User talk:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs

This page was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	The Unreferenced living persons contest
	Please help us build this contest. Your suggestions are warmly welcome. >> Sign up now. <<

The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_II has many of the ideas expressed here. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I am closing this discussion now, if you feel like you must comment, or feel like this conversation should be reopened, please go ahead.

MichaelQSchmidt ideas for after the BLP RFC

It is imperative that the guidelines and policies created and honed over the last 10 years not be ignored or used as a bludgeon to drive away inexperienced editors.

WP:Editing policy should not be treated as an ignorable essay, as even Wikipedia itself instructs that it is imperfect, and that perfection is not required.
WP:PRESERVE wisely instructs to "fix problems if you can"... and only "flag or remove them if you can't."
WP:BEFORE instructs that senior editors use due diligence before making a decision to delete or before flagging it for CSD or AFD to make it someone else's problem.
WP:ATD shows the diligent steps that must considered, and does not allow a senior editor to be either arrogant or lazy simply because a contribution by a newcomer is not (yet) up to standards.
Senior editors should be encouraged to remember that in an understanding of a newcomer's lack of experience, it is important for the growth of the project to not chase newcomers away.
Senior editors should be encouraged in all manner possible to absolutely assume good faith toward the contributions of newcomers.
Senior editors have the knowledge and experience so as to be able to direct newcomers to the places within Wikipedia where newcomers may learn and better understand what is required from an BLP.
Maybe an article has not been improved in months or years? So what? Complaining about it does not fix it. Making it somebody else's problem does not fix it. Actually expanding and sourcing an article MAKES it better.
Senior editors should not ignore WP:DEADLINE. Senior editors should spend the time to source an article and make it better, instead of tossing it because no one else has done so.

There are two sayings worth remembering:

"If you are not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem".
"Any mule can kick down a door... but it takes a skilled carpenter to actually build one."

With the rules of Wikipedia written in terms which might better appeal to the folks involved in writing tax code or insurance forms, my own in-work essay "A newcomer's guide to guidelines" is where I am trying to be pro-active in helping newcomers learn how to be better editors and how to create suitable articles. In understanding of a newcomer's total lack of familiarity with the multitude of acronyms within these pages, and keeping WP:KISS foremost, I am trying to explain the "how-to" in the simplest terms possible. Vistors are welcome to make suggestions or comments on its talk page.

Change the unreferenced biography template

The current template {{BLP unsourced}}:

Could have a script added which will add a category to alert the accompanying project... Ikip 02:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that would be useful to new editors faced with this tag is the search links that used to be there (this version has them). Unfortunately they were removed after a discussion felt they should go. Kevin (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion had a flawed outcome in my view and ought to be revisited by a wider audience. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no thanks

"To avoid arguments, this page is intended to solicit opinions from those who have been invited to participate only. "
I do not participate in closed projects. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't participate in closed projects(on Wikipedia). Open this up to everybody as we these are not our servers and the people who do run the servers want us to share each page. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't feel to me as if the content of this project is what it says on the box. It also feels like a meta-content fork from the rfc. It is certainly preferable to have discussions by users whose thoughts are aligned openly rather than act in secret as a cabal, but I would want to be clearer on what this is about, what critereia are used for invitions etc.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per DGG I will not be participating in a closed project. As per Peter cohen, this sounds very much like a POV fork of the RFC, which may not be forbidden but is pretty surely unhelpful. DES ^(talk) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did get an invitation, but I just ignored the bit about it being "closed", and anyone who didn't get one and has something to say should ignore it too - though clearly there's a certain focus to the discussion which it would be helpful not to upset. I don't think it's a POV fork so much as being like a "breakout session" at a conference. A chance to clarify some ideas in a smaller group, before going back to the main debate, in particular Stage 2 of the RFC. Normally it would be pointless, but the RFC became unmanageable long ago (let's see how the transition to Stage 2 goes...), so it serves a purpose in facilitating discussion. Rd232 ^talk 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The project needs shaping to bring it in conformance with acceptable practice, and needs to be moved out of userspace. Or it needs to not be billed as a "project" ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rd232 ^talk 13:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the list of participants?

Resolved

– Everyone is welcome to participate, I have changed the majority of the invitations, I was naive to send them out as they originally were. Ikip 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to join, although I didn't receive an invitation. Clearly an oversight, because Wikipedia doesn't allow "closed" or "by invitation only" projects. ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Hey, Ikip, this project isn't very welcoming of new users... err ... :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can participate in the selection of admins, arbcom members, stewards and other postions, but not this "project" discussion? Interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused myself. I see an invitation on someone's userpage about a new project to welcome new users, I think to myself "what a great idea, I've welcomed lots of new users, where do I sign up" only to find I'm not "invited" and the alleged WikiProject is actually a user subpage with a discussion only tangentially related to welcoming new users. I hate internet cliches, and very rarely use them, but I find that all I can say about this is WTF? I know your upset about the mass BLP deletion thing but this just flat out does not make any sense. I find it contradictory in the extreme that you are so upset about that off-wiki BLP forum, yet you want to have your own invite only private club right on Wikipedia. So again, WTF? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for any confusion Ikip 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not confusing at all, it was very clearly labeled an invitation-only project. Don't apologize for non-existing problems, apologize for the real problems if needed. Fram (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this project in its current form

The project claims to be about "new users and BLPs", but is mostly about the RfC, which has very little to do with new users, but mainly with existing, often very old articles, some by then-newbies, some by then already experienced users. The project should decide on what it is about. Fram (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

(not sure which section this was suppose to be in, will inform editor)

A horrible proposal. Delete is never a solution. You attack the source rather than the information. And attacking the article in its infancy could well be attacking it before it can come to fruition, or even before a rookie editor can learn the ins and outs of editing on Wikipedia. The only situation that we should be concerned with is libelous or potentially contentious material. A simple wording could solve many problems; like softening "is" into "has been accused of."

Most important, people making editorial decisions about an article should understand the subject. If you don't, stay away.Trackinfo (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former contributors survey: interim results

The Community Health task force proposed that a survey be given to former contributors to fill out in order to better understand why they are no longer editing.

Former contributors survey proposal

Philippe notified us that very preliminary interim results are available.

Former contributors survey:preliminary interim results.

Information from this survey can help us better understand user editing experiences and might be useful for developing a better experience for new editors so they get off to a good start, and stick around and improve their articles. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is so awesome, I am so glad you brought this to everyones attention, it is something that I have wanted to do also. Ikip 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals once here

Moved to: User:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Projectfication and User:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Notifying_wikiprojects Ikip 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objectives

There are two potential objectives to this project:

preserve existing and future content in non-conforming articles; and
don't discourage new editors from joining the project.

The first is really a technical / resource problem and has no real connection to the second. I assume everyone agrees that attempts should be made to preserve content that can be made to conform to policies and guidelines.

The second one is more interesting. Is there any way to determine, by nature of first or early edits, how productive new editors go on to be? My speculation (and pardon me for not assuming good faith of the straw unreferenced BLP creator) is that editors who sign up to create unreferenced BLPs may not, generally, turn into long-term content generators. I wouldn't make any policy recommendations from that completely baseless hunch, but it would be interesting if there are any tools that could be used to analyze the database to draw correlations from early editing to long-term utility to the project. ^Bongo_matic 05:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See: Why editors leave Wikipedia: preliminary results

You can ask that project how they can institute these types of questions, or study the existing information yourself. Ikip 06:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Unreferenced BLPs from February 2007

Also posted at User talk:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing

I have begun scraping all of the remaining 46,000 article names and matching them against Google hits.

As you can see, there are a number of problems with my list now, which need to be ironed out before I continue.

I like this list (when completed and accurate) because it allows the editor to quickly, roughly, assess which articles are probably the most notable so the low hanging fruit, can be taken care of quickly. Ikip 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.