User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace

This user page was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2018. The result of the discussion was snow keep.

Collaboration

Given the result of the recent G13 RfC and the frequent expressions I have seen over the past couple years that AfC and/or draftspace are failures, I created this essay to present arguments for the failure of draftspace and guidance for better alternative ways to develop articles. We will be able to more effectively move past draftspace if there is a unified line on the best way to do it.

@SmokeyJoe and Andrew Davidson: you are the two who I have seen express this view. Go ahead and have at it! I am not at all attached to anything I've written, and I don't think my opinions on this are as well-informed or developed as yours. Also, feel free to ping anyone else who might be interested in collaborating or post this essay in some forum to draw attention to it. A2soup (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel and TakuyaMurata: you might also be interested. A2soup (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was created with the idea that articles would be drafted in mainspace. This is expressed clearly in our editing policy, which was written before draftspace existed:
Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

Such use of mainspace is a fundamental aspect of the Wiki method. The contrary idea that drafts should be brought to a high level of excellence before being published was the original approach of Nupedia which had a seven-step approval process to control content of articles before being posted. Nupedia failed and Wikipedia succeeded. We should continue with our successful method of development and not return to a failed one. Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen SmokeyJoe express a similar view often at MfD and I have to say I agree. If you don't do it first, I'll add a paragraph before the one about userspace drafting encouraging mainspace drafting of this sort. Then, the userspace draft para can be introduced like "But, if you think you would prefer to draft, do it this way..." What do you think? A2soup (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was aware of this page but was a bit busy as well as was unsure what positive contribution I can make. But here is some of take. I do agree and even go further that the assessment that AfC (and lesser degree the draftspace) is a catastrophic failure. It has failed, as I understand and is noted above already, because AfC and the draftspace do not operate in the wiki way but more like nupedia and other traditional encyclopedic projects; they are based on authorship and deadline (submissions of AfC and G13). I can go on but that's probably unnecessary for this audience. I, however, still don't know the solution to this problem. I personally think AfC should be scrapped; it's too flawed in the fundamental way that there is no hope to tweak it to function properly. As an alternative, maybe we should send new users to relevant Wikiprojects. Wikiprojects tend to have some house-rules and new contributions have good chance of survival if they follow the rules. (AfC and the draftspace setup do not allow this.) Basically, new users should be working like interns, as opposed to be left alone in the battleground. -- Taku (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Hyperbolic "End of the world" essay you have here. Let me dismantle your entire thesis (and Taku's Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt flinging) with one simple phrase: Draft namespace is for pages that are improving. There, took only one line, but I'll unpack it so your mind can handle it. Draft namespace is a nice place for editors (both new and seasoned) to do initial work on without being subject to the Mainspace rules of engagement. None the less, there is a minimum expectation that we're not going to host content forever. Actually work through one full week of New Articles for Creation submissions (i.e. do the "Submitted today" for 7 days) and see how you feel about the general sewerline of garbage that gets spewed at Wikipedia every day. Much like after the Seigenthaler incident was the reaction that caused unregistered editors to not be able to create mainspace pages, and various BLP incidents causing the WP:BLPPROD backlash, when a significant divergance from community norms of "how to use wikipeida" is discovered, the community comes to consensus and new Policy/Rules/Guidelines/Essays get put in place. Your essay ammounts to something between a pointy thought experiment and willful disruption. I suggest you delete this essay as it will only be used by those who were already on IDHT crusades against the consensus of the community or by those who are looking for reasons to enact more harsh restrictions. Hasteur (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This essey is misleading and problematic. For example it implies that userspace drafts are not subject to most of the same deletion criteria as Drafts. It implies that others can not or should not edit userspace drafts started by others. You are encouraging WP:OWN behavior and deliberate skirting of normal best practices around Drafts. For example if someone goes to start Foo and Draft:Foo exists they are alerted to the Draft but they would not be alerted to User:A2soup/Foo. If you don't want to edit collaboratively on Wikipedia don't edit here find something else to do. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to start another essay as a counterpoint to this one. I agree that it's counterproductive to hide drafts in userspace where they are not discoverable. I think it is more counterproductive, however, to have people's work deleted in draftspace. Obviously you weigh these issues differently. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace drafts aren't perfect, but they're certainly more convenient. My experience is limited, but so far I get the strong impression that the draftspace is only used by editors who aren't acquainted of its functioning. – Uanfala (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this essay discourages collaboration, and I wish that weren't the case. I wrote this essay because I thought it was important for there to be a truly "free" drafting space on Wikipedia (even more now given WP:ACREQ), and there wasn't any clear guidance about how drafters could achieve that. On the contrary, there is a great deal of misleading guidance directing editors to "free" drafting spaces that are, in fact, not at all free (and less free every month, it seems). If you know of a truly free drafting option that is more conducive to collaborative editing, I'm all ears. A2soup (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts 2.0

Well, yes: the current Draft space turns out to be intended for either short-term collaborations that quickly lead to mainspace, or as a place where newcomer's rubbish can be quietly and discretely dealt with (while steal maintaining the image of being an open encyclopedia). But it would be nice to have a proper drafts namespace, a place for the slow, long-term collaborations that come along with the more obscure topics, the kind of topics that make up the greater part of the article count. – Uanfala (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]