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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
So, I review an article such as Bharosa (TV series) and find the plot section is copypasted from one source and the rest of the article from another. I think it should be speedily deleted, but the curation toolset only allows me to give one copyvio-related url, and there is nowhere to make a comment either. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The article Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation is largely copy-pasted, I think, from EEC documents here which I imagine are in the public domain. It is not really a suitable article for Wikipedia in its present form. What would be the best way forward here? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledgedand that individual sections may have their own copyright notice. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
As of 11:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC), the backlog is around 9600. I believe the massive drop was a result of new NPRs that came onboard recently. Insertcleverphrasehere has a page in his userspace with the stats (I couldnt find it). That being said, I still believe if we get only 100 more active reviewers, then the backlog will never cross 5k, and will remain under 2000, or even 1000. At this particular situation, if we dont get new NPRs, then we will have to maintain streak to bring backlog below 2000.
But I believe we should be a little more vocal/promotional about NPR. Once the backlog is stable under 1000, and we have more than 1000 reviewers, then soon it will be just like PCR, the backlog will never cross 500 pages per day. That is based on the loose assumption that there are 500 pages created per day. So at a random given moment, there would be like 250-300 pages in the queue.
Yes, I agree with Galobtte, Tony, and Kudpung. But only partially. It is a fact that an editor requires thorough knowledge of policies. Then why to (re)explain them in tutorial? I think a lot of content from the tutorial can be removed that way. Like COI: it begins with what it is, then it includes how to identify, how to respond, and a lot of stuff. I think we should create a primary tutorial (at the current location), which should be more like a "briefing". A new part of the tutorial (a new page) should be created with details of everything. The sections of this detailed "text-book style" tutorial then can be linked within the brief tutorial. Like, there should be only one para/section regarding COI in primary tutorial. It should have links to the sections of detailed tutorial eg "how to identify COI", and so on. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The backlog has now dipped to just below 8,000. This demonstrates (I hope) excellent work. However, I am coming across many pages that have now slipped into to encyclopedia unpatrolled after 90 days. For the moment, the one's I have come across were ones I would have normally accepted, but it's probably the tip of an iceberg. We can't stress enough that 8,000 is still far too many to avoid this happening. Keep up the good work - ACTRIAL ends soon... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello all,
WikiJournals are peer reviewed academic journals that integrate their content into Wikipedia (example in
WikiJournal and on
Wikipedia). For many of the contributors, submitting an article is the first time they've used MediaWiki. Even though they use VisualEditor (via a
submission portal here) there are often formatting and copyedit errors. We also get submissions from those for whom English isn't their first language. In particular, it is common for them to struggle with inserting their references inline. Examples:
Would anyone be interested in helping monitor submissions for formatting and errors (full list here)? Any aid appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Week one of the Backlog Drive is complete (see above section for more details).
Results:
At the present rate of reduction, the backlog should hit around ~2000 by the end of the backlog drive, and the oldest articles will be from July-August 2017.
Please consider reviewing from the back of the backlog (choosing 'Sort by: Oldest' from the New Page Feed). A major goal of the drive should be to reduce the tail end of the backlog to more recent than the 90 day index point (which will at that point be at the end of October).
If we pick up the pace just slightly, we have a real chance of not only reducing the tail end to below the 90 day index point, but also completely eliminating the backlog! Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each! — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Today, an editor notified me (via User talk:Ritchie333#I'm retiring) that they were quitting Wikipedia after a WP:BITEy CSD tag from Arthistorian1977. After a short conversation, Andrew Davidson and Noswall59 suggested it may be worth considering the removal of AH1977's New Page Patrol (NPR) user right because of too many mistakes.
I'm personally not convinced there is enough evidence to suggest that AH1977 is making lots of mistakes (although New Page Reviewers are cautioned to be careful, we cannot expect them to be perfect) and he has apologised over the deletion tags. However, there is a difference of opinion over what AfD should be used for - is it for a general "health check" of an article, or (as I believe) a final resort when all attempts to improve an article have failed and it's unsalvageable. As I don't think a consensus is going to form on my talk page, I'd like to bring the discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Reviewers may have an opinion on the matter raised here : Noyster (talk), 17:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The current state of the backlog is represented visually to the right. Articles marked in red are currently indexed by google. Articles marked orange are not indexed, but are more than a month old. There are some interesting trends, the most obvious of which is the large gap in October. Somebody has been reviewing the bottom of the 90 day backlog to ensure that no more unreviewed articles slip through to the indexed portion of the backlog, I am curious to know who...
The colours indicate long term goals, we should be aiming to reduce the backlog down to no more than 30 days in my opinion (thats why I have marked that bit in green), as this gives us a very healthy buffer before the index point (and is a nice round number to aim for), however, I think we could still be happy just keeping it contained anywhere in the orange area.
While patrolling the front of the queue is important to catch obvious CSD candidates, this graph indicates the importance of patrolling the back of the backlog.
If you are looking to patrol from a specific point from within the backlog, there isn't an automatic way to do that. However, there is a relatively quick method: go to the NPP browser, sort by 'Created', set the number of items per page to 100 (bottom left), and spam click the 'next' button. You can stack up multiple clicks and it will jump forward many pages all at once (you only have to click about 35 times to cycle through half of the backlog, and you can start from either end by sorting the articles the other way, so this is a relatively efficient method). — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 08:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok... sorry about the image spam, but this might be interesting to some of you guys. I combined yesterdays graph with today's to get an idea of the overlap. This shows us a bit of where everyone has been working throughout the backlog. Note however that there are also ~350 new articles that would have been added to the 10th and 11th, most of which have been reviewed, so the majority of the work is being done there but isn't shown on this graph. The backlog didn't actually reduce that much today, but as you can see, we are doing good work of reducing the back of the backlog even on days when the backlog doesn't change much. Good work and thanks everyone. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is now down to 6,400. At this rate we should be able to hit zero and keep it to a day's intake. Once that is done, it should be an all out effort to examine new articles and AfD submissions more closely for all the traits of paid and unpaid undeclared paid editing - a quick peek at
COIN will show how important this is.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 07:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm reproducing an 11-year old message from the WMF that Athaenaram kindly pointed me to a few moments ago:
Brad Patrick bradp.wmf at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 17:13:35 UTC 2006
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked.
Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now.
Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick
User:BradPatrick
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
( BradPatrick has the distinction of having been the interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation as well as its inaugural General Counsel). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I have been mulling over what to do with the England school census article for the past hour. Earwig's copyvio tool shows copyvios some, at least, of which are valid with the sources being copyright protected. The violations are relatively modest but go back to the original creation of the article (21705 B) so rev-del would remove the whole article. The article is much too long and detailed, has inline external links and probably NPOV problems. The creator is a one-purpose undisclosed CoI editor (has also created National Pupil Database). Any suggestions as to how best to proceed are welcome. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
By way of introduction, I mostly patrol the NPP queue for articles by blocked users, focusing on those who have been blocked for sockpuppetry. The dilemma is what to do with the articles that may meet an SNG, but were created by such (now) banned users. For example, here are the articles by مرتضى_يوسف: link. Over a hundred, with most being one-line, unsourced bios of football players, plus a tricked out infobox and an external link.
Here's my typical PROD:
However, some have been declined based on meeting WP:FOOTY. Any suggestions? Leave those articles alone? Take them to AfD? Take then to WP:AN and ask for a mass deletion? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Depending on how large the list is, I'd probably chuck it into a subpage, but yes. Primefac ( talk) 16:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is now at 4 digits for the first time since July 2016!
To finish it off, the New Year Backlog Drive is set to begin at 00:00 AM UTC on January 1st! The drive will run until 00:00 AM UTC on January 29th.
Active reviewers during this period will be given awards in two categories:
You will be able to check your review count with the following SQL queries once the drive starts (which I will endeavour to keep updated at least twice daily):
Total review count awards: Each editor will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar (with 100 or more reviews during the backlog drive), as well an additional badge for higher review counts.
Per week 'streak' awards: To qualify for an award from this category, an editor will have reviewed the listed number of articles during each week of the backlog drive. Each editor will be given one award representing the highest tier for which they qualify. The images of spinning gears are intended to represent ongoing commitment to the project through regular reviewing.
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Week two of the Backlog Drive is complete (see above section for more details). The backlog of unreviewed articles is now at 5850.
A visual representation of the change in the backlog from the 10th to now is shown above (I only started gathering data on the 10th).
Results:
At the current rate, we are still unlikely to reduce the backlog to below 2000 articles by the end of the drive, and are still unlikely to reduce it to the 90 day index point by then (we should get to about mid-end July at the current rate of back-of-the-backlog reduction).
Overall good work to keep the pace up from last week. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 02:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
4998! I never thought I would see numbers this low! Well done everybody. Boleyn ( talk) 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#RfC:_Raising_NCORP_standards Jytdog ( talk) 02:28, 21 January 2018 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
So, I review an article such as Bharosa (TV series) and find the plot section is copypasted from one source and the rest of the article from another. I think it should be speedily deleted, but the curation toolset only allows me to give one copyvio-related url, and there is nowhere to make a comment either. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The article Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation is largely copy-pasted, I think, from EEC documents here which I imagine are in the public domain. It is not really a suitable article for Wikipedia in its present form. What would be the best way forward here? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledgedand that individual sections may have their own copyright notice. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
As of 11:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC), the backlog is around 9600. I believe the massive drop was a result of new NPRs that came onboard recently. Insertcleverphrasehere has a page in his userspace with the stats (I couldnt find it). That being said, I still believe if we get only 100 more active reviewers, then the backlog will never cross 5k, and will remain under 2000, or even 1000. At this particular situation, if we dont get new NPRs, then we will have to maintain streak to bring backlog below 2000.
But I believe we should be a little more vocal/promotional about NPR. Once the backlog is stable under 1000, and we have more than 1000 reviewers, then soon it will be just like PCR, the backlog will never cross 500 pages per day. That is based on the loose assumption that there are 500 pages created per day. So at a random given moment, there would be like 250-300 pages in the queue.
Yes, I agree with Galobtte, Tony, and Kudpung. But only partially. It is a fact that an editor requires thorough knowledge of policies. Then why to (re)explain them in tutorial? I think a lot of content from the tutorial can be removed that way. Like COI: it begins with what it is, then it includes how to identify, how to respond, and a lot of stuff. I think we should create a primary tutorial (at the current location), which should be more like a "briefing". A new part of the tutorial (a new page) should be created with details of everything. The sections of this detailed "text-book style" tutorial then can be linked within the brief tutorial. Like, there should be only one para/section regarding COI in primary tutorial. It should have links to the sections of detailed tutorial eg "how to identify COI", and so on. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The backlog has now dipped to just below 8,000. This demonstrates (I hope) excellent work. However, I am coming across many pages that have now slipped into to encyclopedia unpatrolled after 90 days. For the moment, the one's I have come across were ones I would have normally accepted, but it's probably the tip of an iceberg. We can't stress enough that 8,000 is still far too many to avoid this happening. Keep up the good work - ACTRIAL ends soon... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello all,
WikiJournals are peer reviewed academic journals that integrate their content into Wikipedia (example in
WikiJournal and on
Wikipedia). For many of the contributors, submitting an article is the first time they've used MediaWiki. Even though they use VisualEditor (via a
submission portal here) there are often formatting and copyedit errors. We also get submissions from those for whom English isn't their first language. In particular, it is common for them to struggle with inserting their references inline. Examples:
Would anyone be interested in helping monitor submissions for formatting and errors (full list here)? Any aid appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Week one of the Backlog Drive is complete (see above section for more details).
Results:
At the present rate of reduction, the backlog should hit around ~2000 by the end of the backlog drive, and the oldest articles will be from July-August 2017.
Please consider reviewing from the back of the backlog (choosing 'Sort by: Oldest' from the New Page Feed). A major goal of the drive should be to reduce the tail end of the backlog to more recent than the 90 day index point (which will at that point be at the end of October).
If we pick up the pace just slightly, we have a real chance of not only reducing the tail end to below the 90 day index point, but also completely eliminating the backlog! Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each! — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Today, an editor notified me (via User talk:Ritchie333#I'm retiring) that they were quitting Wikipedia after a WP:BITEy CSD tag from Arthistorian1977. After a short conversation, Andrew Davidson and Noswall59 suggested it may be worth considering the removal of AH1977's New Page Patrol (NPR) user right because of too many mistakes.
I'm personally not convinced there is enough evidence to suggest that AH1977 is making lots of mistakes (although New Page Reviewers are cautioned to be careful, we cannot expect them to be perfect) and he has apologised over the deletion tags. However, there is a difference of opinion over what AfD should be used for - is it for a general "health check" of an article, or (as I believe) a final resort when all attempts to improve an article have failed and it's unsalvageable. As I don't think a consensus is going to form on my talk page, I'd like to bring the discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Reviewers may have an opinion on the matter raised here : Noyster (talk), 17:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The current state of the backlog is represented visually to the right. Articles marked in red are currently indexed by google. Articles marked orange are not indexed, but are more than a month old. There are some interesting trends, the most obvious of which is the large gap in October. Somebody has been reviewing the bottom of the 90 day backlog to ensure that no more unreviewed articles slip through to the indexed portion of the backlog, I am curious to know who...
The colours indicate long term goals, we should be aiming to reduce the backlog down to no more than 30 days in my opinion (thats why I have marked that bit in green), as this gives us a very healthy buffer before the index point (and is a nice round number to aim for), however, I think we could still be happy just keeping it contained anywhere in the orange area.
While patrolling the front of the queue is important to catch obvious CSD candidates, this graph indicates the importance of patrolling the back of the backlog.
If you are looking to patrol from a specific point from within the backlog, there isn't an automatic way to do that. However, there is a relatively quick method: go to the NPP browser, sort by 'Created', set the number of items per page to 100 (bottom left), and spam click the 'next' button. You can stack up multiple clicks and it will jump forward many pages all at once (you only have to click about 35 times to cycle through half of the backlog, and you can start from either end by sorting the articles the other way, so this is a relatively efficient method). — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 08:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok... sorry about the image spam, but this might be interesting to some of you guys. I combined yesterdays graph with today's to get an idea of the overlap. This shows us a bit of where everyone has been working throughout the backlog. Note however that there are also ~350 new articles that would have been added to the 10th and 11th, most of which have been reviewed, so the majority of the work is being done there but isn't shown on this graph. The backlog didn't actually reduce that much today, but as you can see, we are doing good work of reducing the back of the backlog even on days when the backlog doesn't change much. Good work and thanks everyone. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is now down to 6,400. At this rate we should be able to hit zero and keep it to a day's intake. Once that is done, it should be an all out effort to examine new articles and AfD submissions more closely for all the traits of paid and unpaid undeclared paid editing - a quick peek at
COIN will show how important this is.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 07:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm reproducing an 11-year old message from the WMF that Athaenaram kindly pointed me to a few moments ago:
Brad Patrick bradp.wmf at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 17:13:35 UTC 2006
Dear Community:
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked.
Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now.
Thank you for your help.
-Brad Patrick
User:BradPatrick
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
( BradPatrick has the distinction of having been the interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation as well as its inaugural General Counsel). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I have been mulling over what to do with the England school census article for the past hour. Earwig's copyvio tool shows copyvios some, at least, of which are valid with the sources being copyright protected. The violations are relatively modest but go back to the original creation of the article (21705 B) so rev-del would remove the whole article. The article is much too long and detailed, has inline external links and probably NPOV problems. The creator is a one-purpose undisclosed CoI editor (has also created National Pupil Database). Any suggestions as to how best to proceed are welcome. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
By way of introduction, I mostly patrol the NPP queue for articles by blocked users, focusing on those who have been blocked for sockpuppetry. The dilemma is what to do with the articles that may meet an SNG, but were created by such (now) banned users. For example, here are the articles by مرتضى_يوسف: link. Over a hundred, with most being one-line, unsourced bios of football players, plus a tricked out infobox and an external link.
Here's my typical PROD:
However, some have been declined based on meeting WP:FOOTY. Any suggestions? Leave those articles alone? Take them to AfD? Take then to WP:AN and ask for a mass deletion? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Depending on how large the list is, I'd probably chuck it into a subpage, but yes. Primefac ( talk) 16:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is now at 4 digits for the first time since July 2016!
To finish it off, the New Year Backlog Drive is set to begin at 00:00 AM UTC on January 1st! The drive will run until 00:00 AM UTC on January 29th.
Active reviewers during this period will be given awards in two categories:
You will be able to check your review count with the following SQL queries once the drive starts (which I will endeavour to keep updated at least twice daily):
Total review count awards: Each editor will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar (with 100 or more reviews during the backlog drive), as well an additional badge for higher review counts.
Per week 'streak' awards: To qualify for an award from this category, an editor will have reviewed the listed number of articles during each week of the backlog drive. Each editor will be given one award representing the highest tier for which they qualify. The images of spinning gears are intended to represent ongoing commitment to the project through regular reviewing.
Award Tiers
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Week two of the Backlog Drive is complete (see above section for more details). The backlog of unreviewed articles is now at 5850.
A visual representation of the change in the backlog from the 10th to now is shown above (I only started gathering data on the 10th).
Results:
At the current rate, we are still unlikely to reduce the backlog to below 2000 articles by the end of the drive, and are still unlikely to reduce it to the 90 day index point by then (we should get to about mid-end July at the current rate of back-of-the-backlog reduction).
Overall good work to keep the pace up from last week. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 02:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
4998! I never thought I would see numbers this low! Well done everybody. Boleyn ( talk) 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#RfC:_Raising_NCORP_standards Jytdog ( talk) 02:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)