User:Robert McClenon/The Checkmarx DRV
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This is a brief statement about my opinions at this time about the DRV of Checkmarx, and whether Articles for Creation should be used. User:DESiegel pointed out that some AFC reviewers will not review a draft if the draft title has been salted in article space, and asked how we should handle that. That is a two-part question.
The first part is how to handle it in this specific case at this time, and the second part is what guidelines should apply to the situation that sometimes happens where a draft is submitted and the title is salted in article space. The second part can be addressed first. The guidelines for AFC reviewers should be clarified so that the reviewers should understand that there are two types of salted title review. The first is the typical situation, where the reviewer simply declines or rejects the draft because it has a history of wrong re-creation. The second is where the draft is being sent through AFC for a possible recommendation on whether the title should be desalted. Perhaps the guideline should identify what criteria make a particular submission a "salt review". I suggest that the AFC reviewer should understand that a submission is a "salt review" if the salting administrator has recommended a re-review, or if DRV has recommended a re-review. Maybe we should develop guidelines to that effect.
The original question was how to handle Checkmarx. We don't yet have the appropriate guidelines in place. In view of the extraordinarily persistent history of trying to sneak an advertisement in to Wikipedia, I think that simply desalting the title based on the assumption of good faith would be naïve. I think that the title should be left salted, and that we need to find a reviewer who is willing to give the draft a neutral review to decide whether to recommend desalting. We, Wikipedia, are sometimes unrealistic in thinking that we should never be punitive. With that record, we really should be wary, and the draft should be reviewed twice, once at AFC and once at AFD.