In 99.9% of cases, if a brand-new user creates a page, it's going to get deleted. That's bad for the new user and a timesink for newpage patrollers and administrators. People should edit first. After a while, they get good enough to judge the appropriateness of an encyclopedia topic, learn how to properly source, stub tag, and categorize a new article, and then get it created. The only people who this would hurt are spammers and SPA's who are here to create a spamvertisement or vanity bio and run. We don't need them. Also, if it would be technically feasible, it would probably be best to set it up so that the "four-day clock" starts ticking from the user's twenty-fifth edit or so, to ensure that they're at least reasonably serious about the project first. Obvious vandals and spammers will have been blocked long before edit number 25, and "sneakier" ones may not have the patience to make 25 good edits just to engage in attack article vandalism or spamming. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure the benefits discussed could be obtained.
But the cost is a substantial one -- PR. The introduction of semiprotection came with a flurry of media articles about how Wikipedia was closing its doors to anonymous editors, and how this demonstrated the wiki concept was flawed, etc. And that's just restrictions on individual articles, with only a small number of articles at any time having the protection applied. Introduce this, and there'll be a lot more of those stories, and this time they may be justified: we will be saying we don't want (a certain kind of) contributions from new users.
I don't think this is a cost worth paying for reducing the AFD backlog and saving time for those who monitor the recent changes list. JulesH 08:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this. We're a Wiki - this would make us a club. It violates AGF, WP:BITE and puts a big 'members only sign' at the door. Although it is true that many/most new users' articles are crap, some are not, and some specialist passing by and seeing a redlink should not be discouraged. How many established wikipedians created articles in their first days and the openness of the community allowing them to do so greatly encouraged them. We already prevent IPs from creating pages, and that's enough.
However, I think there's some mileage in flagging the articles' new users create and insisting that an experienced wikipedian look them over before they are confirmed as being kept. I recently created an article on the French Wikipedia, as a n00b, and was impressed when a {please check this}} tag was quickly added (by a bot?) and then removed shortly afterwards when someone had checked it.
I've actually mooted a more comprehensive solution to this problem here m:User:Doc glasgow/seconding which, if adopted, would insist that all new articles would require 'seconding' by a trusted editor, and that prior to their seconding, they are automatically flagged as 'provisional'. This solution would require some software changes (I'm told that's possible by the devs) but it would have the advantage of screening out most of the crap, without stopping the spontaneous creativity that's the beauty of the wiki.-- Docg 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not welcoming new users, by letting them make articles, while clueless of what we are, and than speedily deleting those very new articles. We're instead pissing them of, and making them dislike us.
Also, the more new junk made, the more power is given to admins, to speedy delete a huge percentage of what comes in. So, in trying to promote equality of all users with easy article creation, we're actually advancing the privledged power of the 0.1% of users who are admins. If you prevent "first day" articles, you can spend more time reviewing new articles, after people wait a few days.
A lot of the junk that comes in, is actually from good people, who just don't know what we are. They assume we're like a million other web sites, that take directory entries, or personal/company profile pages. So, while this restriction won't stop sneaky vandals, and it will avoid cases, of well intentioned, but uninformed contributors. If somebody makes an account, and waits four days, there's a much better chance, they'll know what's appropriate, and what's not .
There seems to be a weird notion around here, that somebody who makes a new article, has it deleted, will be so grateful to us, they'll wish to keep contributing.
While its a core principal any editor can edit anything now; its important to defend the purpose of the principal, not a technicality. Letting somebody make a new article, which is doomed to be deleted, adheres to the letter, and ignores the purpose of being an open wiki. -- Rob 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I repeatedly have to convince people that you don't need autoconfirmed rights to create a page. If this were implemented, few people would probably notice. - Amarkov moo! 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're worried that we would "discourage" passing specialists, why not just direct them to AfC? If it really is a worthwhile article, it'll get accepted anyway, it gets created (and then the creator can edit it as normal as soon as it goes up), and there we go! I completely agree with Rob. I've had a ton of new users angry and upset that their vanity bio or garage band article was tagged for speedy. They weren't acting out of malice creating those, they just didn't know any better, and had to learn the hard way. Why not make sure they have a feel for the place first? That's not just better for us, it's better for them too! If they realize "Oh, you know, I don't really think that would be a good idea. Maybe I'd better ask someone first", it's a lot less bitey then just to let them create away and then we speedy away. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. m:Foundation issues #2. Foundation issues can not be negotiated on en.wikipedia, unfortunately.
If you would like to negotiate this policy, you can try posting to the foundation-l mailing list, or starting a discussion on meta:
-- Kim Bruning 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, Non-negotiable here. My apologies, but I must insist.
Even so, I'm sure a discussion at foundation-l or meta would be most welcome, and it is not said that no consensus might be formed there.
-- Kim Bruning 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me explain. When a scientist or other kind of smart type person comes to wikipedia, they are typically looking for an article on such-and-such a topic. Sometimes that article doesn't exist yet. Amazingly, such people will then actually start pages on those subjects, and start editing. Yes, I know it's hard to believe. If I had told you wikipedia would be this large in 2001, would you have believed it? And yet we now have over 1M pages. Now statistics show that wikipedia is virtually unchanged. This process is still the source of the vast majority (>90%) of our legitimate new pages and edits.
Even a small percentage slowdown in that process still represents a sizable slowdown in wikipedia growth and improvement. No wonder we"guarantee the ability of anyone to edit"!!!
Fine, you're sticking to the letter here, it's "page creation, not editing". But if you really believe that, well, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell. :-) It's part of the wiki process. Wikipedia is a wiki (what's in a name?). So damage or compromise of the wiki process will obviously always hurt wikipedia.
I maintain that this discussion should be held on foundation-l. -- Kim Bruning 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose that all new users should be required to undertake some kind of self-paced tutorial (especially on the main policies of WP) before they are allowed to create new pages or edit protected pages. This could replace the 4-day waiting period. It means that new users can make themselves familiar with the policies, rather than going off elsewhere (and not bothering to learn about WP) whilst they wait for the 4-day period to elapse. Shootthedevgru ( talk) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a short cut for the new user log? I currently keep being redirected here and then clicking your link! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am redirecting the article to Special:Newusers as this is long out of date, but I will leave all content preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Grave Rob ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
In 99.9% of cases, if a brand-new user creates a page, it's going to get deleted. That's bad for the new user and a timesink for newpage patrollers and administrators. People should edit first. After a while, they get good enough to judge the appropriateness of an encyclopedia topic, learn how to properly source, stub tag, and categorize a new article, and then get it created. The only people who this would hurt are spammers and SPA's who are here to create a spamvertisement or vanity bio and run. We don't need them. Also, if it would be technically feasible, it would probably be best to set it up so that the "four-day clock" starts ticking from the user's twenty-fifth edit or so, to ensure that they're at least reasonably serious about the project first. Obvious vandals and spammers will have been blocked long before edit number 25, and "sneakier" ones may not have the patience to make 25 good edits just to engage in attack article vandalism or spamming. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure the benefits discussed could be obtained.
But the cost is a substantial one -- PR. The introduction of semiprotection came with a flurry of media articles about how Wikipedia was closing its doors to anonymous editors, and how this demonstrated the wiki concept was flawed, etc. And that's just restrictions on individual articles, with only a small number of articles at any time having the protection applied. Introduce this, and there'll be a lot more of those stories, and this time they may be justified: we will be saying we don't want (a certain kind of) contributions from new users.
I don't think this is a cost worth paying for reducing the AFD backlog and saving time for those who monitor the recent changes list. JulesH 08:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this. We're a Wiki - this would make us a club. It violates AGF, WP:BITE and puts a big 'members only sign' at the door. Although it is true that many/most new users' articles are crap, some are not, and some specialist passing by and seeing a redlink should not be discouraged. How many established wikipedians created articles in their first days and the openness of the community allowing them to do so greatly encouraged them. We already prevent IPs from creating pages, and that's enough.
However, I think there's some mileage in flagging the articles' new users create and insisting that an experienced wikipedian look them over before they are confirmed as being kept. I recently created an article on the French Wikipedia, as a n00b, and was impressed when a {please check this}} tag was quickly added (by a bot?) and then removed shortly afterwards when someone had checked it.
I've actually mooted a more comprehensive solution to this problem here m:User:Doc glasgow/seconding which, if adopted, would insist that all new articles would require 'seconding' by a trusted editor, and that prior to their seconding, they are automatically flagged as 'provisional'. This solution would require some software changes (I'm told that's possible by the devs) but it would have the advantage of screening out most of the crap, without stopping the spontaneous creativity that's the beauty of the wiki.-- Docg 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not welcoming new users, by letting them make articles, while clueless of what we are, and than speedily deleting those very new articles. We're instead pissing them of, and making them dislike us.
Also, the more new junk made, the more power is given to admins, to speedy delete a huge percentage of what comes in. So, in trying to promote equality of all users with easy article creation, we're actually advancing the privledged power of the 0.1% of users who are admins. If you prevent "first day" articles, you can spend more time reviewing new articles, after people wait a few days.
A lot of the junk that comes in, is actually from good people, who just don't know what we are. They assume we're like a million other web sites, that take directory entries, or personal/company profile pages. So, while this restriction won't stop sneaky vandals, and it will avoid cases, of well intentioned, but uninformed contributors. If somebody makes an account, and waits four days, there's a much better chance, they'll know what's appropriate, and what's not .
There seems to be a weird notion around here, that somebody who makes a new article, has it deleted, will be so grateful to us, they'll wish to keep contributing.
While its a core principal any editor can edit anything now; its important to defend the purpose of the principal, not a technicality. Letting somebody make a new article, which is doomed to be deleted, adheres to the letter, and ignores the purpose of being an open wiki. -- Rob 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I repeatedly have to convince people that you don't need autoconfirmed rights to create a page. If this were implemented, few people would probably notice. - Amarkov moo! 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're worried that we would "discourage" passing specialists, why not just direct them to AfC? If it really is a worthwhile article, it'll get accepted anyway, it gets created (and then the creator can edit it as normal as soon as it goes up), and there we go! I completely agree with Rob. I've had a ton of new users angry and upset that their vanity bio or garage band article was tagged for speedy. They weren't acting out of malice creating those, they just didn't know any better, and had to learn the hard way. Why not make sure they have a feel for the place first? That's not just better for us, it's better for them too! If they realize "Oh, you know, I don't really think that would be a good idea. Maybe I'd better ask someone first", it's a lot less bitey then just to let them create away and then we speedy away. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. m:Foundation issues #2. Foundation issues can not be negotiated on en.wikipedia, unfortunately.
If you would like to negotiate this policy, you can try posting to the foundation-l mailing list, or starting a discussion on meta:
-- Kim Bruning 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, Non-negotiable here. My apologies, but I must insist.
Even so, I'm sure a discussion at foundation-l or meta would be most welcome, and it is not said that no consensus might be formed there.
-- Kim Bruning 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me explain. When a scientist or other kind of smart type person comes to wikipedia, they are typically looking for an article on such-and-such a topic. Sometimes that article doesn't exist yet. Amazingly, such people will then actually start pages on those subjects, and start editing. Yes, I know it's hard to believe. If I had told you wikipedia would be this large in 2001, would you have believed it? And yet we now have over 1M pages. Now statistics show that wikipedia is virtually unchanged. This process is still the source of the vast majority (>90%) of our legitimate new pages and edits.
Even a small percentage slowdown in that process still represents a sizable slowdown in wikipedia growth and improvement. No wonder we"guarantee the ability of anyone to edit"!!!
Fine, you're sticking to the letter here, it's "page creation, not editing". But if you really believe that, well, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell. :-) It's part of the wiki process. Wikipedia is a wiki (what's in a name?). So damage or compromise of the wiki process will obviously always hurt wikipedia.
I maintain that this discussion should be held on foundation-l. -- Kim Bruning 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose that all new users should be required to undertake some kind of self-paced tutorial (especially on the main policies of WP) before they are allowed to create new pages or edit protected pages. This could replace the 4-day waiting period. It means that new users can make themselves familiar with the policies, rather than going off elsewhere (and not bothering to learn about WP) whilst they wait for the 4-day period to elapse. Shootthedevgru ( talk) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a short cut for the new user log? I currently keep being redirected here and then clicking your link! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am redirecting the article to Special:Newusers as this is long out of date, but I will leave all content preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Grave Rob ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)