This is a Wikipedia communal patrol dedicated to providing feedback for new editors.
The mandate of this group is to respond to requests at
This group does not attempt to help editors trying to gain a GA or FA rating This group does not intend to take on tasks currently handled by the WP:NPP
This group must recognize that Wikipedia, to new editors, can be quite intimidating, so we want to avoid biting. The goal is to provide constructive feedback, and if possible, actual help in improving the article, in a friendly, welcoming way.
There are two reasons driving the desire to create such a group:
One of the first tasks is to determine whether the mandate for this group is sufficiently distinct from that of WP:NPP to justify a separate group.
Editors choosing to start an article in userspace will not have their article appear in the New Page listing.
One option is to expand the mandate of the New Page Patrol to include these pages. However, my first reaction is that might be counterproductive. The NPP is used to tagging article with notices of deficiencies, but this would be annoying to a new editor who is specifically writing in user space to have the freedom to get an article up to snuff before asking for feedback. The triggering event for NPP is the creation of a new page in article space. The triggering event for feedback is not the creation of the page in article space (it is earlier than that), nor it is the creation of an article in user space (it is later than that).
The triggering event is a request from an editor, either by a post at Requests for feedback or by the addition of the {{move draft}} to the article. Obviously, there is no prohibition against new Page Patrollers monitoring both of those locations, but we should decide whether we want to simply push the NPP to expand their mandate, or ask a new group (with overlap as desired by the individuals) to address the Feedback issues.
One of the areas proposed for coverage is requests to move a userspace draft. Given that we already have a process for handling requested moves, isn't it obvious that this group would be the ideal group to process the moves?
First, I'll emphasize that if any individual or self-identified group wants to make Wikipedia better, I don't want to stand in their way. However, despite an occasional request to clean up the backlog, it isn't happening. As I thought about it, I concluded it isn't as obvious a match as it appears.
Generally speaking, requests at WP:RM involve articles that aren't necessarily deficient in terms of copy edit issues. The sole issue is the title itself. Editors who volunteer at WP:RM need to have interest and expertise in a number of areas:
Regulars could add to this list. In contrast, a {{move draft}} request almost never involves questions about the title itself. In theory, it ought to be noncontroversial, and the choice of a title itself is usually noncontroversial, but in almost all cases, the editor making the request is relatively new, typically with under ten edits (or they wouldn't need to make the request). As we all know, Wikipedia has a plethora of policies and guidelines, and the typical new editor isn't reading and absorbing them all before boldly creating a draft article. In an informal survey, I found over four out of every five requests have serious deficiencies which should be remedied before moving. As a consequence, the skill set needed to assess the move draft request is the ability to assess and give advice regarding issues such:
I don't doubt that the editors manning the WP:RM desk are conversant with these policies, but the mindset on encountering a Requested Move is the set of issues about the title. Such an editor is not expecting to have to read the entire article for structure and provide a feedback assessment, but that's the typical response to a {{move draft}} request.(I don't think it is appropriate to do a one person AfD determination, so I use a very low hurdle for what should be moved).
In summary, {{move draft}} request is a de facto request for a feedback review, and would best be handled by editors who are expecting to provide feedback, with little emphasis on title issues.
One argument for identifying a new group is that I'd like to add a little bit of structure to the process. For example, when I see a request for feedback on a band article or a footballer, I know I am out of my depth, and would like to ask someone else to look at it. It would be nice if we could get some volunteers and identify some broad categories of interest. Another possibility, after we get the move request backlog down, is to automatically send a note to talk pages if the backlog gets too high.
Tasks to undertake after (if?) we get organized:
As to the reasons why to create a group, whilst I cannot really comment on the second point (I never really use the category that is mentioned there) I definitely agree with the first point that has been made. Sometimes there's many requests that are still pending and they are left all day because of the lack of respondents. The number of requests often exceed the number of respondents who are willing to review, and I think that it's a great idea to create a group to highlight the problem and perhaps increase the amount of traffic to the forum by helpers. The draft description is great, and there's not much more I can really say. Chevy monte carlo 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I, for one, support entirely the idea of helping new users out--perhaps this could also be coordinated with IRC though? (There's #wikipedia-en-help of Freenode, which is general editing help, but it's possible to create a separate one for feedback requests if needed.) — fetch · comms 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the remit; why FEED, NCHP and CAT:DRAFT? Seems a somewhat odd collection, especially the latter.
Regarding new users making new articles - there are, currently, several ways of doing things.
They can use WP:AFC, they can create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, use the WP:WIZARD, or just create the non-existent live page. Each system works in a different way.
Not long ago, I did start a conversation about Wikipedia_talk:AFC#Why does this process exist? - the point being, there is a discrepancy between a) policy decision that new users cannot create articles, and b) our 'bending over backwards' through AFC to let them do just that. Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for making it as easy as possible...but the various processes that exist means that users are treated in very different ways, depending on the route taken.
Anyway - back to this discussion - why these areas, and not e.g. WP:RA, or WP:PR, or even WP:ADOPT? Is it because these are perceived as being backlogged or under-represented? Is this to 'clear the backlog', or is it supposed to be a longer term solution?
If we do concentrate on these areas, which other areas will suffer? (Please...bear with me...I might sound negative, but I'm not...I just think these things worthy of consideration) - we have limited resources, and we cannot magic up more people - well, we can work on that, of course - but for projects like this, we have to work with what we currently have available. So, is this project an optimum use of our most valuable commodity - viz. expert-time?
Sorry - I'm getting side-tracked; let me stop this becoming TL;DR;
This is odd, because, we give more help to people who don't bother registering.
Also, I do not understand what NPP has to do with this stuff. Nor do I know how this {{movedraft}} works.
It's all a bit vague at the moment. I think that working to reduce the FEED backlog is a good idea, but the rest, I'm not sure how it fits together.
NHCP is a different kettle of fish; perhaps the 'solution' to that problem (if there is one) is simply to get more of the people who respond at helpdesk to look there too. Or merge 'em, somehow.
In conclusion: I think this idea needs to be stated more clearly, before bringing it to a wider audience. Chzz ► 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Following the suggestion of automating this process, I believe User:RFC bot does something similar to what might be required. However it might be better to have authors create their own Request for Feedback, that way they can ask specific questions and request the areas they would like more feedback. But perhaps there should be an automated (or semi-automated via templates) category of {{ move draft}} articles without WP:FEED requests.
Perhaps the category could be added to the move-draft template and then a WP:FEED volunteer could remove it using a template parameter? Captain n00dle \ Talk 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Several editors have discussed ideas. The latest idea is to move the remaining pages to WP:AFC, where the editors at that project are best equipped to help turn a draft into a real article, if there is potential merit.
The first step is moving the stale requests to AFC. That may be completed soon. The next step is to deprecate {{ Move draft}} and replace it with a process to handle future requests directly at WP:AFC. The details of that step haven't been fully worked out.-- SPhilbrick T 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia communal patrol dedicated to providing feedback for new editors.
The mandate of this group is to respond to requests at
This group does not attempt to help editors trying to gain a GA or FA rating This group does not intend to take on tasks currently handled by the WP:NPP
This group must recognize that Wikipedia, to new editors, can be quite intimidating, so we want to avoid biting. The goal is to provide constructive feedback, and if possible, actual help in improving the article, in a friendly, welcoming way.
There are two reasons driving the desire to create such a group:
One of the first tasks is to determine whether the mandate for this group is sufficiently distinct from that of WP:NPP to justify a separate group.
Editors choosing to start an article in userspace will not have their article appear in the New Page listing.
One option is to expand the mandate of the New Page Patrol to include these pages. However, my first reaction is that might be counterproductive. The NPP is used to tagging article with notices of deficiencies, but this would be annoying to a new editor who is specifically writing in user space to have the freedom to get an article up to snuff before asking for feedback. The triggering event for NPP is the creation of a new page in article space. The triggering event for feedback is not the creation of the page in article space (it is earlier than that), nor it is the creation of an article in user space (it is later than that).
The triggering event is a request from an editor, either by a post at Requests for feedback or by the addition of the {{move draft}} to the article. Obviously, there is no prohibition against new Page Patrollers monitoring both of those locations, but we should decide whether we want to simply push the NPP to expand their mandate, or ask a new group (with overlap as desired by the individuals) to address the Feedback issues.
One of the areas proposed for coverage is requests to move a userspace draft. Given that we already have a process for handling requested moves, isn't it obvious that this group would be the ideal group to process the moves?
First, I'll emphasize that if any individual or self-identified group wants to make Wikipedia better, I don't want to stand in their way. However, despite an occasional request to clean up the backlog, it isn't happening. As I thought about it, I concluded it isn't as obvious a match as it appears.
Generally speaking, requests at WP:RM involve articles that aren't necessarily deficient in terms of copy edit issues. The sole issue is the title itself. Editors who volunteer at WP:RM need to have interest and expertise in a number of areas:
Regulars could add to this list. In contrast, a {{move draft}} request almost never involves questions about the title itself. In theory, it ought to be noncontroversial, and the choice of a title itself is usually noncontroversial, but in almost all cases, the editor making the request is relatively new, typically with under ten edits (or they wouldn't need to make the request). As we all know, Wikipedia has a plethora of policies and guidelines, and the typical new editor isn't reading and absorbing them all before boldly creating a draft article. In an informal survey, I found over four out of every five requests have serious deficiencies which should be remedied before moving. As a consequence, the skill set needed to assess the move draft request is the ability to assess and give advice regarding issues such:
I don't doubt that the editors manning the WP:RM desk are conversant with these policies, but the mindset on encountering a Requested Move is the set of issues about the title. Such an editor is not expecting to have to read the entire article for structure and provide a feedback assessment, but that's the typical response to a {{move draft}} request.(I don't think it is appropriate to do a one person AfD determination, so I use a very low hurdle for what should be moved).
In summary, {{move draft}} request is a de facto request for a feedback review, and would best be handled by editors who are expecting to provide feedback, with little emphasis on title issues.
One argument for identifying a new group is that I'd like to add a little bit of structure to the process. For example, when I see a request for feedback on a band article or a footballer, I know I am out of my depth, and would like to ask someone else to look at it. It would be nice if we could get some volunteers and identify some broad categories of interest. Another possibility, after we get the move request backlog down, is to automatically send a note to talk pages if the backlog gets too high.
Tasks to undertake after (if?) we get organized:
As to the reasons why to create a group, whilst I cannot really comment on the second point (I never really use the category that is mentioned there) I definitely agree with the first point that has been made. Sometimes there's many requests that are still pending and they are left all day because of the lack of respondents. The number of requests often exceed the number of respondents who are willing to review, and I think that it's a great idea to create a group to highlight the problem and perhaps increase the amount of traffic to the forum by helpers. The draft description is great, and there's not much more I can really say. Chevy monte carlo 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I, for one, support entirely the idea of helping new users out--perhaps this could also be coordinated with IRC though? (There's #wikipedia-en-help of Freenode, which is general editing help, but it's possible to create a separate one for feedback requests if needed.) — fetch · comms 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the remit; why FEED, NCHP and CAT:DRAFT? Seems a somewhat odd collection, especially the latter.
Regarding new users making new articles - there are, currently, several ways of doing things.
They can use WP:AFC, they can create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, use the WP:WIZARD, or just create the non-existent live page. Each system works in a different way.
Not long ago, I did start a conversation about Wikipedia_talk:AFC#Why does this process exist? - the point being, there is a discrepancy between a) policy decision that new users cannot create articles, and b) our 'bending over backwards' through AFC to let them do just that. Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for making it as easy as possible...but the various processes that exist means that users are treated in very different ways, depending on the route taken.
Anyway - back to this discussion - why these areas, and not e.g. WP:RA, or WP:PR, or even WP:ADOPT? Is it because these are perceived as being backlogged or under-represented? Is this to 'clear the backlog', or is it supposed to be a longer term solution?
If we do concentrate on these areas, which other areas will suffer? (Please...bear with me...I might sound negative, but I'm not...I just think these things worthy of consideration) - we have limited resources, and we cannot magic up more people - well, we can work on that, of course - but for projects like this, we have to work with what we currently have available. So, is this project an optimum use of our most valuable commodity - viz. expert-time?
Sorry - I'm getting side-tracked; let me stop this becoming TL;DR;
This is odd, because, we give more help to people who don't bother registering.
Also, I do not understand what NPP has to do with this stuff. Nor do I know how this {{movedraft}} works.
It's all a bit vague at the moment. I think that working to reduce the FEED backlog is a good idea, but the rest, I'm not sure how it fits together.
NHCP is a different kettle of fish; perhaps the 'solution' to that problem (if there is one) is simply to get more of the people who respond at helpdesk to look there too. Or merge 'em, somehow.
In conclusion: I think this idea needs to be stated more clearly, before bringing it to a wider audience. Chzz ► 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Following the suggestion of automating this process, I believe User:RFC bot does something similar to what might be required. However it might be better to have authors create their own Request for Feedback, that way they can ask specific questions and request the areas they would like more feedback. But perhaps there should be an automated (or semi-automated via templates) category of {{ move draft}} articles without WP:FEED requests.
Perhaps the category could be added to the move-draft template and then a WP:FEED volunteer could remove it using a template parameter? Captain n00dle \ Talk 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Several editors have discussed ideas. The latest idea is to move the remaining pages to WP:AFC, where the editors at that project are best equipped to help turn a draft into a real article, if there is potential merit.
The first step is moving the stale requests to AFC. That may be completed soon. The next step is to deprecate {{ Move draft}} and replace it with a process to handle future requests directly at WP:AFC. The details of that step haven't been fully worked out.-- SPhilbrick T 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)