Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Reviewing backlog

Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but...surely there must be a way to automate NPP backlogs without depending on volunteers to carry the full load. A BOT could automatically reject unsourced articles and provide a relative response to the article creator, and the same for submissions with copyvios, poor sourcing, etc. BOTs can tag them quicker and more efficiently. Actually, a BOT could work hand-in-hand with the source rating BOTs such as User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. If we could automate the tedious parts and leave human reviewers to review only those articles that are notable, follow MOS, and are actually qualified for inclusion. AfC should only be releasing qualified articles, so maybe it is time to stop allowing just anyone to create articles in mainspace. Just a thought. Atsme 💬 📧 18:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A bot that auto draftified articles with no citations might have trouble detecting if general references or a weird citation format are used. We do have a report for likely candidates though, to help reviewers spot them: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Easy reviews#Probable "draftify because of no sources" candidates

A copyvio detection bot would suffer from the same problems with edge cases. Just because something is 50% on Earwig doesn't mean it's necessarily a copyright violation. It could be public domain, a big list of book titles, etc. We do use bots such as EranBot to look for likely copyright violations and put them in a report, but the final decision needs a human touch.

I don't think there's currently consensus to decline/reject/AFD articles simply because they have MOS problems such as no headings or a non-bolded title. MOS is not part of the flowcharts of NPP or AFC.

I like your thinking. We should always be looking for ways to make our processes more efficient. Too bad the problems are a bit on the complicated side. Many of the simple solutions have already been implemented, I think! –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Every article in the new page feed is the work of a human being who, whether or not you like the result, almost certainly contributed it in good faith. Rejecting them without even having another human being look at them is a terrible idea and would be disastrous for the reproduction of our editor base.

Also your regular reminder that there is no policy prohibiting the creation of unsourced articles and draftifying articles solely because they lack citations is a questionable practice, at best. – Joe (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Joe Roe: as a frequent draftifier, why is draftifying unsourced (and therefore unverifiable) articles a questionable practice? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely trying to learn. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Unverifiable means that a fact cannot be verified at all, not that it is currently lacking a citation. Our verifiability policy does not require that everything is cited, only four specific types of material. So if you're draftifying something purely because it's unsourced, you're removing an article from mainspace that doesn't actually violate any policies, skipping over preferable options (like adding a citation yourself or the {{unreferenced}} maintenance tag), and measurably decreasing the chance that the article will be improved by moving it to a much less visible namespace. If you're interested, I recently wrote more about why I don't draftify articles when patrolling at User:Joe Roe/Seven tips for new page patrolling. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The backlog is obviously surging again just a month after the previous backlog drive. I would argue that if feasible, a bot can be used to perform the Wikignome tasks (i.e., tagging for orphans, uncategorised, or detect basic cases where the title within body is not bolded, sort of like how AfD votes are detected, it won't work for complex cases but is better than nothing). However, bots shouldn't be used to automatically tag 50%+ copyvio articles per Earwig with revdel/copyright problem/G12 because of the significant rate of false positives (public domain, CC-BY-SA-3.0 compatible license, list of book titles, list of studies, and the like).

The same goes with drafting unreferenced articles- the automatic detections on PageCuration software doesn't work for articles with no footnotes but with general referencing or other unusual citation formats (which is a fairly high false positive rate). I also don't agree that every article that is unreferenced should automatically be processed by a bot. VickKiang (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The wikignome stuff such as maintenance tags aren't a required part of the flowchart. It can be skipped to speed up reviewing. The important parts of the flowchart are CSD (which includes copyvio check), notability, and title check. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, and often skip these processes myself. I am mainly arguing that is the only part that some (but not all) of NPRs do that I think can be (partially) automated, although I am am not sure 1) if it is feasible for a bot to constantly update data on whether a page is linked to a mainspace article and whether it has categories, 2) many editors do enjoy gnoming, and 3) it won't have a huge effect in reducing the backlog, only save the time of many diligent WikiGnomes.

By contrast, the key steps are often contentious clearly require human judgement (based upon current bot capabilities), and would have a much higher risk of having a damaging effect to newcomers due to false positives. For example, consistent false positive tags and flaggings of copyvio based only a bot would definitely deter newcomers and possibly dwindle the editing base. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Time to deprecate NPP school?

According to the table at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School#Available Trainers, only three users went through NPP school in the last year. It lists seven active trainers, but two of them explicitly state they are not taking on new students and one is taking an indefinite break from NPP, leaving four actually available trainers, only two of which have taken a student in the last year. In total 32 students have 'graduated' in the five or so years NPP school has been running, compared to roughly 484 users granted the perm in the same time period.

This inactivity shows that most users and most WP:PERM admins do not think NPP School is necessary to become a new page patroller. There's a small minority of reviewers who did come through it, and presumably found it useful, but realistically, with the small number of trainers, that opportunity is not really there for most people even if they were interested. With backlogs and recruitment both pressing issues, I'm also not sure why we would want to encourage people to go through a lengthy training process rather than simply applying at WP:PERM and getting stuck in immediately – which is what most people do anyway.

Thoughts? – Joe (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think NPP school is great and should be revitalized rather than closed. I think most students that finished the program will agree with me and attest to its usefulness. I am an NPP school graduate, and the opportunity to train under and receive the mentorship of a top patroller really skyrocketed my NPP skills.

It's been on my list to reach out to the list of trainers and get the list updated, then put out a call for more trainers. Will do so now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't go through NPP school myself, but I agree it would be better to revitalize rather than close it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, you're in a rather extreme minority there. What is the benefit of trying to revitalise a process that the vast majority of reviewers have not found it worth engaging with? – Joe (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

NPP school is a process that has helped 32 people become better patrollers, and hurt 0 people. It is a net positive, and should be continued as long as there are volunteers willing to put time into it, which there are. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with Joe here. As a graduate myself, I can say firsthand that PERM admins consider going through the school an asset. I was declined one week, went through NPP school for a few weeks, and was accepted right away. It is a net positive and should stay. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, as a PERM admin, I can say firsthand that I don't... – Joe (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. You’ve made that clear above, but I have a different experience and therefore disagree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I went through NPP school and it was most definitely helpful. I can't see a reason to depreciate it just because it's not in constant use. It's designed for people to chose to take the course to become a better patroller. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 18:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably the "best of both worlds" would be to clarify what it is and what it's place is. It sounds like what its place is is a thorough training program (just) for people who choose that route. This would avoid the downside of scaring away people who would feel guilty/second class for trying NPP without choosing to go through that program. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have to worry about the latter, given that at least 95% of current patrollers didn't bother with NPP School. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that the "I'm not good enough/ I'm not doing it good/thoroughly enough" sentiment is a drag on participation. Like when somebody rips me a new one for not doing a thorough search and analysis of literature in China to confirm lack of GNG coverage before AFD'ing an article. "Didn't go through NPP school" is of course only one possibility for this. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus against removing the school and the coordinators are actively working to revamp it. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Checking in with all NPP school instructors

@Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, Rosguill, Atsme, Onel5969, Joseywales1961, and Zippybonzo:. Hello NPP school instructors! We'd like to update the list of active instructors, in preparation for putting out a call for more instructors. Can you please reply here and state 1) if you are currently accepting new NPP school students, and 2) if you are not, if you have plans to resume NPP school instruction in the future? At the moment only Cassiopeia and Zippybonzo are listed as accepting students. Also, feel free to give any other thoughts you have about NPP school, your experiences teaching it, and its future. Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm happy to pick-up any slack if all the other teachers have students. It's the holiday season so my volunteer time is strained until after the New Year. Let's give the other teachers a chance to teach. I will keep an eye out if things get overly busy. Atsme 💬 📧 14:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  By my count you've trained nearly two thirds of the people who've been through NPP School, Atsme, so you've already picked up plenty of slack! But honestly, not to in any way lessen that work, but I think that is another weakness of the NPP School model. New NPPers should be learning from a broad range of peers and, above all, their own personal experience and and reading of community policy, not a single trainer's take on how to handle new pages. We can put out a call now and get a bunch people to put their name in a table, but if most of the work has been put on Atsme's shoulders despite having half a dozen or more trainers listed for the last six years, why will it be different this time? – Joe (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have just added myself to the list, if that helps any. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It helps a lot. Thank you very much :) Are you thinking of copying the long curriculum that most of the instructors use, or Atsme's short curriculum, or doing your own thing? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I was honestly thinking of doing my own thing. I only put my availability as one student at a time, and I thought what I did would be based on what the student's starting skills looked like. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That can work, but I’d definitely suggest looking at the other curriculums for inspiration. It also explains more about what things should be taught. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So where can these curriculums be found? Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School has a syllabus which mostly seems to consist of links to various policy and guideline pages, which obviously the person would need to be familiar with, but I'm not sure if that's the curriculum you are referring to. Where can I find Atsme's short curriculum?

Back in 2016 when Kudpung was trying to reorganize NPP and make the NPP school more of a thing (I know it was already a thing, but it was underutilized - and I have no earthly idea why I did not add myself as a trainer back then), I put together a User:ONUnicorn/NPP Quiz which I thought would be a good starting point for evaluating a person's skills. I'm not sure if I would use that today or not.

I've also, since I became an admin, been keeping some notes on some of the issues I'm seeing with speedy tags. User:ONUnicorn/thoughts on deletion is not set up to be a tool for teaching others, mostly just a place to dump thoughts and frustrations, but I may use some of those observations to teach students to avoid common pitfalls. I don't know. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 1 - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-wrote the trainer's resources just now. Hope this is more helpful: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School/Instruction methods. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I should have time to take on new students but am starting a job next month so I'm not 100% on top of my schedule and availability just yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not able to take on new students at this time. If you want to remvoe me from the list because I don't know when I will take new students that's fine but I'm also very good with being kept on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I ended up creating an "inactive" section and moved some folks down there. Feel free to move yourself back up if you get time in the future. Thanks for all the time you spend on wiki-related activities. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So yep I am taking students admittedly lost touch with a few but I am working with one at the moment who hopefully will show some merit. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 18:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to take up more students under my guidance. Cassiopeia talk 17:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)