to our mission. As for the reasoning behind this proposal, I firmly agree that something needs to be done to reduce the workload of our serious editors and admins. There is a backlog a mile long for stuff like articles that are too technical or written like essays. It would improve the quality of the encyclopedia enormously if editors could focus on that instad of hundreds of new articles that violate policy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:AGiorgio08

Semi-support: I do believe that some sort of action should be required to help the workload; but I feel that making users wait for autoconfirmed status is too much. I feel that this should tie in with the new Reviewer permission. For example, allow users to create a Sandbox to try their article, and then if their satisfied with it, they can request a reviewer (or other experience editor) to put it into the main Wiki. AGiorgio08 ^talk 00:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See the Userspace Draft option in my View. I'm not sure why Reviewer needs to come into it. Rd232 ^talk 01:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative views

Collaborative views are unsigned, and may be edited by anyone attempting to improve the case the view makes. (Views are edited on a subpage and transcluded here, and appear as red links if not started yet.)

In favour of proposal

Edit this view

Notes:

1. Implementing the proposal would result in non-auto-confirmed editors being unable to create articles without assistance. Assisted creation options would include the Articles for Creation system, the Article Wizard (an exemption can be engineered for non-autoconfirmed editors using it) and the use of userspace drafts in combination with a request to move the draft to mainspace.
2. Users become autoconfirmed automatically after 10 edits and 4 days; after this, they can create articles without any assistance as at present.
3. Most new editors do not start off by creating articles. Most now start off by editing existing articles, so this only affects a minority (approximately 1/4).
4. The proposal applies only to restrictions on creating articles (that is, pages in mainspace).
5. Non-auto-confirmed users currently cannot move userspace drafts to mainspace themselves. This puts users more conscientiously putting in the work to do a draft (for example, using the option in the Article Wizard) at a disadvantage compared to those who dive straight into mainspace.
6. As the number of articles grows (6,919,526 and counting), the number of editors needed to reasonably manage and maintain those articles grows. This means that increasingly less emphasis needs to be placed on attracting editors who merely wish to create a low quality article and then leave, and more on those who are willing to become longer-term contributors interested in maintaining and improving existing articles. That means finding ways to allow the existing community to better support newcomers along the learning curve of contributing.

Advantages of proposal: primary

1. Better new user experience in creating articles, as they will have a much clearer expectation of community standards, either from experience gathered, or from positive feedback from the community. (The status quo emphasises negative "You're doing it wrong!" feedback to new article creation, via rapid deletion and/or problem tagging.)
2. Encouraging change in Wikipedian culture to emphasise supporting and educating newcomers, rather than seeing them as creators of problems to be dealt with.
3. Recruiting and retaining editors is critical, but not just any editors. Greater focus on converting readers into longer-term contributors, by giving them support and making them feel welcomed by the community. This may mean a reduction in the number of new accounts, if some editors are put off, but if more are converted into long-term experienced contributors, that is well worth the loss of some (even many) toe-dippers/spammers/self-promoters/jokers.
4. By recruiting and retaining more editors who become experienced Wikipedians, we are more likely to expand the coverage of Wikipedia in the areas it has real gaps. Clearing up after jokers and self-promoters who have no further interest in the encyclopedia detracts from identifying and really supporting those who might help Counter Systemic Bias.

Advantages: secondary

1. Reduced workload at WP:NPP and WP:CSD, freeing up editor time for other things - notably the increased workload at WP:AFC which would result.
2. Fewer junk articles (WP:BLP violations, spam, etc) picked up immediately by Google etc. (Google is very quick to index new Wikipedia articles, much slower to delist after deletion, and may provided cached versions some time after deletion on Wikipedia.) There are other ways to solve this, but we've never managed to agree on one, and this proposal would have a substantial effect in this area.

Responses to points made elsewhere

1. "many new editors create articles for the immediate thrill of doing so" (View of Ironholds) - it is questionable whether it's "many" or whether such thrill-seekers are really the sort of editors we can reasonably hope to turn into long-term contributors. It can equally be argued that the key emotion is "yes, I CAN create a new article - Wikipedia is open to me". With the vast majority of new articles being deleted, that emotion can be fostered rather better via the assistance mechanisms mentioned (eg AFC).
2. "AFC does not provide immediacy" - the Article Wizard assistance option does.
3. "Both AFC and Article Wizard may be offputting" - the userspace draft assistance option is there as an alternative
4. "People won't know about these assistance options anyway." - we should make MediaWiki:Nocreatetext ("you can't create this article" message) more like MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext ("you can't edit this article" message), pointing to relevant options.
5. "This change will make it more difficult for college students to create new articles as part of class assignments." - most assignments involve students doing some editing first. In any case, the assistance options (including the minimal assistance option of userspace draft + request to move to mainspace) obviate this. In addition, faculty or TA can set up new pages for students to "fill in" or otherwise ensure that students know about the assistance options.

Against proposal

Edit this view

1. If we apply our existing notability guidelines to all the cultures of the world, we have millions of potential new articles to write, most of which are not going to be written by the existing community.
2. The Special:NewPages backlog is not yet close to be being maxed out (30 days).
3. This change will make it more difficult for college students to create new articles as part of class assignments.
4. This change will cause us to lose untold numbers of good new articles (even if they are the minority of the new articles that get created), and thus will be a net loss for the encyclopedia.
5. This proposal is based mainly on opinions and anecdotes, rather that any systematic analysis of the problem.
6. This proposal is against the grain of Wikipedia as manifest in Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
7. This will drive off countless new users who create an article for the 'thrill' of it.
8. It will cause a backlog at AFC and a large amount of work for people tidying up misplaced AFC tags and misplaced AFCs.
9. Many "new" editors who create an account to start a new article have already edited as IP's, so the proposal might make little difference to the amount of editing experience new article authors have.
10. We should focus on making it easier to create articles which meet Wikipedia's standards rather than adding more obstacles.

Responses

1. "Most new editors do not start off by creating articles." Finding a user whose first edit is a creation of an article is easy. Any one of them can be a valuable contributor. In fact, it would be interesting to see the development of people who started out by creating an article with people who started out by edits to existing ones.

Other

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Other This should apply to file upload too, not just article creation. People get clobbered for NFCC vios and lash out and leave. It's better to not let them upload images until they know what they're doing. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I was invited to comment on this, on my watchlist page.. I simply wish to vote in favour of this proposal.. Shouldn't there be a simple way for people to say such things ? (no offence to anyone) talk

Discussion on running a trial

In the interested of gathering evidence, I propose that we run a 6 month trial, ending in October, thus covering the September influx, and all of the summer months. In this trial, only autoconfirmed users would be able to create articles. This way we can get some emperical evidence to see if it makes things better or worse. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• 6 months feels like a very long time to run a trial of a proposal which some people are quite strongly against, although I do think empirical evidence would be useful and appropriate. Are you paticularly committed to the time frame? Bob House 884 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: a proposal above by Shooterwalker above for a 14 day trial, or one limited to a paticular subject area recieved quite strong support Bob House 884 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As to my proposal above, I meant to point out that we can discuss the parameters of a trial later. There's an overwhelming consensus to go ahead, with some saying "just do it", and others saying we proceed with various levels of caution. Because of the nature of the user activity, it will take us months to understand the impact on retention. But it doesn't mean we have to run the trial for as long as it takes for us to understand the data. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think it can take a number of iterations to get the system working right, in technical ways (change user interface messages and tweak them as experience is gained) and shifts to the culture (the thing that new users need most is help and advice from experienced users). 6 months sounds better than 14 days. By the way, how many people in this discussion have actual experience submitting articles through AFC, or even looking at the stuff that gets submitted there and how it gets handled? I think it might change your perspective. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a short trial would only show that article creation goes down for new users, it wouldn't give us enough valuable information about user retention. There is no technically possible way to 'limit article creation to a particular subject area' since people can create an article called anything and have it be about anything. They could very well mislabel the article titles for all we know. Some may think 6 months is too long a period of time, and perhaps so, but the trial should be in the order of months to at least get some idea of how it functions with retention. I certainly don't think we will scare away users by running this trial, or at least, not users that wouldn't have stayed anyways. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with NickPenguin and favour a trial, which should be of months rather than days. Creators of serious articles will not be deterred and will probably even appreciate the reasons why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Trial needs to be fairly long (3-6 months) to have a good chance of showing the longer-term benefits after allowing the change to bed down. Rd232 ^talk 03:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The trial period where the autoconfirm barrier is in place need not be very long in order to collect editor retention data. It could, for example, be a month long, at which point the current system is restored. Then, at the 3 or 6 month mark, the effect on new editor retention could be examined by looking only at the cohort of editors who registered during the month of the tral. (I'm not saying that this is the best way to conduct a trial, just that it's an option.) Danger (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Real-world action will be the true test of this proposal's merits. Six months, I'm sure, will smack a bit too much of the pending changes "trial" for many, so a fixed term of a month followed by data analysis three or/and six months months after the end of the trial sounds like an excellent compromise to me. Brammers (talk/c) 07:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"need not be very long in order to collect editor retention data." - indeed, if we assume that the sole thing we're testing is the proposed autoconfirm restriction in isolation. But it isn't - we also need to test how, once that change is in place, the community can adapt to the resulting change, eg switching efforts from NPP to AFC and making sure the assistance options are as clear as possible (in signposting, and in use). So I'd say 3 months minimum, better 6 months, to really understand how it works in practice. Rd232 ^talk 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree. I certainly think a trial longer than a month, at least three, would be ideal; just that there's no reason to give up all hope of good data if a longer trial is not the final consensus. And while the issues that you bring up are a big deal, they don't seem to come up as counterpoints to the proposal as much as the effect on new editorship, which I think is reasonable. I have more than enough confidence that the dedicated editors in the community will be able to adapt like we have done in the past to other changes. New editors are the real unknown though. --Danger (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Like hell you can run a trial. Ask the FR/PC people for why you'll find some serious opposition. Protonk (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the case that the consensus is to make this change the options are run a trial with a stated end date or flip the switch with no intention of unflipping it. I don't much care either way; either way data can be collected and the change can be evaluated. --Danger (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In practice there isn't really a difference between the two. Once a trial gets started the existence of a trial will be used as reason to continue the trial or turn on the behavior. As such a trial isn't a middle ground, it is a foot in the door. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The substantive difference is in what's planned (a) whilst the trial is evaluated (continue with it? revert to status quo ante?) and (b) what to do if the trial is inconclusive or results are mixed and judgements vary about the different elements of success/failure. I'd suggest something like this: trial it for 3 months, then begin evaluating, leaving the trial continuing whilst evaluation is ongoing. If no consensus is reached by 6 months that experience shows it's a good idea, revert to the status quo ante. That, and plan what questions to ask, and hence what data to collect. Rd232 ^talk 03:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And again, I'd oppose this outright. I have no doubt that calls for a trial are made in good faith but the last large scale trial we tried ended up not being anything like what you described but a means to introduce a contentious change under the cloak of rationality and conservatism. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because the last trial went badly it doesn't mean that this trial has to end badly, or become an abuse of process if it does end badly. We should take precautions this time. Make sure the trial has a definite start and end date. And wind it down during the analysis phase. Do NOT restart the trial (let alone make it permanent) until the analysis is done and another RFC has taken place. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is determinative, but the principal precaution is to close the barn door before the horse gets out. I'm sorry if that is frustration to those advocating for this specific redefinition of "anyone can edit" (contra the aforementioned redefinition) but there is no real way to engineer this trail so as to ensure it won't always result in a prolonged gray area or acceptance as a given. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, anyone can edit. Anyone could edit when anonymous users could create articles. Anyone could still edit when we asked people to create an account to be able to create an article. Anyone will still be able to edit if we decide that someone should have 10 ordinary edits under their belt before they create another article. Second of all, I know you're frustrated because pending changes turned into a mess, and the process for winding it down has been a nightmare. But if we're never able to run a trial again, we'll never be able to improve Wikipedia. Besides the fact that this is worth trying... you might want to note the 80% of people supporting it. That same 80% might say to you "we don't need no stinking trial". But fortunately there are enough civil, good faith editors who believe Wikipedia should be based on verifiable facts, and that includes our decisions about the editing process. I'm confident that asking editors to make normal edits before creating a new article will benefit them as much as it benefits the entire encyclopedia. But I'd like to be able to WP:PROVEIT. So instead of stonewalling a trial... let's talk about how to make sure the trial is indeed just a trial. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree to disagree about the "anyone can edit" bit. but I'm not interested in forsaking any trial. Just any trial that is used as a stand in for serious widespread support for a contentious change. If a preponderance of people discussing something feel it is a good idea and feel that it would be helped in terms of implementation by a trial and some data, great. Where I get off is when a trial is proposed as a sort of half-way point between those who wanted the proposal enacted yesterday and those who never wanted it enacted. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very firmly in the "this proposal is so obviously a good idea that I'm astonished it hasn't always been so" camp, but I see no harm in a trial to prove to those less convinced than myself that they are in fact wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add that I'm making a very strong promise to make sure the trial is as temporary as possible to allow us to gather the data we need. I'm going to be right there advocating for a definite end-date. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To avoid the problems with the PC trial, a hard end date should be set. Then we can evaluate calmly. Cenarium (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If we decide to run a trial, there will be no problem with 'forgetting' to turn it off: Unlike the PC trial, these changes must be made by the devs. Mere editors and admins aren't capable of changing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The "t-word"

"Trial" can be a controversial word around here. Why not (assuming consensus, of course) just enact the proposed change in policy, study the data for however long it takes to form valid conclusions, and then, if those conclusions warrant it, start another RfC to return things to the way they were? All the advantages of a trial without having an actual trial. This may sound like mere quibbling over semantics, but I think it might be important. For one thing, trials generally have predefined end dates, but there's no reason that a policy change like this should be planned to end. (It certainly should end if there's clear consensus for that, but let's not cross that bridge before we come to it.) To put it another way, calling it a trial would essentially make the change temporary by default, and I'm not clear on why that would be preferable. Either way, we should end up in the same place six months or a year from now, but consider: if requiring autoconfirmation turns out well, without a trial we'll only have had to make one change in policy; with a trial, we'll have to change the rules three times. That ought to confuse a newbie or two. Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, anyone who has been following my comments here (and the work we have been doing in an attempt to improve NPP) will not be surprised that I wholly agree with this idea. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 1:26 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Well maybe that's the best way to go about it. I find with many proposals the initial resistance is to the idea of change itself. Perhaps if we simply change it, everyone can take a step back and get used to the new dynamic, and everyone can see for themselves if their respective workload goes down in their areas. Then, at a later and unspecified time, any interested party can call an RFC on this, we can evaluate what happened, and what we can do to make it better. That might be good to, because then users won't necessarily be waiting for that clock to tick over and launch the RFC right away. If the enacted proposal causes serious problem, then we can RFC and stop it right away. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Naturally I think this idea will work out, so I don't see any downside to just going ahead, especially with the strong consensus there is to at least try it. But there's a reason we have trials with a definite end date: because it's VERY hard to stop something once it's been started. Offering to do a trial is a good faith concession that supporters can make to earn the trust of the small but significant opposition. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that a clear end date, and a clear end mechanism, would be essential for a trial to avoid the drama of Pending Changes. I would fully support a trial; then we can sit back, look at the statistics, and make a long-term decision based on much clearer evidence. bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a clear end date would be prudent, for example, "exactly 3 months after the trial begins". We probably can't set a specific date since the beginning of the trial depends on a technical change (as well as some preparation by the community). I also agree that a trial is preferable to just flipping the switch, since once we start down this road it is going to be hard to go back even if the data suggests we should. Kaldari (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems difficult to determine consensus on the whole issue just of the RFC, is it planned next to make some kind of proposal for a trial with poll/discussion ? Cenarium (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Revised proposal to run a trial

The general feeling I get is that a 3 month trial is much more likely to be accepted. In that case, then the trial will run 90 days from when the technical aspects of the proposal go live. Then, the switch flips, and it goes back to how it is now, an RFC starts immediately, we present our data immediate data and discuss. Does that sound fair to all sides? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Might need a couple weeks with the data. In fact, we might want an entire month with the data, just to see what happens to the new users on day 90, a month after. But I think this is a good proposal. I can't think of a less intrusive way to get the data. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think this is much better then just flipping the switch. For a change of this magnitude I think we owe it to ourselves if that's the decision. I also think any "well it's not a trial but we'll do another RfC while it keeps running" idea just leads us to making it "more" likely to never be fully re evaluated. If we don't have a defined trial we run a much stronger risk of never really looking at the data.

I still think it is an incredibly bad idea as a whole (in general I think it's a well intentioned but kneejerk decision based on either no data or misunderstood data; a short term solution that cuts off our head and doesn't solve either the short or longer term problems ;) ) but if the decision ends up being to go ahead then I think this is the way to go and I would anticipate trying my hardest to still make it work since I do not want to see a large cohort of new users go to waste for 3 months at a time when we really need them. Even though 'most' editors edit pages first, which makes sense giving all the articles we have, the number who create articles is more then significant enough to have a huge impact. James of UR (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A 3 month trial would definitely be a good idea, but with the autoconfirmed threshold sitting fairly low I don't think it'll do much, 10 edits and 4 days is not a long wait. If the threshold is increased to 15 edits and 2 weeks, I'd definitely support a trial. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:52pm • 06:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that 90 days is much longer than necessary (I'd do no more than 60), and "immediately" far too soon to start discussing it. If you want to know about editor retention 90 days after, then you have to wait 90 days after the trial ends, i.e., up to 180 days after the start of a 90-day intervention, so that you can find out what happened to the editors who registered on the last day of the trial. Editor retention 180 days after the trial (=270 days after the start) might be even more interesting. And then you need weeks, if not months, to finish collecting the data.

The only thing you could legitimately do "immediately" is to start arguing about what constitutes a proper control group and how you would control for seasonal variations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On what else to do in conjunction with this

Its always been my impression that this proposal always has had multiple facets:

• Reducing the influx of inappropriate articles
• Reducing the burden of experienced users dealing with that influx of articles so they can be more productive in other areas
• Improving the experience for new users so they can learn how to work within Wikipedia before diving into article creation right away

For me, the bold bit has been central; and insofar as I want this to work, we need to think carefully about how to make it work, by making sure that we have mechanisms in place to work with editors who wish to work through the 10 edits and 4 days; we want those 10 edits and 4 days to be as useful in teaching them Wikipedia, and so we need to do something a bit more than "flipping the switch" and watching what happens. We also need to have the means to deal with the change already in place when the switch is flipped. When this RFC started, I did a little free-form riffing on ideas that I had. I am not particularly attached to any of them; just sort of a brainstorm. They can be found at User:Jayron32/an immodest proposal. Again, just some ideas, none of which I have any strong attachment to, except the general idea that we need to make sure we do this right, and have the means necessary to make this a positive experience. We need to give this all the chance we can, and running blindly into this may not be the best idea. --Jayron32 05:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32 here. The real point is provide a better experience to new users. We should prepare all this before pulling the switch on either a trial or for real. Perhaps start a wikiproject/workgroup to coordinate and prepare this? Yoenit (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a wikiproject already that works along in these lines, Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability. It looks like it could use a little bit of prodding tho. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ya... I agree this is primarily about user experience. If you think of Wikipedia as a WP:MMO game, we can learn from the experts about how to make it more fun:

• “If you must guide players to the fun areas, it is probably because they are overwhelmed with the game’s complexity and do not know what they are supposed to do. ... Consider restricting the choices available at the beginning of the game. Players likely cannot make meaningful choices early in the learning process anyway, because they do not yet understand how the game elements interact. Give players more freedom and more choices over time: the new player needs simplicity during the first few hours of gameplay... These restrictions not only simplify the learning curve, but additional complexity can be presented as an additional reward for competent play.”

Read that quote carefully. It applies to anything with a learning curve, not just games. There isn't an organization in the world that would throw a volunteer or employee into the deep end without a warm up. (Except for jobs where there is no deep end.) Shooterwalker (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

An article wizard extension would be appreciable in either cases, I've started at thread on this at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles#Article wizard extension. It may be appropriate to build consensus on this separately. Cenarium (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: just do it

Just go ahead and do it on some agreed date (eg 1 May or 1 June), without farting around arguing endlessly about a trial. By all means prepare as much as possible, and figure out what data to collect for evaluating the effects. (No formal trial does not mean the change should not be evaluated and open to reversal if consensus agrees reversal.)

Users endorsing this view

1. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Per my comments here. Rivertorch (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Kansan (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Basket of Puppies 02:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
5. per my comments above N419BH 02:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
6. MER-C 02:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
7. --Korruski^Talk 08:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Dcoetzee 09:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
10. --Kvng (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
11. ✓ indeed. If it goes horribly wrong, we turn it back; no worries. The specifics - the process - will quickly develop, once we jump in to the idea. Change We Need. There is, I think, "general agreement" that something needs to happen; and we need to remember WP:BOLD.  Chzz  ►  22:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
12. For some reason I Was unaware that non-AC users could create articles. I can't believe this wasn't already in place. Generally speaking the chances of a brand new user creating a useful article before being autoconfirmed are pretty slim. Yes, there is the odd one that I'm sure someone can point to, but overall, I think it's a net positive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Please God no not another trial. We can say we're doing this on a trial basis and if it causes more problems than it solves we can undo it, but having a predetermined trial period for a feature is not a model that has worked out particularly well for us in the past. We end up arguing about the trial period instead of the real issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Per Beeblebrox. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
15. —mc10 (t/c) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: 3 month trial, then review whilst active, up to 3 months max

Trial it for 3 months, then begin evaluating, leaving the trial continuing whilst evaluation is ongoing. If no consensus about the outcome of the evaluation is reached by 6 months after trial begin, revert to the status quo ante. (After such a reversion, discussion may of course continue on what to do.) This sets a deadline for agreeing it was a good idea, without requiring a strongly supported idea to be undone while experience is reviewed.

Users endorsing this view

1. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
3. If there is consensus to go ahead despite opposition from myself and others, then yes there needs to be a trial. Apart from the many articles deleted in error, 2,606 articles from February 2011 that have not been deleted were created by newbies in their first five edits. I would regard the trial as a failure if significantly fewer new articles were getting onto the pedia from Newbies, and a success if that figure rose. ϢereSpielChequers 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Yes, it does sound a little bit like the PC trial, but I think that it would be easier to do this way.  A p3rson ‽ 23:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
6.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Much cleaner to do it this way. T. Canens (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
8. not ideal per my comments above but will work N419BH 02:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
9. MER-C 02:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Korruski^Talk 08:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Support over trial and revert - Not ideal - let's fix the background issues first. But if we must, the fewer changes the better.
12. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
13. I would agree to a trial, as long as lessons are learnt from the PC one e.g. a clear date is set for the trial to end if no agreement is reached on continuation. CT Cooper · talk 10:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
14. --KidGwakebake 23:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Agree, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Baseball Watcher 03:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: 90 day trial, revert to current system, discuss for up to 3 additional months

Trial it for 90 days, flip the switch back, then begin evaluating. Running it and stopping it will more clearly show if it makes an impact at places like NPP and CSD, because if this works the workload will go down, and then spike back up. It will allow for more transparent observation of what goes on in both scenarios. The three months after the trial ends will allow enough time to evaluate the data and make a decision.

Users endorsing this view

1. NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
2. If we're going to do this then this is the way to do it. Discussing it again while it keeps running assumes a forgone conclusion and makes the discussion harder. I think we would want at least a month for everyone to gather data together (especially on editor retention) and then the real discussion can start. Speaking from a very non-informed point of view I believe it will not be hard to turn it back on once it is set up the first time (Currently we can not stop 'just article creation' it's page creation or talk page and that's it. Once we fix that it's a solved problem). James of UR (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
3. we want to know If it works first --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 22:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
5. I support a 90 day trial, but ... Review of the data is going to take longer than 3 months. We are (or should be) interested in long-term retention rates, we may not even be able to begin reviewing the data for 3 months after the trial ends. The number of new users who create an account and make an edit is mostly irrelevant, what's important is the number who actually stay. Mr.Z-man 03:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
6. I think this is a reasonable way to ease into the new policy. Ruby2010 comment! 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Snowman304|talk 23:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC) This sounds like a good idea. This makes the most sense of all of the options listed here.

Proposal: get things up and running first

It seems fairly clear that this proposal is going to pass. It also seems fairly clear that anyone who doesn't think the existing article wizard and articles for creation systems are problematic is at best, a tad dim. Why don't we try fixing up the AfC/AW wizards, waiting to see what Lennart and the user interface people can work up, and then try it? Nobody wants this proposal to fall flat on its arse more than I, but simply launching into it with a crummy interface for the new users seems far too simple a way for it to fail.

Users endorsing this view

1. Ironholds (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Good plan, the surrounding work should be completed before it all gets thrown into the wild. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Regardless of how/if this is implemented, AfC/AW need a good hard look. --Danger (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
4. I'd rather we didn't stop newbies from creating articles, but if there is consensus to do this then I think we should get the alternatives working before we throw all the newbies at them. Just flicking a switch would take the pressure of newpage patrol but at the price of a mess elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
5. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
6. per my comments above N419BH 02:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
7. see comments below --Jayron32 05:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Cautious support. It's indisputable that the best way to implement this would be to have actually-functioning AfC and ACW ready to go; however, I'm a bit worried that this could turn into yet another round of wheel-spinning argument as RfCs are conducted on how to fix those things, drama is carried out about making the fixes, etc, and that we'll look up a year from now and realize that despite overwhelming support, this proposal still hasn't been implemented. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. Better to fix these related issues first. Nailing down a lot of potential contributors really doesn't help the encyclopedia, so let's try to fix some of the causes first. twilsonb (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Duh. Why test a new product without first making it presentable? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Sensible proposal if this change is to go ahead, given how significant it is to Wikipedia. CT Cooper · talk 10:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
12. —mc10 (t/c) 02:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

1. I'd support this if and only if there's some sort of expectation that AfC and the ACW can actually be fixed. AfC is mostly a problem of volunteers, the AW is more of an interface tool that seems more likely to be fixable. What are the specific problems with AfC and ACW that must be fixed prior to starting the trial? Is it actually possible to fix them? One proposal would be to have a working group of 20 editors or so each propose (in a "secret shopper" fashion) at least one article to the AfC using dummy accounts created for that purpose, and then have each of the 20 editors pick and create an article from AfC using the ACW. Use those 20 opinions for some feedback to see what should realistically be changed to make those functions work better. I'd volunteer, I have a couple of articles I've been meaning to write for a while anyway. SDY (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a very bad idea. per WP:NEWT --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 22:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see there's a bit of a dispute there about intentional confrontation. This is in no way as confrontational as deletions, and it isn't about users, it's about systems. Since we're adding twenty articles and creating twenty articles, the net workload change for AfC is zero, and any interactions with the ACW are obviously not going to involve any lasting conflicts. If we have to fix AfC/ACW before starting the trial, we're actually going to have to figure out what's wrong and what can be fixed. SDY (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Experienced users deliberately lying to the community in an effort to see if they can trip them up? No, that's not as disruptive as deletion, it's more disruptive. We tried it, it went badly, and managed to actually drive some contributors off the project, upset that they'd been deceived. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)That was only part of the problem with NEWT, the other problem was that it was so poorly conducted that the data was practically unusable. Its methodology was practically nonexistent. An experienced user can act like a new user all they want, they're still not going to have the same experience with the process. Mr.Z-man 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Heck, if the anonymity is such a big deal we can just have people submit under their main acounts. It isn't really all that important to the proposal, it's mostly a question of testing whether the available tools have any flaws that are easily remedied. If we're serious about fixing these tools, we need to know what the problems are. I can't imagine where you see in the proposal that there's any attempt to intentionally "trip up" the community, and the only "lie" is the anonymity which isn't even necessary (just trying to add some blinding to the study, since it removes variables if the 20 know each other). The intent was that the 20 articles for creation would be created by the other people participating in the experiment, so the only people being "deceived" are people who know what they're getting into. SDY (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• This entire RFC, and the proposal to restrict article creation to autoconfirmed users, should be taken as part of a package of upgrades to Wikipedia which includes a) revamping our welcoming procedures, with an emphasis on directing users to ways they can contribute, including making it easier for new users to find existing articles that need their help. b) improving the editing interface to a full WYSIWYG editor with easy-to-use referencing tools. c) better and more useful article creation system with more emphasis placed on reviewing new articles and helping new users get it right, in their userspace, before going live with them. I'm not sure all of these options need to "go live" the same day, or indeed in any particular order, but this entire system needs to be taken in the spirit of improving the new user experience; preventing them from making new articles until autoconfirmed is primarly about just that. This cannot be a "flip a switch and watch what happens" event. We need to consider this as part of a package of usability upgrades and improvements to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 05:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Prepare, implement, review

This is clearly a benefit to the community as a whole – including new editors. It in no way counters the mission of being "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" because anyone still can. They can edit immediately and create in 4 days. They are not considered a Wikipedian before then and those 10 edits, so it is hardly unreasonable that certain limits should be in place during that time.

A trial that ends in reversion of policy while data is reviewed leads to three changes of policy if the trial is successful. And based on points made on this page, anecdotal evidence such as the 40%+ articles by ‘don’t care’ new users requiring speedy deletion (Kudpung) and the known vandalism problem, success seems highly likely.

Preparation

What is worth some careful consideration is the preparation for flicking the switch. Newly signed up users do still require information on the process towards creating an article. Rather than being told ‘You can’t do that’, they need to feel welcomed and informed ‘You will be able to do that once you’re familiar with this and have done that’. The WP:AFC process also needs to be easily discoverable, yet not presented in a way that will cause an influx of requests that can’t be met. These things will take a while to get right and will require further discussion – a group to do this, as suggested by Yoenit, would make a lot of sense. And of course the technical side needs preparing.

Implementation

Given the number of contributors to this page it’s tempting to think a group could be assembled and the preparation completed quite quickly. But a planned commencement date at this stage should probably be a guide only. The group could announce the actual date a week or so beforehand. On the announced date the relevant templates are switched and the code change made.

Review

Review is important – I would suggest months plural after commencement. Now is the time for decision on what qualifies as a successful new policy – it’s not satisfactory for someone to pull over the stats in 3 months and pronounce ‘Ah-ha! This figure shows that!’ Thinking about this now also gives us a chance to collect ‘before’ data. Are we able, for instance, to find out what percentage of 0-4-day-old user articles are quickly deleted versus 5-9-day? Or vandalism by the same ranges?

This policy can easily be reverted. But the review is not just about considering that. It could potentially lead to tweaking of the edit/day count values. (My feeling is that they’re about right.) Or to a further discussion on anti-vandalism measures which could extend the principal of limiting very extensive article changes such as blanking and wholesale substitution of text by unconfirmed users – something that could be identified by computer algorithm at time of attempted edit.

Will all this lead to a better Wikipedia, happier editors and a more positive experience for new signups? I’m very confident that it will.

RedactionalOne (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd support this. Do we have any idea on target benchmarks? How many "articles not created" will we tolerate for every "article that should not have been created?" I think that'll be a sticking point, honestly. Losing one real article to prevent fifty fake ones is about the upper limit of exchange I'd tolerate, but I don't do NPP so I don't know what the percentages are. SDY (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the emphasis in analysing the trial should be on articles, either in terms of quality or in terms of quantity. Of course we should measure those as best we can and take them into account, but the driving concern for me is how to get more editors contributing substantively to more than one article, especially if they start off by creating an article. The issue is getting more longer-term contributors with some substantive experience, who make a longer-term contribution to quality and coverage of the encyclopedia (which is NOT the same as quality and quantity of new articles!). Rd232 ^talk 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to have some sort of surrogate endpoint. Maybe track the number of <2 week registered editors with >20 contribs and no warnings/blocks? Track the number of IP/newuser edits? Good editors are impossible to pick out with the anonymity, the only real tool we have is to recruit more and let them sort themselves out. There are really two objectives here: 1. Cut down the garbage at NPP, and 2. Don't scare away new contributors in the process. Cutting down the garbage at NPP is easy to quantify, not scaring away new editors is much harder to nail down. We need some sort of endpoint - otherwise we'll just say "well, garbage at NPP is down therefore success." SDY (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I think Target A of the proposal we're talking about should be noticeably increasing the absolute and relative numbers of readers becoming at least moderately experienced Wikipedians (let's say >100 edits, edits to >3 distinct-but-possibly-related articles, >5 edits to a talk page, that sort of ball park though obviously you can argue about the numbers). I'm quite prepared to except a decrease in the number of new accounts, number of new articles, number of editors achieving autoconfirmed status but not reaching "moderately experienced" status as defined above, if it makes Target A happen. Rd232 ^talk 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we generate statistics on those types of editors (let's call them "contributors") using existing tools? I know the various edit counters will give that editor by editor, but is there any aggregate? In this case, we're looking at not reducing, so we'll also have to set a background rate of the number of new contributors we'd expect to see and whether that number takes a hit based on the trial. We'd also have to look at what a background rate is, and that may be difficult because there's probably some seasonality to new contributors (e.g. the start of the academic year probably has an effect). SDY (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Close discussions without any trial period

Motion that discussions should be closed as a failed proposal and no trial run should take place. It is clear that many wikipedians have expressed strong arguments in favour of this proposal whilst a significant minority present strong dissenting arguments. There is not a strong enough consensus in favour of the proposal to press ahead to the trial stage, and if a trial were conducted it would be either unhelpful or undesirable. No attempt should be made to run a trial and the proposal should be shelved.

Users endorsing this view

1. (my own views, which overlap with the proposal) I support shelving this idea. We have a numerically stronger camp arguing for imposing this policy for mainly practical reasons (1. reducing NPP workload and 2. having newbies stick to the shallow end to improve their experience) and a numerically weaker, but very significant camp arguing against on principled grounds (it is either wrong or un-wiki-like to stop new editors creating articles or to force them to edit in a paticular way). Testing sounds like a fantastic idea but even if we test for years and find that 100% of articles created by IPs are useless cruft, this won't address the concerns of the dissenters (it may address the issue of new user retention, but this seems to me to be a side-issue) As the discussions have run thier course and no consensus strong enough to justify a major change in wikipedia policy (or to be honest, even to appoint an admin) appears to have formed, this proposal should be shelved. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   I'd hardly call 80% support "no consensus". Consensus doesn't require everyone to agree. Plus, the 20% against it aren't all opposed on "principled" grounds. Most Wikipedians don't see our work in ideological terms. Wikipedia is a practical, results-based project, and the debate is whether asking editors to take on 10 edits will scare them away or improve their learning curve. That's the whole point of a trial, to test what happens to user activity. You may also want to read what Jimbo said about this proposal, a trial, and allowing a tiny minority to stonewall. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   I'd hardly call 20% a 'tiny minority' either. I'm obviously not speaking in the sense of moral or religious principles but the founding principles, the 'anyone can edit' principle - no matter how much of a slam dunk the results come back as, I don't think they'll address that concern. Bob House 884 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   The concern doesn't need addressing, because it's nonsense: (a) "anyone can edit" is already contingent, via protection/semi-protection; blocking, non-auto-confirmed move restriction, pending changes etc. The principle is often misinterpreted as "everyone can do anything at any time and have it live on Wikipedia immediately", despite the fact that that's not the original spirit. "anyone can edit" simply means that no particular real-world qualifications are needed by users to contribute, and that's not going to change. (b) the creation restrictions will be restrictions on unassisted creation: non-auto-confirmed users will continue to be able create articles with assistance. Rd232 ^talk 01:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   This proposal is not related to the merits of the arguments, but the belief that no consensus has been reached, please don't bother criticising the substantial arguments on the proposal here. I'm not strongly for or against it, I just don't think that consensus has been reached. Bob House 884 (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   ? Your remarks about "the 'anyone can edit' principle" go beyond the issue of gauging consensus. In any case, on both quality of argument and quantity of supporters, there is a clear consensus. Also your initial remarks seem to fundamentally misunderstand the issue: "[a test] may address the issue of new user retention, but this seems to me to be a side-issue" - it most certainly isn't a side issue. Rd232 ^talk 01:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   siigh.. I mentioned that principle in the context of explaining to another user what I had meant by my eariler user of 'principled' and 'practical' which was intended in a neutral sense. I have gone out of my way to try to make this proposal, and my comments on it non-partisan, if I've failed I am very sorry. Bob House 884 (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   TBH, the fact that we can get 80% support on such a major thing is rather huge. I mean, we settle for much less support for a lot of things, pretty much everything actually. In the last ArbCom election, only 3 of the 12 winning candidates got more than 75% support and only 1 got over 80%. We had less than 70% support for the flagged protection trial. 80% is plenty for appointing admins BTW, 80% is the cutoff for automatic passing, we still appoint admins down to 70% (and in rare cases, less). Mr.Z-man 02:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2. Support I hate this idea. The reason I created an account on Wikipedia? To create an article. If I was unable to create an article after creating an account, I would not have understood this "autoconfirmed" jargon, and I would have probably given up and never returned. Wikipedia is becoming increasingly bias towards veteran users, and not nearly as helpful to newer users nowadays. First we don't let IPs create articles, now we don't let non-autoconfirmed users create articles. Next? Non-admin users won't be able to create articles. Talk about biting the newbies... Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   Do you actually think there's no consensus, or do you just not like it? Mr.Z-man 02:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   I know this thing will end up with a trial so my !vote doesn't count, but I just don't like it. I am intrigued to see how the trial goes, however. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   "If I was unable to create an article after creating an account, I would not have understood this "autoconfirmed" jargon, and I would have probably given up and never returned. " - say wha? where is it written that newcomers need to understand that jargon? And why do so many opponents of the proposal act as if under the proposal non-autoconfirmed users will be unable to create articles? [If the latter question doesn't make sense to anyone, read my View above.] Rd232 ^talk 02:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   I'm saying that if I created an account on Wikipedia and I went to create an article, wouldn't I not be able because I am not "autoconfirmed"? I read your view, and I must say, there is so many different proposals and views on this page, I don't even know what I'm going against at this point. I liked your idea until I realized that it would take more work to help newbies create articles than to patrol new pages. We have a huge backlog for mentors, and there is no doubt in my mind that all of the newbies wanting to create articles will have to wait a long time for someone to help them. But whatever the community wants is what I'll support in the end. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   Eagles 24/7, your first edit was to create Marcus Mailei, about an NHL hockey player, a nice contribution including some fancy wiki-formatting (infobox) even in the first revision.[1] My guess is you already had some editing experience by then. What's the big deal about making the article in userspace and asking at WP:HOCKEY for someone to import it? Obviously the user interface would have to change some, to make that approach more natural. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Wholeheartedly support - Close it. Frankly, I know the "slippery slope" argument is a bad one to use, but I'm gonna use it. Others have mentioned to me, and I agree with them, that the next step up from this will be requiring all users to have an account to do anything, something Wikipedia has been trying (and failing) to do for a long time, and with good reason. I said it in my view, and I'll say it again. Stop figuring out ways to prevent people from contributing. We're trying to encourage contributions, and this is NOT the way to do it. - Bugger off and write an article or something. Fish^Barking? 03:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   A small but fairly vocal minority simply doesn't get it: the status quo, does not, as of 2011, work. The barrier to people creating articles without help is the very fact that Wikipedia has been around for 10 years and now has 6,919,526 articles and a bunch of non-obvious expectations about minimum standards. You can't get rid of that by pretending it's still 2002. You need to figure how to stop handing newcomers the keys to a very powerful vehicle without any training or assistance. Ignoring the large numbers that crash and burn is not an option indefinitely. There are only so many people who might reasonably be interested in becoming solid contributors, and every one we drive away by virtue of the status quo "here's petrol! here's matches! go nuts! ... ooh, fire pretty" approach is one probably lost forever. Rd232 ^talk 04:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   Please assume good faith. It's one thing to hold a good faith belief that this proposal will have unintended consequences. But don't accuse people of purposefully trying to stop people from contributing when everyone has said the goal is exactly the opposite, to prevent new users from having a negative experience and improve retention. And don't tell people to bugger off. If you can't be WP:CIVIL then don't say anything at all. This is a discussion, not a crusade. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   Please assume, that I do assume good faith. What I don't appreciate of this whole shebang is the fact that we are putting into place restrictions which we (the existing members of wikipedia) didn't have to go through. The people who started this proposal ARE purposefully stopping people editing by putting a restriction in place which says "you can write an article, but we're forcing you to let us work on it with you, or it's not happening until you wait 5 days and do this much work first." And when I tell people to "bugger off", it's because I'm angry that people are scheming over ways to stop newcomers writing without help, instead of getting on with writing.

   Perhaps you could extend your WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL warnings to users who are describing the oppose view as 'nonsense' or it's supporters as a 'tiny minority' or who refer to this proposal as 'stonewalling' by editors acting like 'religious fanatics'? I'd hate for it to look as though your concerns here were partisan or coatstanding. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   I didn't describe "the opposing view" as "nonsense", I called the view that the "anyone can edit" principle is endangered by it nonsense. And I explained why it's nonsense. In any case, Bob, this useless and disruptive section is your creation. The only thing "let's not have a trial even though the proposal is supported by a large majority" could possibly achieve is the large majority saying "fine, if the minority aren't going to accept a trial, then we won't have one: we'll just do it." Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   Oh come on, if I wanted to be useless and disruptive I would be posting on the other proposals and pointlessly bludgeoning everybody supporting those. If you believe this proposal is a waste of time and not going to gain support, why are you bothering to engage with it? The trial is going to go ahead anyway so why do you have a problem with people who believe that it was wrong or premature to run the trial voicing their opinion on the record? (These questions are rhetorical by the way, you don't have to answer them and I suggest, if you don't want to waste any more time, that you don't bother answering) Bob House 884 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2. close and no trial, where did the 80% support come from? It looks to be a much smaller figure that like this idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   Did you notice the 147 supports below Jayrons view? At the moment of writing Ironholds view is the oppose view with the most supports (47). 147/(47+147)= 75.7% support. This number has been 75-80% ever since the RFC started. What may make you think otherwise is the fact that some oppose voters are acting like religious fanatics, blocking any attempt at progress or data gathering because they know their view is the TRUTH^TM. Yoenit (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   To be honest I only accepted the 80% point above for the sake of argument, I don't think its neccessarily accurate, but even if it is, I think thats very borderline. Also Yoenit I don't paticularly appreciate your insinuation that I am acting like a 'religious fanatic' - this proposal is practically my first post on this RFC and I am making an effort to engage in reasoned discussions. Bob House 884 (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   On a Wikipedia discussion of this size, 75-80% is an overwhelming endorsement. To achieve this level of support for a change of this significance is even more impressive: most of the time, changing anything gets a large minority of people who can only see the costs and risks, in a "better the devil you know" sort of way. Rd232 ^talk 14:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

3. Support in shelving the idea per my view above. CycloneGU (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note

This proposal is being made on an invalid premise: that “a significant majority present strong dissenting arguments”. There is empirical evidence that the majority of contributors to this page support the original proposal: that non-Wikipedians should not be able to create articles unassisted. There is some debate over whether progress should be by implementation and review or trial. Obviously, most contributors to that debate are either pro the original proposal or at least not strongly opposed.

Note also that there are currently only 4 users supporting the ‘Close discussions without any trial period’ proposal. Because counters to comments made by this tiny minority are appearing in the ‘endorsing’ section, the appearance may be otherwise.

One of the naysayers to the original proposal made a strong case on Jimbo Wales’ Talk page. Now I imagine Jimbo’s wish would be for the community to be able to reach consensus – particularly on what most would have considered a non-contentious issue – without giving his view undue weight. But his wider point, relating to progressive change not being stifled by a tiny minority is well worth repeating here, along with the sentiment that this change would in no way breach the site’s philosophy:

My opinion is that I can't possibly have an opinion without empirical evidence. I think the community should send strong signals to the Foundation that we want them to test things, and that not every little change to Wikipedia requires a massive referendum, and that *especially* we have to let go of a culture that allows a tiny minority of people to block progressive change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rd232 also makes an excellent point regarding our philosophy, and distinctions in when and how rather than what users can edit, see comment under (1) above.

We do have statistical data on new user page creation. It indicates that 18.2% created an article, of which 73.6% of articles were deleted. Of those whose articles were deleted, only 4.8% are still active, versus 10.4% retention for new users overall. This is not the whole picture, but we can establish a standard report and run it monthly, as Mr.Z-man, who ran the reports, suggests – this will give us comparative data for the policy change.

I would suggest that a successful policy improvement would be indicated by an increase in retention rate for new (or newly confirmed) users creating an article and a reduction in first article deletion rate.

RedactionalOne (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Implement these changes for all users, not just newbies

At least for the term of the trial, let's just apply these changes to all users. Experienced wikipedians will be able to tell us (and will, in great numbers!) if the AfC/ACW processes are irretrievably broken. A simple opt-out mechanism in user settings or something and a week-in-advance warning that the trial will happen should be enough that no one is really surprised or offended.

As a speculative trial, this would be authorized on a week by week basis, and if it's really disruptive, kill it off.

If we're assuming that Wikipedia already has an article on everything, then even experienced users should have to jump through some hoops (albeit pretty low ones, such as a second opinion) to create a new article. Maybe make it so an autoconfirmed user has the ability to authorize an article to "go live" but everyone needs a second opinion to bring a new article into the world. Probably have to have a separate process for redirects.

This isn't going to help NPP much, but it will give us useful feedback on what works and what doesn't, and it's not bitey at all. SDY (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

??? Good, so after you switch it on for everyone, you'll need to switch it back again 4 days after that. 'Cause that's what the idea is... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Right. I've written almost 60 GAs and almost 20 pieces of featured content, out of the 600 articles I've created in total. Explain to me, if you will, why I am not considered competent to evaluate whether a subject is notable, and what the encyclopedia possibly gets out of banning me (or anyone else in a similar situation) from creating articles. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm sure that you'll concede that you're an extremely unusual user and the system should be built around typical users, not outliers. If nothing else, putting these restrictions on experienced editors means that the encyclopedia gets informed feedback on the article creation process. If, in good faith, we assume that there aren't many new articles that should be created, then any user would benefit from a double check. If we assume that there are still a lot of articles yet to be started, then we have no business cutting off the spigot of truly new articles and most of them will come from new users saying "there is no article on foo and my objective is to fix that." The purpose is to show that this is about managing content, not about users. SDY (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Excellent idea. Since we as existing editors didn't have to go through this when we joined Wikipedia, we'll be able to see it from the users view, and as SDY says, it'll generate a significant amount of feedback from editors as to whether AFC and ACW are bust (we already know they are, but confirmation is a plus). And Ironholds, what is does is put us in the same situation as the users, so we have a view from their side as to how helpful (or not) this will be. I'd support this in a heartbeat. It may actually show us as editors what effect this is liable to have on a newcomers view of Wikipedia. Fish^Barking? 16:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just about the craziest idea and the daftest support rationale I've seen on wikipedia today. Unless you're a new editor you can't possibly know what the new editor experience is like. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We may not be able to "be" a new editor, but at least we'll be able to figure out if the system is actually capable of producing valid results. If the ACW breaks or the instructions don't make sense, I want it to break for an experienced user so that they know where to go get help and get it fixed, not on a new user who says "this doesn't work, what a mess I'm not going to bother." Yes, I concede that the idea is crazy, but sometimes a little bit crazy is good. If nothing else, this is just a trial to collect data rather than a permanent solution. SDY (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• As I said above, going with the idea of this whole proposal, you can only do this for 4 days. That's how long it takes to be autoconfirmed. So you'll just make everyone wait for 4 days. Very pointy, but ah well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not quite sure what the "week-by-week" trial element really means, but a similar idea to turn on the AFC/ACW interface for all users by default (with option in preferences to turn it off) has been suggested on the talk page. The idea being that users are directed there when they try to create a page (unless the referring URL comes from the AFC/ACW page). I think it makes a lot of sense, because it would be a good way to clearly introduce new users to the available options, and retains it for individual users until they actually want to turn it off, rather than somehow removing it willynilly just because they've been around a couple of days and made a handful of edits. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The trial would force that user setting to "on" for all users to try and get some people to use the tools. It'd be "presumed consent" and "opt out" rather than looking for volunteers to "opt in" because most users don't create an article (other than redirects) very often and people doing so for the purpose of challenging the system are probably going to go in with a biased view. I've played with the ACW, and it seems OK to me, though the article I was trying to start wasn't one of the standard article types the wizard tries to create. SDY (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Herding new users onto WP:AFC isn’t what we’re trying to do here: the aim is that the user edits articles and/or becomes familiar with what’s what before trying to create any. It’s great that Wikipedia can be more up-to-date than any printed encyclopaedia, but I can’t think of any article that absolutely has to be up the same day! WP:AFC is not going to produce that improvement in new user experience and thus retention most of us here are hoping for. If new, unconfirmed signups, who are currently not encouraged to create articles, are suddenly encouraged to use WP:AFC obviously it’s going to break under the load – 9926 article creations a month by new signups = 320 a day! RedactionalOne (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do note that the AFC and Article Wizard systems are now combined; check out Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission for the options available at the point of drafting: AFC, userspace draft, or live via wizard. Rd232 ^talk 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks excellent. (There just seems to be a missing graphic in Step 2.) I would be in favour of this wizard being the required route for the first article for all users, because it informs the user what the standards are without overwhelming them, gives links for more info, and presents choices for ‘Submit for review’, ‘Userspace draft’ and ‘Go live now!’, indicating which options are valid for whom. (It would be good if there was a link for more info for the ‘Submit for review’ option.) I’m sure it would significantly mitigate ‘deletion frustration’. In terms of the discussion on this page, it would only be necessary to change ‘registered users’ in Option 3 to ‘auto-confirmed users’.

Note that there’s actually no reason the same limit of 4 days / 10 edits has to apply for new article creation. A min 24 hours and 2 edits could be set, and a special wizard could be created to make those edits in a sandbox, starting with good (green tick) and bad (red cross) editing examples and then guiding the user through making two of their own on a dummy page, which they could then view. The 24 hour minimum would reduce deliberate abuse, and possible further restrictions down the line, like inability to add the ‘file’ tag or make extensive edits would be less controversial when applied only during the first 24 hours.

RedactionalOne (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No hope to reach consensus on implementation in current format, suggesting proposal on new page

There's no hope of reaching consensus on implementation in the current format of the RFC, and this page is getting too long, I suggest that a clear proposal for a trial be made on a separate page. If you agree, we should discuss the format of the new page. I've tried to encompass the above proposals, I suggest asking two questions:

1. It is proposed that after a preparation period of one month, a trial where creation of articles will be restricted to confirmed users be conducted for three months. Do you support or oppose ?
2. Should we automatically revert to the present situation at the end of the trial ? If we don't, a reversion to the present situation will occur after three more months unless there is consensus to do otherwise.

The format for answering should be the standard support/oppose/comments. Cenarium (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense, except that the half a dozen or so people strongly protesting the majority view will just start a whole load more derailing there. Maybe we should give it a day or two first. This would also give people a chance to seek additional stats, say. RedactionalOne (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the most widely endorsed views expressed above don't specifically advocate a trial. I would be inclined to vote against a trial, although I'm strongly in support of requiring autoconfirmation, so I think that any proposal should include a trial-free option. Rivertorch (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that if we add a third option in the first question, it will be difficult to determine the consensus (people may support an option conditionally, or exclusively). Maybe then we need a preliminary question of which proposal it should be: trial or indefinite, we could do this below on this page. Cenarium (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, let us talk some more, to decide if should talk more about talking more. Then we can talk some more about that, instead of improving or protecting content. Let us do something to protect content, instead talking for ever. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly for or against, though I prefer Collect's suggestion above. However, if there is a trial, let's learn from our experience with Pending Changes. Let's make it crystal clear whether, if there were to be no consensus at the end of the trial, we would revert to the pre-trial position, or whether continuing the trial indefinitely would become the default option. Certes (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just for amusement, I've created a separate subpage to address the basic question: should we have a trial at all? As WaID has pointed out on the talk page, we need to actually decide what we want the trial to prove before we start designing it, so also trying to collect that information there: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Autoconfirmed status trial. Hopefully this will give us a sense of whether there's consensus that a trial is needed. SDY (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• The first personal computer was made just for amusement too. I have responded there, and I agree that that page should get attention. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• We shouldn't assume consensus exists for either. As noted, the level of participation is not high enough to legitimate the move yet, this RFC is just a first step. Two hundreds of users is little compared to the active community. Cenarium (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• There's been plenty of discussion on this, and it's been well publicized. If this is not enough input on the proposal, how much more is needed? SDY (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• As discussed here, for a change of this magnitude it hasn't been enough. A few hundreds users participating in a policy discussion happens quite occasionally. This is a major structural change precedented only by the restriction to registered users of page creation, it needs a sitenotice for registered users. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've suggested a poll at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Restriction of article creation to autoconfirmed users. What do you think ? Cenarium (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Someone else did this too. CycloneGU (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Different questions. What I created was not a poll in general on the topic, it was a specific request for information about trials. SDY (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've come up with (hopefully) a far less divisive option - see at 'Proposal: Implement these changes for all users, not just newbies' above. Basically, it's use of the wizard combined with an even lower 'pole' of 24 hrs and 2 edits, separate from the auto-confirmed status requirements. RedactionalOne (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No assurance that a "trial" is not a trojan horse

We had a "trial" of Pending changes and those who supported the "Trial" were promised that it would be "for a two month trial period that began on June 15, 2010." It didn't end. Then there was an RFC where the consensus was to give it an extension with a drop-dead date of December 2010. It didn't end. Now there is another RFC with a clear consensus (112 to 51) that it should be ended at once. Yet it has not ended. Given this history, I cannot support anything that is described as a trial with a defined ending point. Credibility has been damaged too much for that.

See Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 for all the ugly details.Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Let's make sure a trial is actually asking a question that can be answered, and that one of the possible answers is no. If no is not a possible answer, just be honest and implement it directly. SDY (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue with PC is that it's too hard to keep switching on and off; I can't imagine this would be nearly that difficult, so it shouldn't be as much of an issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been following PC closely and never noticed a claim that there was an unanticipated technical reason why the promises to remove PC were broken. That would be very interesting information that would reduce a lot of the bad feelings that breaking the promise has caused. Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

At the beginning of the RfC in August/September (can't remember exactly, I think I'm right), the developers indicated that it would be way too difficult to turn PC off, then turn it back on if consensus was for it, so they left it on until consensus definitively developed one way or another. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, PC would be hard to reinstate once the infrastructure has been dismantled. However, it would be easy to remove PC from each article that has it, leaving the feature available but unused. This probably needs to happen even if PC becomes permanent, because the articles chosen for the trial may not be selected for live PC. Certes (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is also my understanding of what most people mean when they say "end the trial" - remove PC from each article that has it, leaving the feature available but unused. The fact that this has not been done despite a clear consensus to do so makes me question whether we can trust that a limited time "trial" of requiring autoconfirmed status in order to create articles will end when promised. I like the idea of requiring autoconfirmed status (possibly with shorter timeouts) for article creation, but I think any "trial" should be clearly labeled so the commenters know they are supporting or opposing an indefinite trial. Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We're talking apples and oranges here.

• With PC, the devs have promised that if the software is de-installed at our request, they will refuse to re-install it. The feature can, however, be left unused at the discretion of the admins (just like the admin corps could refuse to delete any more articles, if that's what they wanted). PC continues to be used because no one in our admin corps chooses to lock the remaining half of PC articles back into semi-protection, not because of any technical issue.
• With autoconfirmation, the feature must be implemented by the devs. It's not up to "us" or "the admins"; our control is solely limited to making a request—which they can fulfill or not, at their discretion. We can't change the settings, and we can't change the necessary supporting infrastructure (like the contents of the "Unauthorized" page, which tells anons that they need to register an account to start a page.)
  If we make (and they accept) a request that says "Please configure the system like this for 30 days, and then restore it to the original settings", then I think we can be reasonably confident that the devs will fulfill their promises. (Of course, they have the right to refuse to do it at all; we can't force them to change the setting at all.)

In short, I believe there's no reason to worry about this. It might make a convenient WP:COATRACK for airing our discontents over the PC mess, but the situation is significantly and importantly different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This could easily be implemented with an edit filter as an easy trial without using developers. hen we don't need to get into other difficulties with developers being annoyed at changing consensus. The edit filter would also tell us how many were knocked back. I am not sure if the filter could force the article wizard though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• The trial period model has not worked well for us. WP:PCRFC being a prime example of a spectacular failure. The real issue has been lost amongst the complaints about the trial was run and now it is a horrible quagmire with no end in sight. The fact is that almost everything about Wikipedia can be changed in the future if the community decides it isn't working. Defined trial periods are not needed as any action we take to day can be reversed in the future if hindsight proves it to have been a mistake. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree, we just need to clearly state beforehand how it will end. We can require an automatic reversion to the current status, which the devs will make effective after three months in any case. Cenarium (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: 24hr / 2 edit / wizard requirement for first article

There’s actually no reason the same limit of 4 days / 10 edits has to apply for new article creation. A minimum of 24 hours and 2 edits could be set, along with a requirement for the wizard – which now incorporates the AFC option – for the first article. (This wizard is so good at informing the user what the requirements are, why they’re there and where to get more info that I would suggest it as the required method for starting the first article for all users (not, obviously, applying to anyone who’s already created one).) The 4 days / 10 edits would remain in place for autoconfirmation.

A special wizard could be created to make those 2 edits in a sandbox (if they haven’t made them elsewhere), starting with good (green tick) and bad (red cross) editing examples and then guiding the user through making two of their own on a dummy page, which they could then view. The 24 hour minimum would reduce deliberate abuse, and possible further anti-vandalism restrictions down the line – like inability to add the ‘file’ tag or make extensive edits – would be less controversial when applied only during the first 24 hours.

Added as proposal here after suggestion by BarkingFish.

Users endorsing this view

RedactionalOne (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (proposer)

Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fish^Barking? 03:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

"There’s actually no reason the same limit of 4 days / 10 edits has to apply for new article creation." - of course there is. You're effectively proposing the creation of a new Article Creator userright with slightly lower standards than auto-confirmed. Rationale for why this additional complexity is a good thing when autoconfirmed is anyway a low barrier and there are various assistance options for non-autoconfirmed users (see my View above) is not clearly given. There's a hint of "less controversial" (than applying autoconfirmed standards to article creation), but that seems unlikely to be significant. PS "editing examples", though, to say something positive, are something I've wanted for the Wizard for a while, modelled perhaps on the way WikiProject quality standards are done (describing B/C class etc, with links to example articles). Would definitely be helpful.Rd232 ^talk 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the bar should be set much higher. Wikipedia is the new Craig's List now and unless more protection is added, it is well on its way to become "the largest rummage sale on the planet". Therefore, much more protection is needed. History2007 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Rd232, a 7th step for the article creation wizard? Yes, that could work. (Presumably, return users would be able to skip the making the two edits bit? I guess if one was being really fancy one could automatically hide that step if the user had edits under their belt.) Hopefully the rationale below is clearer. The original proposal was based on it being technically easy. But it seems obvious that it’s divisive, and even if it passes there will be lingering resentment of a fait accompli by a minority, which doesn’t seem good for the community. RedactionalOne (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean an extra step as such; I'd hope to be able to incorporate examples without that, eg by providing snippets at a relevant point and then linking elsewhere for more detail. Rd232 ^talk 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a wizard specifically for making edits in a sandbox could be developed additionally, then. The idea is that this new user who's waited 24 hrs and is keen to create his/her first article shouldn't be required to go into live articles to make 2 edits that don't need making. Talk page edits wouldn't count, so the user would need a way of making a couple as if on a live article, after getting some guidance and seeing good/bad examples. The linking elsewhere you suggest could also link to this Edit wizard, because that would include the links to other editing info. RedactionalOne (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

2 edits that don't need making - What? There are millions of edits that can be made to improve our existing articles. Why on earth would we waste our time setting up such a system and new users time making useless edits? If we're going to guide users through their first edits, we should show them how to find articles that need improvement that they might be interested in. If they're not even remotely interested in making any edits other than creating their article, then we need to consider whether they're actually the kind of user we should be expending effort to retain (see views by Rivertorch and Malleus Fatuorum). But making 2 edits in a sandbox will hardly prepare a user for creating a new article. They'll get a feel for how editing actually works, but they won't get any real experience that they couldn't get by reading a help page or two. Mr.Z-man.sock (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, my personal opinion is that the better thing before starting one’s first article is to spend a good couple of months editing articles and familiarising oneself with the guidelines and the community mechanisms. But a core principal of Wikipedia is that users should be able to contribute immediately, and a number here are evidently of the view that this should include the rapid access to article creation that they currently enjoy. Consensus has failed due to those objections, and so I’ve listened to them.

Now in the scenario that the user has joined (maybe having previously IP edited) specifically to create an article and has waited the 24 hours (in this proposal), if we require 10 edits the danger is they’re going to go into a random article, add commas, add and then remove words – whatever – in an attempt to notch up their edit count. This would frustrate both them and editors monitoring those articles. And it helps that first article not one bit.

The Edit wizard would also have another – in fact primary – purpose. To be the wizard offered immediately at signup. Bear in mind that around 75% of first contributions are edits, and this would be a quick, helpful way to guide the user through that process just as the Article wizard does for article creation.

Note that in 2010 only 63% of new users had made 10 edits within two months. It might seem like a minimal requirement for an editor with 1000 articles on their watchlist, but that’s not the way most newbies roll.

The 2 edits thing seems like a good idea notionally to me, but technically it’s slightly tricky with the sandbox, as it means either a separate counter or adding those 2 edits (technically incorrectly) to the mainspace edit count. A more workable alternative would be to simply make completion of the Edit wizard (once it existed) a requirement if the 2 real edits hadn’t been completed. Or, most simply, to have a 24 hr and Article wizard requirement only.

The 24 hrs addresses important issues of deliberate abuse – particularly by blocked users creating another account – and could deliver significant reduction in vandalism down the line if restrictions on major edits by < 24 hr users were later agreed. It also gives the user time to draft a better article and read procedures. And the requirement of the Article wizard for first article ought to help with article quality, reduce numbers of inappropriate articles, reduce ‘deletion frustration’ and increase retention. I’m not, however, sure that a 10 edit restriction would help at all – it might merely generate frustration, which itself leads to poorer quality articles.

Oops – rather verbose reply! And just to make it a bit longer: A nice addition to the last step of the Edit Wizard would be a list of articles identified as needing editing for consistency, so thanks for springboarding that thought.

RedactionalOne (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO, 2 edits in a sandbox is worse than doing nothing. It accomplishes the same thing as doing nothing (letting users create an article with no useful experience), but with a useless delay, and at increased cost in terms of development time. Worse, if the sandbox system is too easy, it might give new users false confidence, leading to an even bigger letdown when their article is deleted. Or alternately, if its too hard, it might discourage users before they make a real edit. I don't really care about abuse, it shouldn't be a primary consideration in this. Again, if a user is frustrated by having to make 10 edits, they probably aren't a likely candidate for a long-term editor. The goal should not be to get as many articles as possible, the goal should be to get as many users as possible. In the long-term (and probably the short-term as well), we will be far better off with a larger active userbase and fewer articles than a large collection of articles that a small userbase struggles to maintain. I guess, to summarize, this proposal entirely misses the point. It appears to be trying to apply the same mechanisms as the general proposal to solve a different problem. Mr.Z-man 02:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree on a personal viewpoint level that quality articles and enough active editors to maintain them is a sound aspiration, but not at the expense of the Wikipedia philosophy. As already stated in this section, “...any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.” Additionally, “There must be ... no hierarchy or structure to get in the way of this openness to newcomers”, who should be “given full privileges ... [in] a very short period of time.” Also, “’You can edit this page right now’ is a core guiding check on everything that we do’” It is not going to be deemed acceptable – by either parts of the community or, probably, the Foundation – to set onerous requirements for first article creation. So what’s the point in proposing that again?

The research is indicating that we have plenty of editors and stable retention. However, the way the current system allows article degradation and defacement so easily must be frustrating. And newbie frustration must be significant for users who don’t run the Article wizard first time and get their article pulled. (In case you haven’t reviewed the wizard recently, here are the links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Note, particularly, Step 6.)

I’m not talking about a blank sandbox, I’m suggesting a helpful wizard that presents one or two realistic problem passages, explains why they’re substandard and allows the user to resolve them. It’s a problem for me to articulate just what I mean without paragraphs more of text or actually creating it. But I’m certainly confident that it would be helpful for anyone who hasn’t edited before, and I’m disappointed that you’re trashing the idea before you even see it in action.

I think the new proposal maintains the rationale at the top of this page, has important additional (foundational) advantages and is more in keeping with the guiding principals. An IP editor who signs up in order to create an article is going to be frustrated by having to wait 4 days and make 10 edits – and still in all likelihood have their new article deleted. What is your idea for moving forward?

RedactionalOne (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not a security measure. It will likely have the effect of reducing spam and vandalism, but that would just be a beneficial side effect, not a goal. The primary purposes of this are to A) Improve new users' experiences making them more likely to stay by B) reducing the number of new users who, in good faith, create an article that gets deleted. The idea that anyone can edit anything at any time actually seems to be a relatively recent idea, if not something just made up to oppose this (it sure wasn't around when we came up with semiprotection, or when we increased the 10 edit requirement to autoconfirmed). Historically its just been "anyone can edit," and anyone can still edit the existing 3.6 million articles. Given that nearly 80% of the community supports it and the current registration requirement was put in place by the foundation (sort of), I don't see that as an insurmountable obstacle. TBH, I don't see 24h/2e as much less of a barrier than 96h/10e. I think putting any requirement is going to be a significant barrier. Even 12 hours is still a fairly long time to wait.

A constant number of users is really not a good thing. A better metric is the editor/article ratio. Ideally it should be at least stable, if not increasing.

I just don't understand why, when we have hundreds of thousands of articles that need improvements and we even know what improvements they need, we would have users editing sandbox scenarios. I suppose its not definitely going to fail, but it seems a lot harder and more likely to fail. I don't see how it will be more useful than making real edits. Typically the main reason one would use an artificial scenario is because you can't use a real one. But we're buried up to our necks in examples of problematic articles.

Actually, based on the results of my most recent new user study, users who edit other articles in addition to creating one are much less likely to have their articles deleted. Of users who only created an article in their first 5 edits, 77% had it deleted. Of users who also edited an article other than one they created, only 37% had their article deleted. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well 24h/2e is 25% of the wait and 20% of the edits. I think the chief objection from the vocal minority (I don’t include myself, as I do not oppose 4d/10e – I just think 24h/2e is more beneficial on balance) was the 4 day wait before creating first article. (Certainly that was the case for BarkingFish.) Are you saying 2 edits is too few? I’m getting confused, because you indicate that there’s little difference between 4d/10e and 24h/2e, and yet you seem bothered by the Edit wizard – which wouldn’t be a requirement. (It’s the Article wizard that would be, for the first article only.)

Yes, I’m very clear on the reasons for this discussion – my reference to rationale was meaning the four points above the Contents box. (Re #4, I actually think that a well-constructed Edit wizard could provide a more valuable editing experience than correcting 10 typos, because it would be addressing the issues of editing, rather than concentrating on the mechanics – exactly as the Article wizard does.)

I’ll try to clarify some things relating to the proposed Edit wizard:

• It would not need to be in place in order to implement this proposal (the new user could make two real edits)
• It should put the newbie at ease – she sees just a small snippet of code, on a split screen with the output, so the process unlocks itself easily
• It’s a welcoming, inclusive gesture, in line with core principals – helping in particular the vast majority of people with no coding knowledge
• Under the current system, well below 50% of new users have reached 10 edits after 10 days; 10 edits can therefore be seen as a not insignificant barrier
• There would be various article links, with Article-wizard-like explanations of their significance – plenty of useful stuff, even to an experienced IP editor
• With a list of random articles flagged for editing on the ‘wizard complete’ page, some would participate – useful article cleanup, and an article success benefit as per your findings

I got my information on Wikipedia’s principals from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. These are quite different to the ones you linked to, and, I would suggest, much more expansive and up-to-date and thus pertinent to this debate; as WhatamIdoing notes above, this change will need to be implemented by the devs, and will require the Foundation’s full backing.

I think 24 hrs is a very useful differentiation to have built into the system. Yes, I know vandalism wasn’t part of the original rationale, but that’s because the 4 day wait for autoconfirmation would be a controversial wait for granting major edit status. 24 hrs, on the other hand, seems to me about right. Now obviously that’s a whole other discussion, but hopefully most in the community would agree that would finally make an edit block mean something. It would also help reduce vandalism when, say, a news topic involving the subject of an article went viral. Use of the ‘file’ tag and blanking / wholesale replacement of text could also be prevented during the first 24 hrs, and I don’t think this would be too controversial. (If we end up proposing something similar to 24h/2e to the Foundation, we should mention this anti-vandalism outline – otherwise they might question the dev time in making the change.)

The subject of redirects is worth mentioning: Some editors here started with these after switching from IP editing, and a 4d/10e restriction would stifle these.

RedactionalOne (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm mainly concerned that using a wizard to teach people how to edit, in which they don't actually make a real edit is going to leave users woefully unprepared for creating a new article, which is a fairly difficult editing task. To use the oft-referenced driving analogy, its like giving someone a drivers license after having them drive around an empty parking lot for 2 minutes. I don't understand why we're skipping straight to complicated solutions without even trying the simpler ones. I don't see why you're making the assumption that users would just fix 10 typos, when I've said – several times in this thread alone – that we could, and should, point them toward real articles that they might be interested in or real problems that they might be interested in fixing. They might even realize that they don't need to create a new article to add whatever bit of information they have, it might fit into an existing one on a broader topic. As for 24 hours still being a barrier, its like a fence. A 2 foot fence is smaller than an 8 foot fence, but its a fence nonetheless. I don't really understand how a copy of principles can be "up to date" - the principles of the site are not something that should be changing very often. Unless someone with authority from the foundation has actually expressed a concern, we shouldn't operate under the assumption that they will. Mr.Z-man 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, let’s use the driving analogy: The current situation leaves the keys in the ignition of every car at the car hire lot (and also a couple of tanks out back). There’s a big sign saying ‘Please drive carefully and read the [bulky] Highway Code and Car Manual in the glove box’. The lot is right next to the high school. There’s one patrol vehicle and thousands of cars. If a driver gets nabbed, she just helps herself to another car.

4d/10e: As above, but cars aren’t allowed onto the freeway for four days. Also, to get on the freeway the engine has to be warm – this could be from careful three-point turns or burning rubber down residential streets at 3am. If they’re nabbed, they just get another car from the lot.

24hr/2e/wizard (with later major edit restrictions): The tanks and large-cc vehicles are off-limits for the first day. The learner is initially given the sort of car a driving school would use. Because those running this car hire firm recognise that many users will want to get going quickly (and these are bespoke cars, and their clients are all used to different road rules or can’t drive), they give them the tools for an intensive driving course: there is a quick-start guide to the motor vehicle and another for the Highway Code. The former is encouraged and the latter is required before highway driving.

The quick-start guides don’t guarantee proficiency, but the learner is warned that their car will be taken away if there’s dangerous driving, and they won’t get another for a day. They’re also given the option of driving in a town mock-up if they’re worried about mowing down pedestrians through poor clutch control. (All the cars are currently manuals – one day they hope to upgrade to autos).

The government has ruled that highway driving should be available quickly. The car hire firm staff are worried about this, but realise the safest course of action is to get the learner up to speed as quickly as possible.

Possibly an over-extended analogy there. ;) I don’t see it as a complicated solution. Basically, I’m just saying that those who’ve set out to create an article are just going to get frustrated and disenchanted by a 4 day wait, and so create a poorer quality first article or give up. I’m suggesting 1 day – 1 more than we have now. Direct access to a blank article is not easily discoverable, so I don’t think we even have to make the Article wizard a requirement – simply remove references to AfC from the welcome templates. (Remember that the AfC option now exists within the Article wizard – Step 6.)

The Edit wizard is highly desirable for reasons I’ve already gone into, including that it could be the wizard encouraged at signup – ie at 0 hrs. I think that for technical reasons, a 2 edit requirement at a system level might actually be more trouble than it’s worth. Instead, if the Article wizard was able to detect an edit count < 2, it could maybe either call the Edit wizard or highly recommend it in the first step – I haven’t yet looked to see what’s possible. (This would also give the advantage that we could adjust the edit count requirement experimentally just by tweaking the wizard(s), without system changes required.) So, while I see the Edit wizard as highly desirable, it wouldn’t need to be in place initially.

Really, all we need is the new 24 hr milestone to be in the system and for the Article wizard to be the more discoverable option and the only one linked in the welcome templates – the latter being something we can do ourselves.

RedactionalOne (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, haven’t quite addressed all your points. The world at large is not well-versed in any form of markup. Going, once again, back to the driving example, you wouldn’t park someone with zero driving experience on the highway hard shoulder and leave them to it! The Edit wizard would be for both the technical and policy issues of editing – and would encourage actual editing in the last step – and the Article wizard would (and does) guide the new user through the guidelines. A new editor who’d gone from Edit wizard to editing a suggested article to Article wizard, reading links on things they weren’t clear about, would potentially have more relevant experience for creating a notable, quality article than one who’d found their own way through making 10 edits over 4 days.

This is because the Article wizard is an excellent guide to policies. (I think the markup advice is open to improvement.) And I would hope the Edit wizard would be similarly beneficial for the editing process.

Note that there’s no intention to encourage article creation on Day 2 – there would be no message to the user on that day. If the new user has signed up in order to create an article, their mind is unlikely to be on editing others. However, yes, I’ve already said a couple of times that the addition of a list of articles flagged for editing at the completion screen for the Edit wizard would be great – it could see a significant volume of new users making minor but useful edits, especially if we include a link to it on the ‘signup complete’ screen. (I haven’t yet found what it is we say there.)

In summary, my solution is simpler than the original proposal, setting aside the Edit template; that isn’t a requirement, but is the obvious missing link in the chain for new user induction, and so is definitely worth the effort.

Re the core principals, the page I linked to was the user page of Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia. They can be interpreted as a green light for progressive change subject to avoiding unnecessary obstacles. 4d/10e doesn’t seem like a massive obstacle to me for first article creation, but some disagree. For first redirect, there’s a strong case for saying it’s OTT.

RedactionalOne (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC) ETA RedactionalOne (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not extremely complicated, but it is more complicated than simply pointing users toward existing articles. It also loses the advantages of getting users to improve other articles and potentially encouraging users to expand existing articles rather than creating new ones. So it will do almost nothing to reduce the load on NPP or reverse the quantity over quality philosophy that we encourage. Editing existing articles is really not very difficult compared to creating one. We prefer that users add citations to any new information, but outside of FAs, we don't really enforce it. An edit wizard is arguably riskier too. We have hard evidence that users who contribute to other articles before (or instead of) creating new ones are more successful and more likely to become long-term users (which most of the arguments against completely ignore in favor of speculation and anecdotal evidence). An edit wizard is essentially a completely untested idea. Given that the main proposal here has around 75% community support I don't see why we should rule it out as entirely infeasible. Mr.Z-man 20:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(See also my previous comment - addendum to the last.) How about 24h/5e? As previously stated, I believe it's the 4 day wait most of the opposers were unhappy with. Also, as you know, I see the 24 hr marker as useful for future measures. RedactionalOne (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

5 edits would be better (though I'm not sure what you're basing your opinion on for what opposers are unhappy with, most don't seem to specify). My main opposition is to the edit wizard. I think that in the best case scenario, its unnecessary and in the worst case, unhelpful. If we're going to do a trial, we should have as few variables as possible. If we put in the edit wizard and a restriction on article creation, it will make interpreting the results of a trial much more difficult. Mr.Z-man 22:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll update the proposal (not right now). Re the 4 day wait being the primary objection from those strongly against the original proposal, I got that impression from the comments on this page, and BarkingFish said so explicitly (on a comment on my talk page). I agree that reducing variables is helpful for interpreting results. I think the Edit wizard will take quite a while to get right - and it shouldn't be offered until it is. Therefore, it's unlikely to be in place by the time of evaluation. If we go with 24h/5e, I think there'll be less insistence on a trial and revert plan. For this change (which won't impact most new users) it seems nonsensical to evaluate after reverting the policy. How long do you think would be needed for useful data - a couple of months? If we had a 3 month trial we could evaluate during the third month. All being well, if the trial was held to be successful it could simply be kept in place.

It would be very useful to know by what route each relevant user started their first article before and during this trial: Wizard, option 1, 2 or 3, AfC (not via wizard) or direct. Is this at all feasible? We could, for instance, expect to see far more successful articles when drafted on user page than added with 'Go live', but without the data this is mere speculation. Perhaps an easier stat to wrangle would be length of time in days from creation until live. Both drafted and AfCd would take longer but presumably have a far greater chance of success. RedactionalOne (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A summary of my waffle below:

• We risk breaking a core principle by setting poorly tailored restrictions
• Our biggest challenges lie, I believe, with edits, not new article creation
• This proposal mitigates new article issues and lays groundwork for addressing editing issues
• This proposal is far less divisive than the 4 day / 10 edit option
• Analysing page deletion logs is useful for getting a handle on the issues
• What meets the ‘notable’ requirements will change over time based on usage

History2007, I’m not sure extending the limit to 4 days / 10 edits would significantly address that problem. Also, ‘too many articles’ doesn’t strike me as the big problem Wikipedia faces. Defacement and information content, neutrality and quality on medium/high traffic articles seem like the biggies.

I had a good look through the deleted pages log; a decision process had resulted in the removal of HelpingIsEasy.org. Now I dare say all reasonable care was taken to correctly interpret the ‘notable’ requirement. But in terms of the person putting that page up, they would have jumped through whatever hoops were there, believing it notable. The wizard (included in the proposal but not currently required for the first article) would have been the best way of convincing them otherwise, but might not have managed to.

The question of whether Wikipedia is a better place without that page (on what appears to be quite an influential charity in the NY area, with various web sites pointing to theirs) is an interesting one. An article’s existence on Wikipedia does not, I would argue, negatively impact the site as long as the search algorithm doesn’t give it undue weight and it meets certain standards of quality and relevance to people who would seek that quality information from us. What determines that is inevitably partly subjective, and is going to change over time depending on who uses Wikipedia for what. For instance, tech heads use us a lot, and there are detailed articles on obscure 80s computer games. This is deemed fine because a lot of editors are tech heads. In other areas things get more murky.

The log also reveals various overly promotional pages which, again, are not likely to be addressed by any reasonable measure, as well as some abusive ones. But the main defacement problem is with existing pages, and my proposal has a built in capability for planning future measures for addressing that which would still have some chance of gaining consensus – clearly, if the original proposal of 4 days / 10 edits to create first article is this divisive this would be likely to extend to future editing restrictions along similar lines.

Core Wikipedia principal #2 states that “...any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.” In this sense, I believe my proposal is a significant improvement on the original one. It could significantly reduce abuse, significantly reduce ‘deletion frustration’ and increase new user retention. No algorithm exits for deciding notability, and this is going to remain in the hands of the community, which is probably as it should be.

RedactionalOne (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Samantha.pia I have no idea why I have been invited to this, as a new user I am still finding my way around and really don't qualify for this deep heavy stuff. Samantha.pia (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Related proposal for article wizard extension

There is a related proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Article wizard extension for requesting an article wizard extension. That is independent of this discussion, it doesn't imply any restriction. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the auto confirmed status requirement but the other proposals here are just too much baggage, Wiki should remain as light and changeable as more or less it is now with a few fine tunings, like the one in this query. Msrafiq (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)