This page is for a constructive discussion of on improving Wikipedia's processes, comments welcome:
References edit
- Editor training (Wikipedia blog)
- Wikipedia Editors Are Basically All Dudes – Should That Matter? (2012, WebProNews)
- 90% of Wikipedia's Editors Are Male—Here's What They're Doing About It (2013, Atlantic)
- 3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins (2012, Atlantic)
- The Decline of Wikipedia (2013, MIT)
- The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline
Tools edit
- AfDStats - AfD stats for editors (estimation)
- reFill - automated filling in details of 'bare' references
- X!'s Tools - editor and page stats
Defunct edit
- Popular pages - number of page visits (estimation) (2016)
Deletion process - AKA AfD (articles for deletion) edit
Positive outcomes edit
- Removes promotional, liable and threating articles (bad faith) and non-notable subjective information (out of place)
Contested outcomes edit
- Removal of articles not up to Wikipedia standards, but which are made in good faith and attempting to make Wikipedia standards.
Negative outcomes edit
- Time consuming
- Unwelcoming to new editors acting in good faith
- Loss of content that could be upgraded to Wikipedia standards, or could potentially be upgraded to Wikipedia standards in the future (for example subject gains notability).
- Total removal of article may become a goal for people acting in bad faith.
Alternative - move to 'draft' space edit
This is an option that falls somewhere between Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia.
An extra outcome of the AfD process could be Draft, along side (Speedy) Keep, (Speedy) Delete, Merge and Redirect.
If the outcome was Draft the article would be moved to Draft space. True, the article may eventually be deleted. However, the extra time would give new users longer to learn about Wikipedia's processes - without their work totally being removed (not accessible to non-admins). Additionally, Article which are potentially up to Wikipedia standards wouldn't have to be entirely rewritten.
The additional time in draft space would allow less frequent editor to weigh in. Thus, preventing frequent editor bias.