Wikipedia talk:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Ruined a good thing

Gone are the days when I would spend 4-5 hours patrolling new pages. Job well done. Enjoy the backlog.Ridernyc (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, Ridernyc. But since the project's now ended so the 'newbie' pages at NPP will be from genuine newbies, perhaps you'd be able to return without fear of being 'outed' in the public square? No pressure either way of course, just thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't realised NEWT was over. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope not really. It was an insanely disrespectful thing to do. Ridernyc (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What Ridernyc said. I'm not coming back to NPP either. So this disgusting breaching experiment has driven away good NPPers, good admin NPPers and one very very good admin possibly permanently. So much for increasing the number of editors on Wikipedia. Epic fail. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 08:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's almost as disrespectful as the way some new page patrollers treat newbie editors. Although nowhere near as disrespectful as the way many administrators treat newbie editors. Of course, nothing will be done about these problems, and newbies and established editors will continue leaving in large numbers, and any attempt to find out why or try to figure out a way to stop it will be severely looked upon.

In fact, one of the worse things you can do on wikipedia is act as if you're doing something new, like looking into the reported problems with newbies and CSD. Your idea could be the best idea in the world. It could be the worst. It's not the status quo? You're a villain. Your villainy caused editors to leave. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What I continue to find amazing is how, with NPPers leaving, admins leaving, a general tone of anger pervading over this disgusting experiment, all of this... and the people who support it still support it. And often in a smug and self-righteous way. The status quo may well have not been an option. But a breaching experiment that drives away high-quality editors in order to prove a point is quite literally the last of many, many other options to try first. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 08:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly the first time wikipedians have discussed the hostility of established editors toward newbies and the treatment of newbies by deletion patrollers. In fact, last year, there was some major comment by Jimbo about politeness on wikipedia when he seemed to have reached the last straw. So, hardly the first thing to drive, you're correct. But it wasn't even near the first of many options already tried. Any attempt to get the hostility of established editors toward newbies under wraps will fail. They all have so far. The situation has only gotten worse. And continues to disintegrate. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the whole thesis rather confusing to begin with. I was a "newbie" in July this year, have been treated very respectfully, my questions were answered, my input was considered, and I even received a barnstar for my first ever comments on a discussion page. I tend to think that "maybe" if you don't behave like a retarded idiot, but instead approach wikipedia with patience, you won't be treated like an idiot. I tend to think that "maybe" if you take 5-10 minutes simply looking over some of the articles linked to from the mainpage, you "could" get an idea that "maybe" your first article that says "Yo wassup? Chicken raidermania 5.2 is a cool game, gotta play it folks!" has a high change of getting deleted. But that's just me, I guess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never had an article deleted, but looking over the examples in the experiment there were some articles that went up for deletion that showed the CSDers did not understand the categories they are using. For example and individual animal is not the same as a species of animals. Durova's moss articles were tagged for deletion as A7 because editors thought an article about a single species was a non-notable article and did not understand that a species is not an individual animal. Was Durova a retarded idiot for writing the articles in the first place? No, all the articles are appropriate and needed in wikipedia.

I edit technical subjects, correcting clear mistakes, adding current and appropriate references. I get yelled at all the time and treated like I am an idiot. But ALL of my edits stand the test of time, once they get past the peanut gallery. I've had editors scream at me and fight to keep their idiocy on wikipedia (read metamaterials some time, and try not to cringe if you're a physicist). So, if adding references from review articles and textbooks to technical articles on materials sciences makes me a retarded idiot, then I stand before you a retarded idiot. I worked hard to get over 5000 bad bot articles deleted, also, and had to fight to get other editors to even listen, much less understand the basic point: if it's factually incorrect and makes wikipedia look like me (a retarded idiot, which is redundant, by the way), then it should be deleted ASAP. So, your point is...? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. It seems like you had to deal with the "retarded idiots" who shouldn't be here in the first place.

I guess the point I was making was simply a counterexample, one of those that doesn't seem to get much attention. Naturally, only those who have been (you) or feel like they have been (RI's) mistreated shout and complain; in the first case justifiably so, in the latter case I don't give a damn, because I do not feel bad about "scaring away" the "Yo wassup?"-crowd (to which you obviously do not belong). I did not experience any of that in my first weeks here. Whether I was the lucky exception or the silent minority, I cannot say. In the interest of fairness, all users should be asked about their first weeks on wikipedia, not just those who whine away; and to start a thesis basically with the frame of mind "we need to save every last potential editor on the planet, no matter who they are" invites situations such as the ones you found yourself in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the "yo wassup" crowd. Trying to scare them away backfires into creating trolls, imo. Treating them like they're retarded idiots runs the risk of treating genuine editors like retarded idiots. The NPPs have a lot of hostility and they justify it based upon the amount of crap they patrol (a stunning lot, far worse than the wassup writers). IMO, nothing justifies making yourself appear rude and unprofessional while undertaking what is a professional community effort, or should be. But I gave up on that thesis when it comes to wikipedia. It's the only way to function here. NPPs who act with overt hostility first and ignore questions later will never see that their methods create a lot of the crap on wikipedia by making it a popular place to troll. You want response to your trolling? Troll wikipedia. Guaranteed someone will engage you here by calling you a retarded idiot. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a valid point there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As a side, by "scaring them away," I did not mean any intentional actions. I only sense an over-concern about occasional unintended "casualties." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned by the Foundation

NEWT was mentioned in a post by Erik Moeller and Erik Zachte of the Foundation here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/ . Here are the relevant paragraphs, with the link where it was in the post:

The Wikimedia volunteer community is also engaged in important discussions and experiments. A community-initiated project in the English Wikipedia, for example, tried to assess the typical experience of new Wikipedia editors when trying to contribute useful content. This newbie treatment study is directly informing community discussions about community processes. Similar experiments and large strategic discussions are happening in other languages.

These discussions and projects are important. Wikimedia is a unique global volunteer movement to share what we know, to make and keep it available. We need your help and your participation in these initiatives – please follow the above links and get involved.

Regards all, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

They're a little late... <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't. Just because the data collection phase is over doesn't mean the project has ended. There already several proposals that have been inspired by this, and if anyone's here because of that foundation note your views on the proposals would be very welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What to do with my sock

I thought of participating in this, and created a sock, notified a bureaucrat, but, although I'd like to say I couldn't get into the spirit of it, I just couldn't make the sock thing work. Seemed easy since I routinely edit from dozens of different IPs, but, in reality it was more involved. A number of users appear to have methodically planned out their sock puppetry then implemented it with one or a few or a series of well-planned articles; probably would have worked for me.

How it should have been done, imo, to create useful data: users create a sock and submit substantially the same article with their primary user account and the sock, say an article about a tenured mechanical engineering professor and one about a tenured chemical engineering professor from Harvard, or two articles about Antarctic mosses, one from each master and sock, or, well, you get the picture. Submit both on weekdays, or weekend evenings, a few hours apart, or the same time on two different days, some editors submit newbie article first, others submit established editor sock first. Alert the NPP community about the study before hand. Blue link the socks. Have a lot of editors do it over a period of a couple of weeks. That's my suggestion. I think with the help of a statistician it might yield data that could be evaluated to gain insight into wikipedia.

Now, what do I do with the sock? I keep thinking it would be handy to keep, if it is tried again; but I'm not going to be coordinated enough to do it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If your sock hasn't edited I'd suggest just leaving it for the time being. There has been some talk above about a statistical study based on a random set of genuine new articles, I suspect that if we move this project onto a second data collection phase that would be the way to go. ϢereSpielChequers 13:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Having a control group as suggested above sounds like a great first step to statistical significance. However, a fully wikified article from a newbie would be as suspicious as plain text from a veteran editor. Could two articles of equal wikiness^{(better term needed)} really be convincing as works of a newbie and of the experienced editor respectively? If not then perhaps we should move the target slightly and look at how we treat relevant and valid information which arrives in an unwikified format (usually from newbies), rather than whether new editors are treated differently from the regulars. Certes (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should write up a short article in MS Word, citing some sources in-text, and add it in with a sock? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're incorrect about this, because you're looking at long articles. Durova had the correct idea, and another editor whose user name I don't recall: submit stubs. Organism stubs without taxoboxes and brief biographies claiming notability. The organism stubs can be tied to a single generic reference source a taxonomy site, and the biographies tied to a news article. Yes, Ed, to me that's a good idea, but think stub, imo. Also, don't categorize the article.

I also think Certes has an good idea. Unwikified content is always up for deletion and it seems to me that wikipedia is full of rampant deletionists with regards to this content. IMO the time spent having this content discussed at AfD would be better spent wikifying the content. So, checking also whether similar unwikified content is handled the same from regulars and newbies might be valid. I discussed this with a friend who used to routinely create articles on wikipedia. She pointed out that when she submits new articles, now matter what their initial state, they are checked off at new pages(?) within seconds of submission. We should consider this aspect of known editors: their familiarity, and probably the most well known editors could not be part of the process, but shorter term established editors.

WereSpielChequers I did make the required 10 edits with my sock in order to be able to submit an article. So?--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Asking a question for the current arbcom canidates

Currently editors can ask a question too arbcom candidates, such as Secret:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Secret/Questions_for_the_candidate

I suggest we try and draft a question, which involves this project, treatment of new editors, and the current press wikipedia has received. Ikip (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely related: semi-protection policy

Hello,

I have recently noticed that WP semi-protection policy is often ignored, sometimes intentionally. This results in too many semi-protected articles, especially indefinitely, which in my opinion goes against fundamental philosophy of WP, increasingly and quietly turning into "the encyclopaedia that only autoconfirmed users can edit".

I have started a discussion, feel free to join in. Soque1 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My own ha'pen'orth

I've been reluctant to get involved while there was so much heat in the discussion, but did just want to share my own perspective before I go. I wasted much of one evening expanding and wikifying a contribution that the contributing editor could (it turns out) easily have done himself - he's not to blame, having sent me an email to that effect almost as soon as I started editing the article, but I didn't see it till the next day. Nevertheless, I think this exercise was very valuable in helping established editors get some empathetic sense of what it's like to be a new editor (in human terms, qualitative data can be as important as quantitative data). It might have been less controversial if the new page patrollers themselves had been the ones asked to contribute skimpy new stubs to see what happened, but it is always worth reminding patrollers, gently and collegially, that it's often better to err on the side of leniency when a new contribution is not plainly an attack page or an advert. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

make deletion log searches more user friendly

I have submitted a bug report to make searching the deletion logs more user friendly and consistent with search engine usage on the internet. At the present time, you have to enter the exact title, with the exact punctuation of the article deleted, in order to find information on deletion log about that article. The log search should work like other searches, and should be able to find information on a deleted article based on a keyword from the article title. This would cut down on confusion by people using the log search like they use all other searches in Wikipedia and not being able to find information on an article. If you agree with this enhancement/bug, please vote for this report on bugzilla: Bug#21555: search on keyword - rather than requiring exact title including puntuation. Thanks. stmrlbs|talk 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Flag-templates

Hello, fellow editors ... I've been off-line for the past month, and missed this discussion, but this is the main reason why I created the Flag templates for deletion warnings with {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} a few years ago ... for those who were not aware of them, I hope these will help. :-)

Happy Editing! — 70.21.2.219 (talk · contribs) _{04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)}

Good in theory, theoretically, but I'm going to point out one fallacy that any extremely diciplined editor might remind of-- If you are "considering" something or think it "might" be CSD but aren't "sure", then it shouldn't be tagged. Although I think using the word "iffy" can be okay if in what we all know is a gray area between opinions, it's still risky to say. Fussy, yes, but I've been called on it and I understand. If I read correctly, marked are listed... placing a PROD on anything in that is already a 1-week pass and it has an automatic timer. WP:OVERCOME is, sadly, true in some cases and are most always the cases of best faith... I just worry about countless cases of that happening, which would be equally demoralizing.

Might I suggest template talk somewhere more public be used to bring up any re-wordings of the PROD template, or some "official" style like the bits left on user's talkpages like are here? That is one place we can be more casual and if new users see their talk page with a blue exclamation mark instead of red they'll probably calm down. Without some kind of special difference, what makes the flagging preferable to a PROD - deletion? That covers the possibility of the article never being touched again. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, forgot-- I commend and am always amused by any use of the quotation The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and though this is the sort of place where it's appropriate to mention, that's never what we want to confuse new users into thinking we're actually lenient on grounds like that. It's that massive logical fallacy as to why WP:OTHERSTUFF and its child essay WP:GARAGE and cousin to WP:ENN are ever needed. If new users understood OTHERSTUFF, it would cover... at least half of new article concerns, perhaps? ...Should we as editors use that mindset? I'll sure as hell do, and think it's the best AGF opinion to use on any unsourced new article. However, it's limited to a duck test and web search... good faith can't be applied indefinitely, as I've learned the hard way. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

This is based on User:SandyGeorgia's well exercised principles at FAC.

If you see someone behaving well with newbies, shower them with praise and barnstars.

If you see someone behaving poorly with newbies, give them a nudge in the right direction and when they respond positively...

shower them with praise and barnstars.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the controversy?

Why is ther controversy over this? It seems like an obvious good idea. Is it just people getting defensive when they are caught abusing newbies? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to take the easy way out on this, but it's hard to cover all the even most basic details quickly. In short, questionable sock activity from experienced users arguably against policy happened from admins performing questionably unethical tasks to arguably trap editors into what they thought were "tough calls" on new articles to see if they would get a speedy delete tag. At times, in an ethical goof, the users experimented by participating in article discussions and edits from the sock and their normal account, with it just being immoral to suggest even passively to, say, a sole other editor there. One significant issue was that editors were "outed" and actions taken to mark what they felt were A7 CSD articles and had their names plastered all over the project page in a hideous and shameful manner. Let's just say it didn't go over well. If you have an hour to kill you could read all the chat on the project page and this talk page as there are a lot of very solid points and proposals for improvements to the system. As is usual, lengthy discussion pretty much killed about a half dozen entirely reasonable improvements to CSD tagging and NPP in general. ...Ok, that's the short version. If you dig though it there is some substantial anger with standing admins, a lot of people being stubborn, and for some twisted reason a continuation of the project after a massive response to stop. It was about a full month of wasted time for some editors and many said they would never patrol again.

...Oh, and there was never any actual discussion about the articles meeting any criteria or some tags offered with rationale, so we had to go on the assumption the articles would fine and dandy, so many editors had names published openly for what would arguably be a CSD for many, and that could be be removed in re-patrol or at admin decision regardless. If you're here pondering this project being mentioned in a RfB currently, there you go. I dislike it all since no resolutions actually came about it past "be more careful", but specifically tried to say "arguably" and other weasel words to demonstrate that arguments could be made on either side for many parts of the debate. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Datheisen's summary is a bit one-sidedly negative, and in some ways characterises the entire effort using the mistakes made by a few. Best bet is to actually read the project page and talkpage, and draw your own conclusion. All the arguments for and against the project are there. Nathan ^T 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Second guessing Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion

I am rather troubled by a few veteran, high profile editors support for this project wanning because of some extremly vocal, (some less than civil) group which has criticized this project.

To my knowledge, none of these editors who put up the faux-editors pages for deletion have apologized. None seem to see their bitey attitude as wrong. Instead they have ruthlessly attacked the messenger. I was wrong, see below.

Wikipedia has been in decline since 2006. A lot of editors, scholars, and journalists have speculated why. Experiments like this should be welcomed by the community. As one administrator recently put it: "For once, someone decided to get some hard data on something instead of guessing whether there was a problem or not. Sure, it's easy to criticize the implementation. But I haven't exactly noticed the critics going out and getting data themselves."

Wikipedia needs understanding, compassionate editors to be the face of wikipedia to new users and the world. If these distainful editors treat new editors they way they act here, Wikipedia is stonger in the long run if they don't patrol new pages anymore.

NEWT editors should continue to be proud of the work they accomplished here, no amount of sniping and uncivil remaarks lessen these valuable findings. Always keep in mind that we are speaking for the voiceless. Those new editors who excitedly come to wikipedia to contribute and are told in so many ways that "your contributions are worthless". These editors don't have the tool knowledge or network of support that we do after years of experience.

NEWT proved that there is a problem, and the critics behavior here stubbornly denying a problem even exists, only reinforces that conclusion. Ikip 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, NEWT proved nothing. It showed what we already know already. Newbies are treated differently, generally. Why? Because they are new. Likewise, we treat veteran editors differently, because they've been around a while. Intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to try and prove this point, through the misuse of sockpuppets creating purposely poor articles (including marginal BLPs) is all that was achieved (in addition to pissing off those who work hard on new page patrol dealing with real new editors). Majorly talk 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe anyone is seriously denying there is a problem with the way newbies are treated. But this was the worst way to go about it. Just as bad as, say, trying to prove the RFA process is broken by creating a sock with the sole intention of getting adminship to show it can be done. Majorly talk 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Real new users behave differently than experienced users playing dumb. Real new articles are different than intentionally bad articles. This experiment could only tell us how patrollers react to experienced users creating intentionally bad articles; it could not tell us anything about new users' experiences. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Moreover, nothing was done here that couldnt have been accomplished better by observing actual new users or digging through the archives. Bonewah (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Sure, it's easy to criticize the implementation. But I haven't exactly noticed the critics going out and getting data themselves."

And as I wrote above:

"Was anyone naive/idealistic enough to think this experiment would change anyone's behavior? That editors would be shocked at the way we treat newbies? Based on the fierce resistance I have seen to any constructive criticism in the past four years, I could have predicted this negative reaction before this study started. Most veteran editors already know, and many seem to accept biting newbies at the least as a necessary evil. There will always be a group of editors who vigorously support the current system, no matter what evidence of harm is provided."

RE: Intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to try and prove this point, through the misuse of sockpuppets creating purposely poor articles (including marginal BLPs) is all that was achieved (in addition to pissing off those who work hard on new page patrol dealing with real new editors).

Majorly, your statment is simply a rehash of what editors have said repeatedly, I have seen few if any editors who support this project use policy the same way. So lets use accroyms the same way they have been repeatedly done here, this time directed at those who refuse to find any value in this endeavor:

Supporting WP:BITEy behavior is WP:Disruptive and discourging the creation of new articles is contrary to the very foundations of Wikipedia. Mischaracterizing editors behavior and intentions is not only possibly uncivil but an assumption of bad faith. In a crisis of growth new ideas and approaches should be welcomed, and WP:BOLD behavior should be encouraged to help build and sustain wikipedia.

Ikip 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped that stopping this project would prevent the debate escalating and distracting us all from the pedia. But I guess it will take a while before oppose per wp:NEWT seems as odd as oppose per Esperanza would today. As for nothing being learned by this, I think we learned a lot, including some things that would have been hard to spot otherwise. If I hadn't created User:Dahsun I wouldn't have known how the welcome screen appears, but you can't then page back to it when you think it might be useful. And yes I knew that some articles got incorrectly tagged at speedy deletion, but I was genuinely shocked when the first NEWT article was tagged and then deleted whilst the author's talkpage was still red - I don't think that should happen to a new account creating an article here and I don't buy the idea that the admin and tagger were somehow treating that account differently than they would a genuine newbie. But on the plus side I have to disagree with Ikip - several editors who had mistakes brought to their attention reacted quite positively. ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

my apologies, I thought that was the case, but with so much written, I could not find those examples. Ikip 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I found it really upsetting to learn that working with new users, something I've done for years, was something you considered so problematic that it was necessary to send out secret agents to foil my wickedness. In fact, I ended up leaving Wikipedia for about a month because I found it absolutely impossible to even hit my 'patrol' button without feeling way more anxiety and anger than I need in a hobby. I only came back because this project seemed to be dead. Now that I see its talk page come back to life, I feel anxious and angry again. If all these pages of people explaining why this project did more harm than good couldn't convince you; if a month later you still think it was a good idea, and that those of us who opposed it did so because we are bad editors who support a grievous harm, then I doubt anything I type here will convince you. But right now, as I type, I'm wondering whether you are still quietly creating fake accounts and artificially bad articles. Maybe you are, I think... maybe the next time I react to a new article, you'll be carefully scrutinizing my every word. Maybe you already have; maybe I've already wasted time talking to one of your fake new users. Maybe you were the apparently willfully ignorant one who made me think, 'no one can be this obtuse.' Or maybe you were the one who got so angry with me. Now that I know you're still in favor of this, I have no way of knowing whether you're still doing it. And that creeps me out so badly that I can't look at the 'patrol' button again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I never participated. I became aware of this after this project was closed.

Veteran editors have talked a lot about being victims, which rings rather hallow to me. No one was blocked here, no ones contributions were deleted, you weren't tagged several times on your talk page, etc. Many editors like yourself have said they quit page patrol over a brief mention of their edit (not even their name) on this page. This overraction to mild, harmless criticism, just shows how ill suited many editors are to greeting new contributors.

There has been very little discussion from these same editors about the way editors have treated new editors.

The article you tagged FisherQueen, which one was it? Can you see maybe how other editors may disagree with how you tagged it or are those who disagree with you all "willfully ignorant"? Have you thought about how your work on new page patrol affects wikipedia growth, positively or negatively?

This is a collaberative effort, ALL of our edits are subject to questioning, removal and deletion, all of our edits can be scrutinized. How many new editors contributions have you deleted or tagged for deletion which acknowledges this? You judge other editors actions and edits and edits all the time, we all do. New page patrolers are not exempt from this. Ikip 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You say that No one was blocked here, no ones contributions were deleted, you weren't tagged several times on your talk page, etc, and yet you were very insistent at the outset that someone should have apologized for something. What do you hope to accomplish here, Ikip? What is the point of re-hashing all this? If you are really so concerned with greeting new contributors, then may I suggest you go do that. Bonewah (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I think your experience is reflective of the worst possible outcome of this project. But I'm not sure I can share your conclusion that the entire experiment was a terrible mistake as a result. In my mind, mistakes were made on the part of WP:NEWT participants (of which I was not one) - particularly in not being utterly clear about avoiding "blaming" anyone for perceived errors. On the other hand, not all participants (who governed their own actions, not even revealing them to the rest of the project until after the dust settled) created absolutely terrible articles. Many of the articles they did create were similar in a lot of ways to what actual new users generate, and in a significant proportion of cases they were patrolled in a way that was less than ideal. The "secret shopper" basis of this effort is, in many ways, both sound and commonly employed in many industries. It's clear that its implementation here caused some to see it as more of a sting operation aimed at pointing fingers, which is a shame. But that effect was unintentional and not equally caused by all, something I don't think many critics have acknowledged.

It's unfortunate that the final judgment of this project in the mind of many tars all participants equally, and that anyone who declines to absolutely condemn the entire project has their intelligence and morality questioned. We should be able, as reasonable adults with the benefit of the encyclopedia as a shared goal, to look at this somewhat dispassionately and agree to acknowledge problems without either assigning blame or taking offense. I know that all participants of WP:NEWT have acknowledged some problems with its implementation, but I'm afraid that the sense of being unfairly targeted has led others to refuse to concede that it did point up some significant issues that ought to be addressed. Nathan ^T 22:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re to FisherQueen. This project has been marked as historical and I would be very surprised if anyone was currently creating more articles for it, or had done so since the 23rd November. The current upsurge of interest is I believe entirely related to the number of opposes for WP:NEWT participation in the current RFB. ϢereSpielChequers 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that NEWT members understand how disrespectful they were to established wikipedia editors by the way the experiment was implemented. I did not see this at first. I created an account, but did not submit any new articles (just a couple of redirects). I did not create articles because I got confused going back and forth between accounts trying to submit an article. I hate the way new editors are treated by NPPers on wikipedia. I often edit as an IP, but my treatment as an IP, no matter how bad, is minor league nastiness compared treatment as a newly registered user.

While discussing NEWT with other editors I came to see one of its biggest drawbacks: the experiment was an attempt to measure the behavior of one group of editors, by starting with an assumption of bad faith, then luring in established wikipedia editors.

It is frustrating, but so usual to wikipedia, that editors cannot see how deceptive behavior is hurtful to individual users and detrimental to the project of building a community encyclopedia. If any member of the community is considered an expendable target of deception, the community as a whole is degraded. I apologize to FisherQueen and to all of my fellow wikipedia editors, old, new, registered, and IP, for participating in the project at any level. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think NEWT critics understand how disrespectful they have been to established wikipedia editors in criticizing this project.

1. Currently there is an editor calling everyone involved in this project a "liar" repeatedly. This is a contuation of the personal attacks and uncivil remarks that NEWT members have had to tolerate from editors who are supposed to be the face of Wikipedia for new editors. You yourself call editors involved in this project "deceptive" a personal attack showing incivility and bad faith.
2. Most postings, including yours ironically accuses NEWT members of bad faith. It is ironic, because these editors are breaching the first sentence of Wikipedia:Assume good faith: "it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." There has been very little, if no, assumption of good faith about this project by critics.
3. Critics continue to accused NEWT members of violating sockpuppet policy, when these editors know that legitimate alternate accounts are allowed and used regularly for a variety of projects on Wikipedia. Again, another assumption of bad faith ironically by those trumpeting bad faith the loudest.
4. Worst of all, the treatment of new editors is ignored and the focus is put upon NEWT members. Throughout this page, editors bring up their real life treatment as new editors. These experiences are not focused on by the very editors who patrol new pages and are the face of Wikipedia to new editors and the world. Instead, they call editors contributions all manner of vile words, and continue to uncivilly attack these experienced editors.
5. If these critics are aware of the problem, as Majorly states, then what do you suggest the solution to be?

Ikip 10:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think I've used the word 'liar.
2. I think that NEWT is an inherent assumption of bad faith, and so I cannot say other than that.
3. I do not agree that this is a legitimate use of sockpuppet accounts.
4. I do think that the experiences of new editors are important. What I do about that is patrol new user edits, welcoming and guiding constructive new users, warning and blocking vandals and spammers. I think I have done far more to provide positive experiences for new users than the sum total of all of NEWT's games. NEWT has not, after all, interacted with any new users, but only with people who volunteer to patrol. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ikip quotes me and responds under my post, but the post does not appear on target for responding to, addressing or questioning my post, so I don't have a reply. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

FQ, he is talking about a !voter in SoWhy's RfB. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion

This project was an excellent idea in my opinion. We should learn from this instead of criticizing it. Hopefully we have learned now to actually read the article, review the sources, and correct any minor errors before we decide to tag it to see if it is salvagable, instead of trying to hit 90 tags per minute. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 15:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion?

It would be nice if someone could, at the top of the page, summarize the findings of this experiment. -- œ^™ 18:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Completely agree! Now, it sort of seems like the fact that the experiment was carried out in a way that can be considered dishonest, entrapment etc. means that all of its conclusions and assumptions are invalid, and that biting newbies with Speedy Deletions is not a problem in any way./Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for revival?

I think it might be a good idea to revive this project so experiments are conducted on a random day/random days every year. This way we can get some fancy graphs going of how newbies are treated (Articles tagged within 24 hours, Articles deleted within 24 hours, number of newbies welcomed ect.). This way we can get a clearer picture on how experienced editors are handling newbies. What do you think? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 10:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem still exists, I've declined incorrect several speedy deletions just in the last 24 hours. My suspicion is that this is probably one of the major reasons why the community is driving away many of the new editors who we attract. But any attempt to revive NEWT should be very clear that its looking at live examples rather than using mystery shopping techniques, and my advice would be to launch it as a new venture with new editors as the attempt to turn NEWT into a statistical study of genuine newbies kept being sidetracked into discussions about the ethics of mystery shopping. I'd also suggest that you need a large sample to get statistically valid percentages on your data, I'm happy with the idea that you don't always need a precise measurement of a problem to know it needs fixing, but clearly there is a school of thought that identifying a problem isn't enough, you need to have statistically valid data as to the size of a problem before its worth trying to fix it. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea! It'll not be seen as encouraging socking and it means we'll get better data... the trick is getting it in the first place. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 13:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You might find Wikipedia_talk:Newbie_treatment at_Criteria_for_speedy deletion/Archive_3#Control_test worth reading. The difficulty is that unless you have access to the deletion logs you can't really measure what is happening to new articles as some are likely to be deleted before you get a chance to see them. Plus of course unless you have access to the deleted edits you can't always tell if the deletion was valid or not, I've seen an A7 be turned into a G10 by a subsequent edit by the article creator. You could run a study looking at a certain number of articles in CAT:SPEEDY and seeing what proportion of the tags were incorrect. But you'd be dealing with a skewed sample as the clearcut cases tend to be resolved more quickly. ϢereSpielChequers 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal Experience

Just wanted to say on this issue that a few months ago I was briefly enthusiastic about Wikipedia. I edited established pages and even created a new one, through my IP address rather than the user account I've now created (but won't be using again after this post). All my contributions were made in good faith, and I had attempted to read up on the correct ways of doing things as well as discussing my thoughts and intentions on talk pages.

Inevitably I made errors like any newbie, and the page I'd created was flagged up for speedy deletion. This was my first problem - I'd been led to believe the point of Wikipedia was that you'd contribute something, however small or low-quality, and others would help to build upon it, rather than everything being immediately deleted before it had a chance to grow - but I was happy to be guided by more experienced editors, accepting their judgement that the page didn't meet notability criteria, and certainly wasn't looking to start a fight.

Things didn't end there, however. The editor who'd suggested the page for speedy deletion then went around deleting many of my edits to other pages without explanation. When I politely asked to know why, I was accused of being a deliberate troublemaker because I didn't have a user account. I had no idea it was in any way frowned upon to not have a user account - why bother having an open-door policy if it's considered rude and troublemaking to edit from an anonymous IP address? I continued to ask what specifically was wrong with my edits, to no avail, and soon a couple of other editors joined in lambasting me and systematically deleted every single edit I'd contributed, even including basic corrections of spelling errors. It was clear my edits were being deliberately singled-out, and I was held guilty for breaking rules I didn't even know existed - and whenever I tried to discuss any of these issues on talk pages, the language these other editors would use was so hostile and condescending that I eventually just gave up and left the site.

As volatile a place as the Internet can be, this site is the only one in all my years online which has made me feel maliciously bullied rather than simply caught up in a disagreement - one night I actually cried at the things which were said to me, and I can assure you that I'm a relatively thick-skinned person. These gangs of self-appointed elite editors seem to have no time for newbies, automatically assuming anything they contribute must be worthless and verbally attacking them if they dare ask for a simple explanation as to why something has been reverted. The worst thing was that I don't think the editors realised how malicious their behaviour came across to me - to them, it was just necessary business and I was either a troublemaker or simply too attached to my own edits. In short, I don't think most editors realise how hostile and alienating they can be to people who are taking their first steps on Wikipedia and would appreciate some friendly, constructive criticism rather than so much viciousness.

Not only will I never ever contribute anything to Wikipedia again, but I am now reluctant to use it for looking anything up as well - whenever I do, I wonder how much nastiness took place during the creation of that particular page, and question whether the information provided by a site which allows such nastiness to go unchecked can ever be trustworthy.

This isn't something that will be solved by mystery shopper gimmicks - I hope you people can find a way of not treating future newbies like crap, but I tend to doubt it. Bye. Pam120 (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)