This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I noticed a couple comments in the RFC about the following sentence, which sentence I hadn't previously noticed. "New Page Review is not the venue for mentoring new users or completing their articles, you as a reviewer already have enough to do."
@ Kudpung:, do you mind if I take that out? I think expecting people with the new page patrol right to treat it like a job or task, to approach it robotically, is unrealistic and misses the way people approach Wikipedia. At any rate, although I can't speak for anyone else, it misses the way I approach Wikipedia.
I also think it encourages people to do exactly what the joke at the top of this page complains about - people who can't be arsed to fix the problems they spot but prefer to simply slap on a tag and let it languish indefinitely while biting the good faith initial contributor.
Does it take longer to fix problems than tag them? Yes. Do we have a severe and growing backlog in unreviewed new pages? Yes. But we also have a severe and growing backlog in unresolved issues that are tagged at the top of articles. I think reviewers should be encouraged to fix issues in articles if they can, and tag if they can't. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 19:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I do agree the wording is prone to misreading and I would suggest "New Page Reviews should not feel obligated to mentor new users or complete their articles. There are other venues better suited for these tasks such as WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:AFC to which new editors should be directed for in depth help.". @ Kudpung: does this still capture the essence of what you intended? @ ONUnicorn: does this cause you less concern? Jbh Talk 14:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Perfect. I don't know what the fuss was all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The right does not show up in the request for permissions. I also qualify for the 200 uncontested patrols within the time period, so... Adotchar ( talk) 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Adotchar: it is not about meeting the minimums. It is about demonstrating competence to properly review pages. The large number of concerns and warnings on your talk page are a big red flag that you have not yet done so. Try participating in WP:AFD, that will help you learn about notability and sourcing. Try reading and participating in WP:BLPN, WP:COIN and the other noticeboards to get a feel for how WP:BLP works and how to spot promotional editors. Then do some reviews at WP:AFC. Jbh Talk 21:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I noticed a couple comments in the RFC about the following sentence, which sentence I hadn't previously noticed. "New Page Review is not the venue for mentoring new users or completing their articles, you as a reviewer already have enough to do."
@ Kudpung:, do you mind if I take that out? I think expecting people with the new page patrol right to treat it like a job or task, to approach it robotically, is unrealistic and misses the way people approach Wikipedia. At any rate, although I can't speak for anyone else, it misses the way I approach Wikipedia.
I also think it encourages people to do exactly what the joke at the top of this page complains about - people who can't be arsed to fix the problems they spot but prefer to simply slap on a tag and let it languish indefinitely while biting the good faith initial contributor.
Does it take longer to fix problems than tag them? Yes. Do we have a severe and growing backlog in unreviewed new pages? Yes. But we also have a severe and growing backlog in unresolved issues that are tagged at the top of articles. I think reviewers should be encouraged to fix issues in articles if they can, and tag if they can't. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 19:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I do agree the wording is prone to misreading and I would suggest "New Page Reviews should not feel obligated to mentor new users or complete their articles. There are other venues better suited for these tasks such as WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:AFC to which new editors should be directed for in depth help.". @ Kudpung: does this still capture the essence of what you intended? @ ONUnicorn: does this cause you less concern? Jbh Talk 14:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Perfect. I don't know what the fuss was all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The right does not show up in the request for permissions. I also qualify for the 200 uncontested patrols within the time period, so... Adotchar ( talk) 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Adotchar: it is not about meeting the minimums. It is about demonstrating competence to properly review pages. The large number of concerns and warnings on your talk page are a big red flag that you have not yet done so. Try participating in WP:AFD, that will help you learn about notability and sourcing. Try reading and participating in WP:BLPN, WP:COIN and the other noticeboards to get a feel for how WP:BLP works and how to spot promotional editors. Then do some reviews at WP:AFC. Jbh Talk 21:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)