Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lurking shadow (talk | contribs) at 07:16, 5 October 2022 (→Question 5: Minimum article quality when created at scale). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Status as of 14:32 (UTC), Monday, 18 November 2024 (Purge)

Introduction

This is the first of two RfCs about article creation and deletion at scale. Per the rules below, please feel free to add to questions/proposed changes for the first seven days; other suggestions, comments, questions or replies should be made within your own section.

This RfC has been announced at the articles for deletion talk page, the Arbitration Noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, the Bot policy talk page, Village pump (policy) and Centralized discussion.

Background

Page-related actions done at scale can overwhelm the community's ability to adequately monitor and participate effectively. The issue is exacerbated in the case of article creation at scale because it escapes the normal notification system.

In the past, Wikipedia did not discourage article creation at scale under the assumption this was the best way to achieve broad coverage of vast subjects such as sports, plant and animal life, geography. There exists a policy that automated or semi-automated creation requires a bot request for approval. More recently, concerns have been raised in multiple venues that the continuing creation of such articles has overwhelmed editors’ ability to track and assess these articles, and that the churn has become a waste of time and a cause of disruption. In a 2022 August decision, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) requested an RfC addressing "how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion" (termed "AfD at scale").

A strong argument was made that the article creation at scale (sometimes known as mass, rapid, or large-scale creation) is one of the causes of dysfunction at AfD with regard to article deletions at scale, and that addressing this issue is a necessary precursor to the ArbCom-ordered RfC addressing AfD at scale.

For a list of proposed solutions other than those initially presented here, please see Archive 2 of WT:ACAS.

Statistics for mass creation

  1. Editors who have created more than seven articles in the past week, including lists and disambiguation pages
  2. Editors who have created more than seven articles in the past week, excluding lists and disambiguation pages
  3. Editors who have created more than ten articles in June
  4. Editors who have created more than ten articles in July
  5. Editors who have created more than ten articles in August
  6. Editors who have created more than 100 articles in the past year
  7. Editors who have created more than 100 articles in the past year, by month
  8. Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2021, by month
  9. Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2020, by month
  10. Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2019, by month
  11. Editors by number of articles created in the past five years

Notes:

  1. None of these contain redirects that were converted into articles by the listed editor, but they do contain redirects that were converted into articles by other editors. I'm looking into fixing the latter; the former can be fixed for smaller datasets, but is too intensive for larger ones.
  2. External links counts can be suggestive about the quality of the article, it can also be meaningless - a low number may be because a large number of offline sources were used, while a high number may be because a template that provides links to a large number of database sources was added.
  1. Articles by editor by day over one year (1138 editor-days exceeded 10 articles; 163 exceeded 25)
  2. Articles by editor by week over one year (922 editor-weeks exceeded 20 articles, 150 exceeded 50)
  3. Articles by editor by month over one year (640 editor-months exceeded 40 articles, 123 exceeded 100)
  4. Articles by editor by year since 2020 (1156 editor-years exceeded 80 articles; 407 exceeded 200)

Note that these do attempt to exclude false positives from editors converting redirects created by the original editor, but some still exist, and this attempt does result in some false negatives. This is also the reason why a hard technical limit will be difficult; we will need some way to identify editors converting redirects into articles, and count those articles towards their count rather than towards the count of the original article creator. (Compiled by BilledMammal)

Purpose of this discussion

This RfC is to find and develop solutions to issues surrounding article creation at scale, partially in preparation for the RfC on article deletions at scale.

Rules

  1. All editors are required to maintain a proper level of decorum. Rudeness, hostility, casting aspersions, and battleground mentality will not be tolerated. Inappropriate conduct will result in a partial block (p-block) from this discussion.
  2. The sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about policy going forward surrounding creation of articles at scale and to form consensus on those solutions. It is not a venue for personal opinion on past creation or creators of such articles or about previous tolerance of such creations, nor about past mass deletions, ditto. Editors posting off-topic may be p-blocked from this discussion.
  3. All comments must be about issues and proposed policy changes surrounding article creation at scale. Comments about any contributor are prohibited and will result in a p-block from this discussion. Any violations will be reverted, removed, or redacted.
  4. Please do not make changes in RfC questions that have already been posted. Anyone is permitted to post additional questions/proposals, below the existing ones. Moderators may at their discretion merge, edit, or condense questions at any point in the process. Any user may suggest such changes.
  5. Please make all additional proposals within seven days of the start of this discussion. Subsequent proposals may be brought up in an editor's own section for consideration and inclusion at the discretion of the moderators.
  6. Discussion is unthreaded. Please create your own comments section within the discussion section for each question, placing your username in the section header. Within your own section you may present your !votes, post questions to other editors, or respond to other editors; unthreaded discussions with other editors can be created on the talk page. Threaded discussion on the RfC will be moved to the talk page by moderators/clerk.
  7. Within a comment section each editor is limited to 300 words, including questions to and replies to other editors. (word count tool) Short quotes from other editors to provide clarity are excluded from the word count, but quoted material may be trimmed by moderators at their discretion. Moderators may at their discretion grant extensions following a request on the talk page that includes a brief explanation of why it is needed; please ping for such requests. Overlength statements will be collapsed until shortened. Hint: pipe long page titles and don't bother signing posts in your own section. Hint: pipe long article titles and just timestamp (5 tildes) posts in your own section.
  8. If you believe someone has violated these rules, please speak to a moderator on their user talk page. If you believe the moderators are behaving inappropriately, please speak to an arbcom member on their user talk page or by email.
  9. This discussion will be open for 30 days and will be closed by a panel of three editors with experience closing discussions and who will be appointed by the Arbitration Committee prior to the start of the RfC. The closing panel will summarize and evaluate what consensus, if any, exists within the community.
  10. Per their order and this amendment, any appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The community retains the ability to amend the outcomes of the RfC through a subsequent community-wide request for comment

Moderators of this discussion

The Arbitration Committee has appointed two moderators for this RfC:

Additional clerking help: MJL (talk · contribs)

Closers

The Arbitration Committee has appointed a panel of three closers for this RfC:

Proposals

Question 1: Should we develop a noticeboard where mass creations and sources used for them can be discussed?

Proposed: A noticeboard will be created to allow for obtaining consensus for, making reports of, and having other discussions of mass creations and the sources used for such creations. (Details to be developed there.)

Support (Create noticeboard)

  1. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per what I wrote in the pre-RfC stage, especially the process described here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Enos733 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is very needed, article creation at scale has highly disruptive potential.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I suspect it's the only proposal that will achieve consensus here, effectively punting all this nonsense to a new location. Nonetheless, there are situations where it will be necessary, and it ought to be a net positive. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Worth a try, though I'm uncertain of how much good it will in practice do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Open to giving this a try. HouseBlastertalk 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A good start NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Seraphimblade. Not sure how much it will help, but it can't hurt. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. More community eyes will lead to better results. Pinguinn 🐧 04:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Decent idea. Not sure why we need a mega-RfC to create a new, optional noticeboard, though? – Joe (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Echoing Seraphim. Don't have high hopes but its worth a shot. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A centralized place where consensus can be established and referred to for each mass creation sounds like the proper way to ensure that article quality is met. Each case will inevitably be unique no matter how well concerns about scale, rate or notability are codified. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 15:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sounds like a good idea. If mass creations are then questioned the noticeboard discussion can be referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Anything to help tamp down the eternal firehose of article creation. Even if mass article creations are a small percentage of it, that would still help ease pressure on AfC/NPP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. JoelleJay (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Create noticeboard)

  1. Wikipedia already has 39 noticeboards and we should avoid adding more. A noticeboard related to something niche probably won't attract a broad audience and will be of limited usefulness. Hut 8.5 12:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Let's consider how the last time we tried adding a new noticeboard went. Article creation at scale is a problem, but do we really have distinct events often enough to justify a separate noticeboard? Why can't this be handled at AN or ANI? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We already have more noticeboards than we can keep track of. Any discussion about whether or not to embark upon a particular spree of article creation can be conducted at an existing page (e.g., Women in Red) and advertised centrally. Moreover, "article creation at scale" is sufficiently ill-defined and fuzzy around the edges that we'd only be inviting meta-arguments and wiki-lawyering about what belongs on the new noticeboard. XOR'easter (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Create noticeboard)

Comments from Thryduulf (Q1)
Comments from Rhododendrites (Q1)

If you meet the definition of "article creation at scale" (see my comments at Q3), then you must post a notice to this noticeboard with the following information:

  1. The approximate number of articles you will create.
  2. The approximate time frame for creation.
  3. A description of the overall topic/theme.
  4. Which notability criteria you will be using.
  5. What kind of sourcing you will use to demonstrate that each article meets the criteria (subject to the results of Q2).

Upon creation of the noticeboard, a subsequent RfC (or other discussion) will determine how long these discussions stay open, who approves them, if there's an appeals process, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Valereee

Trainsandotherthings, FWIW a commenter at the ArbCom case did this analysis and reported that "There does not appear to be any page of ANI archives that don't have at least one thread about AFD." 15:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hellknowz

@Rhododendrites: I feel like it would be much more useful to others if editors were to show/make an example draft/article. If they are serious about the work of creating a whole lot of articles, then surely they can just make one. Presumably, mass creation results in articles that are all basically "the same". So seeing an example would be so much more useful (and much easier to participate in a discussion about it) than a checklist of criteria. You could just look at it from the AfC / AfD perspective. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Espresso Addict

I'm worried that this would create a little-frequented corner where it would be easy for a small number of regulars to dominate, as occurs at some of the more-specialist deletion arenas. Given the breadth of opinion on this topic that seems unwise. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading

Question 2: Should we require (a) source(s) that plausibly contribute(s) to WP:GNG?

Proposed: Modify the General notability guideline (GNG)/Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) at WP:Notability (as appropriate) to add: (Please rank your choices by listing, in order of preference from most preferred to least preferred; ranking all seven options will assist closers in determining consensus.)

A: All articles created under SNGs (other than those which confer notability) must be cited to at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.

A-2: At least two sources.

B: All articles (except those not required to meet GNG) must be cited to at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.

B-2: At least two sources.

C: All WP:MASSCREATEd articles (except those not required to meet GNG) must be cited to at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.

C-2: At least 2 sources.

D. No change.

Statements (Require GNG-quality source(s))

Please in your statement rank your choices by listing, in order of preference from most preferred to least preferred, all seven options. Sign as usual with 4 tildes.

  1. D only (I don't think change will improve things, especially given the very significant variety in SNGs) --Enos733 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. C2 > C > A2 > A > D > B2 > B. Much of the conflict that led to this RfC is driven fundamentally by a mismatch between criteria used for creation and for deletion. This is primarily the result of SNGs that do not independently confer notability being used to justify mass-creation using databases and lists. Neither such SNGs nor such sources are, at present, admissible as evidence for keeping at AfD, where such articles inevitably end up. Requiring the articles to include sources supporting GNG addresses this mismatch. I would prefer two sources to one, but requiring it of every single article is a bit of an over-reach. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. B2 > B > A2 > A > C2 > C > D. Vanamonde's point about the disconnect between creation and deletion is a good one, and requiring editors to create articles that meet some (very low) quality standards will improve the quality of the encyclopedia while also naturally preventing problematic mass-creations of articles without affecting highly productive editors that also produce high quality articles. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. D (only). This proposal conflates two fundamentally different concepts: notability and verifiability. We cite sources in articles so that our readers can verify the information in them, not so that editors, and the best sources for verification are not always the sources that show notability. If there is doubt about the notability of a topic, it should be addressed with cleanup tags, talk page discussions, and/or an AfD nomination, not by shoehorning sources into articles where they're not needed and have no value to our readers. Notability is a property of topics, which does not depend on the state of sourcing of the article. I also have significant misgivings that options A and B are valid outcomes of this RfC (see below). – Joe (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. D only. A and B are an attempt to make large changes to notability guidelines by the back door and are frankly not valid outcomes of this RfC. An RfC about large-scale article creation should restrict itself to proposals about large-scale article creation as people who have no interest in large-scale article creation probably won't participate, so support for these proposals here does not indicate there is community consensus for them. A and B will make big changes to numerous SNGs, including some which have always been understood to be independent of the GNG (such as WP:PROF and WP:GEOLAND). The GNG also does not require multiple sources. I could get behind Vanamonde's suggestion below that mass-created articles only should have evidence that the subject meets the GNG or a criterion which is independent of the GNG. Hut 8.5 12:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Amend per Vanamonde93's comment below: not opposed to C if it means something similar to the 4A proposal. Hut 8.5 17:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. B2>C2>B>C>A(2). Two sources should be a minimum to show sufficient coverage. Although at the end of the day I'd support any of these changes. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. C-# > D. For C specifically, the number of sources should be sufficient and varied to write an article. This is how all GNG works and I don't see why mass creation should lower this bar. From my experience, AfD sees 3 in-depth sources as barely enough. A and B options sound like they are outside the scope of the RfC and change how all articles are approached, so I cannot see how those are valid options here. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. D > C > C2. I don't think change will improve matters, but C is acceptable. A and B are not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. C,B,A,D (don't really care whether the requirement is 1 or 2 sources). This seems to have worked for WP:SPORTSCRIT, so it would be beneficial to expand it to here. I concur that A and B are kind of outside scope, so prefer to C to them. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. C,B,A,D I don't see that having one reference that supports GNG is onerous, and should take the some of stress of AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. D only - the other options are tempting, but we the community should have no appetite for a repeat of the Pending Changes "trial". That that page even exists should be telling. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. B2 > B > A2 > A > C2 > C > D. If an editor is creating an article that needs to meet GNG, then presumably they've already found sources (otherwise, how would they know that it meets GNG?) so simply including these sources in the article is not a big ask. This would take a lot of pressure off of the creation and deletion processes, both of which currently require other editors to search for sources to prove that it's not notable before challenging. –dlthewave ☎ 23:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. D only. I'm extremely uncomfortable with this question as noted below and particularly per Hut 8.5 above. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. D only, with a trout to whoever decided to insist upon ranking "all seven options". (Bikeshedding should not be obligatory.) This entire discussion is predicated upon the idea that the GNG is objective, unambiguous, and easily applicable, when really all it does is transfer the ambiguity to questions about what counts as "significant" coverage. Let's not make things worse than they already are. XOR'easter (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. D only. WP:N notes quite explicitly that It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG)... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG provided the article is not barred by WP:NOT, so SNGs generally do confer notability except when they explicitly state that they don't (or, like WP:NCORP, explicitly state stricter-than-GNG source requirements per community consensus); WP:DEL-REASON#8 explicitly refers to consensus to delete articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline, rather than simply articles whose subjects fail some notability guideline. We have notability guidelines that do not so much as require significant coverage of the article subject to exist, such as WP:NGEO's guidance legally recognized populated places and WP:COMPOSER#1. Requiring GNG-quality sources is not warranted based on our current notability guidelines; if there exist guidelines that don't require SIGCOV, then requiring evidence of SIGCOV is not a good measure of whether mass creation is appropriate or not. Rather than looking for "GNG-quality sources", it would probably be better to frame this as something along the lines of "contains sourcing in the article that shows that the article subject satisfies at least one notability criterion", but this bumps into the wisdom of WP:NEXIST. An alternative might be to create a speedy deletion tag for all mass-created articles that do not contain a sourced claim of significance, which seems like a natural extension of WP:A7 to handle this sort of situation. But I don't think that GNG is the right framing here when the vast majority of controversial mass creations are under SNGs and this proposal's options basically excludes anything that could possibly claim SNG notability. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. B2>B>A2>A>C2>C>D. This would only apply to subjects that already must have two+ GNG sources in existence; requiring those sources to actually be cited in the article from the start will, by definition, not affect whether the subject merits an article. So this would have zero change to notability guidelines aside from any special informal temporal leeway certain topics may currently receive when having to demonstrate notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Require GNG-quality source(s))

Comments from Thryduulf (Q2)
  • Combine the massively variety in style, format and purpose of SNGs with the very subjective nature of what constitutes a source that "passes" the GNG and changes would not improve matters. Better imo to discuss things individually at the board proposed in Q1. 19:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Rhododendrites (Q2)

Whoa. 2B (and to a much lesser extent 2A) extends far beyond the scope of this RfC IMO, applying to all articles. This would be a radical change and should be separated if anyone wants to really propose it.

Weak support for C, but really I think the guidance should go something like this: "Mass created articles must include sufficient sourcing to show notability, and cannot be based only on simple statistical databases. While there are no firm requirements about the level of quality an article must reach when created, many in the community have a strong preference for mass created articles to be more than one- or two-sentence stubs." (This obvious extends to quality, but doesn't mandate anything about length). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde
  • I believe a cleaner way to do this would be to simply prohibit mass-creation that is based on criteria that do not independently grant notability. However, this idea has not made it into the RfC. Some of the proposals above do so indirectly, at least per my view of what mass-creation is, and so have my support. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hut 8.5: If I'm understanding you correctly you're not opposed to the C options, but you don't directly refer to them in your !vote; have I misunderstood? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Enos733 (Q2)

I agree with the comments of Thryduff and Rhododendrites above (and can support Rhododendrites's proposal). We do want high-quality articles, but we must balance that with the idea that this project is "freely editable" and we should be hesitant to enact procedures that enact barriers towards the sharing of knowledge (we have procedures for dealing with vandalism and deleting articles that do not fit with this project). --Enos733 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joe Roe

Options A through C represent a fundamental change to our core content policies (throwing out WP:NEXIST and modifying every single SNG) and options A and B would apply this to all articles. This is an absurd overreach of the stated scope of this RfC, which was already stretching ArbCom's request for comment on article deletion, and I don't think a local consensus on them here would be enforceable. The moderators should remove or modify it so we don't waste our time. – Joe (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Valereee

Vanamonde93, if you can figure out a way to propose something around based on criteria that do not independently grant notability that you think can work for a general !vote, please do. In distilling the workshop suggestions, I couldn't. Anything I didn't include was for reasons of not being able to figure out how to distill something that addressed major concerns, but if you have an idea definitely add it!

Comments from Espresso Addict

Echoing above comments; some of these options appear a considerable overreach of the "Article creation at scale" RfC remit. They should be removed, before this poisons the whole RfC. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XOR'easter

I share the concerns expressed above that multiple options presented in the list are beyond the scope of the RfC and would amount to a substantial revision in not just the arcana of GNG/SNG interactions, but the basic ethos of how we decide what topics deserve articles. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I find myself rather unhappy with the tendency to elevate one brief section in one guideline to a level on par with policy, if not even above that, as though the five bullet points in WP:GNG follow by logical necessity from the idea of building an online encyclopedia. Perhaps no SNG is perfect, but at least they reflect care and thought put into the questions of what deserves mention and how to organize material, rather than vague platitudes.
As an exercise, replay the tape of Wikipedia: imagine that wiki software has just been invented, you want to start a collaborative, general-purpose encyclopedia on such a platform, and you're trying to lay down some community rules. Perhaps you'd settle on some formulation of Our encyclopedia summarizes, without editorializing or drawing new conclusions, the statements made in trustworthy publications, to which we provide pointers. That seems hard to get away from — plenty of other wikis allow new conclusions or speculation, but those aren't suitable for what you want to build. But would it necessarily come to pass that that formulation would be elaborated across multiple separate manual pages, each with their own acronym? V and NOR and NPOV and BLP and NOT... just how inevitable is that division, given how in practice they work synergistically? And you might decide you need some rules, or at least rules-of-thumb, about what topics ought to have articles, but would that necessarily end up separate from your overall Mission and Vision Page? Might you start instead by laying a hard line down against advertising and personal attack pages?
Our current mess of all-caps abbreviations starts to look rather arbitrary once you take a few weeks away from speaking it. And then you start to wonder how many times in deletion debates you actually needed to refer to the GNG(TM), instead of pointing to the What Wikipedia is not policy and arguing that the subject was indiscriminate trivia.
I suppose I'm just unenthusiastic at the prospect of putting even more weight upon a system that already looks jerry-rigged and more than a bit wobbly. XOR'easter (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JoelleJay

@Red-tailed hawk (and others), I'm not sure I understand your reasoning? The proposed changes would only affect articles for which notability already is governed by the GNG -- which includes around half of the SNGs, e.g. NSPORT -- so there would be no conflict with SNGs that don't ultimately require GNG. Currently the burden of verifying a subject is notable is almost entirely relegated to AfD and NPP participants, rather than the article creator (where the responsibility should lie), and the proposals aim to address this. 06:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 3: Should we create a definition of "article creation at scale"? By rate, source, similarity, other?

Proposed: "Article creation at scale" is the creation of over 25 similar/similarly-structured articles per day or 50 per week or 100 per month or 200 per year using the same source.

This definition, once finalized, would be usable for establishing limits for the need to request consensus to create at scale, for requesting permission to create at scale, or for other discussions surrounding article creation at scale. (This proposal is intended to be refined and may not be finalizable here in this RfC but can be used for input for later proposals.)

Support (Create definition)

Oppose (Create definition)

  1. I supported, but was confused by the difference between the heading, which asks "By rate, source, similarity, other?" and the actual proposal, which answers that question: "by rate, similarity, and source". I moved to oppose mainly because "similar/similarly-structured" needs more clarity and because "using the same source" should be one way in which they can be similar/similarly-structured. See my comments below for an alternative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support creating a definition, oppose this definition. As I see it, mass-creation is simply creating articles without individually checking them for notability. Period. It's sometimes justifiable; it sometimes draws from lists or databases whose entries are inevitably notable; and sometimes it doesn't, but the products may still be good. However, putting numbers on it misses the crux of the matter, and also allows for endless dispute about timing and rates (see how bad the wikilawyering can get just with respect to 1RR restrictions). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not sure I support a direct numeric value as anything but guidance; hard numbers can be gamed. The idea here is "If you intend to create a whole bunch of very similar articles, get community feedback rather than just plowing ahead with it." That's not unnecessary at 49 in a week but suddenly essential at 50. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Jacobellis v. Ohio, no need to get boxed in to definition that can be gamed. nableezy - 04:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No need to get bogged down in particulars. Mass creation can be mass creation even when done slowly. Pinguinn 🐧 04:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A definition for guidance is a good idea, but not rigid numbers. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It's really more about vibe then about specific numbers. We should avoid at all cost the wikilawyering that will come with putting a specific number on it. Create a definition but avoid putting a box around it too strictly. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I support creating a general description of what "mass creation" would be. But not a rigid definition as such, because that would only lead to lawyering over details. More like a list of indicators of mass creation, like same process, high number, high rate, same source, same structure, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As with other editor's concerns this sounds like something that would end up being wikilawyered, whether claiming that creations do or don't meet the standard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Create definition)

Comments from Thryduulf (Q3)
  • The definition will probably have to be slightly fuzzy, but I can only see this being a good thing. 19:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Definitions need to be fuzzy because the real world is messy, but this appears to be being treated as rigid which is not. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rhododendrites (Q3)

[Turned comment into 3A per suggestion on the talk page]. See my comments at Q1 for what I think a request for permission should look like. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vanamonde93: mass-creation is simply creating articles without individually checking them for notability. Period - I suspect if that were the working definition, there would be consensus to completely prohibit it, but I've not seen anybody put forth a definition like that before. On the flip side, it would also allow for creating thousands of articles per year as long as you know they're notable, regardless of rate/sourcing, and those are things people are clearly concerned about. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: politicians that unambiguously meet NPOL, legally recognized towns, etc. - I agree that we should allow some forms of mass create at scale, but you just defined mass creation as limited to creation without checking the articles for notability. Creating articles that are unambiguously notable means they've been checked for notability. :) I'm not making a point about what should be allowed -- just that that's not a helpful definition. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vanamonde
  • @Rhododendrites: I don't think there will. There's plenty of mass-creation that's quite justifiable; described scientific species, politicians that unambiguously meet NPOL, legally recognized towns, etc. These are areas in which we've had community support not only for mass-creation, but for bot creation. I think the community is upset about mass-creation of non-notable pages, which, I believe, is the consequence of the GNG-SNG mismatch I mentioned above. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: When I say "checked for notability", I mean topics have individually been evaluated against a criterion that requires manual evaluation. You can quibble with the word "checked" if you'd like, but there's a qualitative difference between creating pages off of a list of MPs (or towns, or cricket players) and looking to see if each meet GNG. That's the fundamental feature of mass creation. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Editor xaosflux
Above only mentions a lower bound, however at some upper bound such an endeavour should fall to bot-flagged accounts to prevent flooding. Perhaps guidance related to when a bot task should be used is wise here. Such a mass-creation would still need to pass all other requirements, in addition to being pre-approved as uncontroversial. — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 3A: Alternative three-part definition

An editor is engaged in "article creation at scale" if these three criteria are all met:

  1. Rate - More than [X] new articles in the span of a month or [Y] in the span of a year (with X and Y to be determined subsequently, if this proposal finds support).
  2. Related articles - The articles are on a similar topic, similar theme, or based on the same set of sources.
  3. Manually created - Rather than the use of a bot/script/tool (which requires going through a different process, bot authorization).

Anyone who answers "yes" to all three of these is engaging in "article creation at scale" of the sort that would require abiding by the rules set forth elsewhere in this RfC (such as posting a request to a noticeboard, if Q1 gets support). Even if an editor does not think they meet the criteria, an uninvolved administrator may determine that someone's editing fits within the spirit of these requirements, and instruct them to seek permission.

Support 3A (alternative three-part definition)

  1. As proposer. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think we can change the numbers later, but this is a good start at defining mass-creation. --Enos733 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 3A (alternative three-part definition)

  1. Support some guidelines in principle, but 500 a year before some community oversight kicks in is way too many. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The method of creation is not relevant, not convinced with these numbers. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm fundamentally opposed to a numerical definition, see comments below. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral support as a better direction than a rigid definition, but any numbers will inevitably lead to gaming the system and arguing over semantics rather than following the intention. Kind of like everyone is always arguing about bot-like editing. Also I should not that mass creation and assisted creation are not mutually-exclusive. Both, either or neither processes could apply to article creation. Bot approval would still ask for mass creation approval should it become a more codified requirement. Finally, one point I do agree with is that an uninvolved admin (or "mass creation clerk" or some such) should have the "authority" to label any multiple article creation as mass creation to avoid arguments about what is or isn't mass creation on individual level. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (alternative three-part definition)

Comments from Rhododendrites (alternative three-part definition)

@Enos733 and Seraphimblade: To move this forward, I've replaced 50 and 500 with "X" and "Y". The idea is to agree to some basic rules, and then deal with specific numbers afterward, rather than altogether. Does that make sense? Hope I'm not being too bold... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: ^^ The numbers had already been removed by the time you commented. I'm curious what you mean by "method of creation is not relevant". We're making rules for a specific activity. Up to now, a lot of people have filed all "mass creation" under WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT, which are specifically rules about when one should seek bot authorization. The method is important, because use of tools/scripts is often frowned upon while manual creation is typically treated differently. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: The Even if an editor does not think they meet the criteria, an uninvolved administrator may determine that someone's editing fits within the spirit of these requirements, and instruct them to seek permission. part tries to do that. Is there a better way? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find the arguments that setting clear numbers (and allowing admins to go by the spirit of the numbers to avoid gaming the system) will encourage wikilawyering/gaming more than some subjective "I know it when I see it" meaning... bizarre. Like why did we implement 3RR? Because "don't edit war" means people wikilawyer over the meaning, blocks/unblocks get litigated, etc. Do people still wikilawyer over 3RR? Of course, but having a bright line sets expectations clearly, without removing the ability of admins to act on other forms of edit warring. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seraphimblade

Even without a particular number currently in place, I still think this is open to gaming. I would probably see a definition more along the lines of edit warring, where we effectively say "If you violate 3RR, you are pretty much certainly edit warring, but that doesn't mean you're not edit warring if you don't make more than 3 reverts. Now, here's what an edit war tends to look like." I think that would be a much more effective way of defining "mass creation" and much less susceptible to gaming. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thryduulf (Q3A)

@Rhododendrites: Method of creation is not relevant because the only thing that matters to readers is the output. Tools, scripts, bots, manual can all produce output of good or bad quality. Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3B: Should we create a definition of "article creation at scale"?

Proposed: Create a definition of "Article creation at scale".

This definition, once finalized, would be usable for establishing limits for the need to request consensus to create at scale, for requesting permission to create at scale, or for other discussions surrounding article creation at scale. (Details may not be finalizable here in this RfC but can be used for input for later proposals.)

Support (Q3B)

  1. If this us just "should we have a definition", that seems obvious to me. Or, well, it did seem obvious until I saw a couple people on this page argue against it. What in the world is the noticeboard people are supporting going to be for if there's no clear definition of when someone needs to use it and/or what considerations requests will be judged by? Many people have proposed things like CSD or special rules for deleting mass created pages -- how can we support or propose anything like that without starting from a clear definition? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I believe this would be useful in principle. I'm fairly certain it's not going to get anywhere in practice, given how wide the disparities are in the understanding of the problems we face. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We need some definition, but the placement of hard limits or certain methods will lead to wikilawyering. I think something that gives a basic definition, but only as far as the general idea, would be a better idea. We don't need a strict definition to recognise harassment, and we don't need one to recognise articles being created en masse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We absolutely must agree on some sort of a definition. Without a definition, we're all talking past each other when it comes to mass creation. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Q3B)

  1. oppose statement

Comments (Q3B)

Comments from Joe Roe

I agree with Rhododendrites that you self-evidently have to have a shared definition of something if you're going to start creating rules and noticeboards about it. But what on earth does these questions mean in the context of an RfC? If there is no consensus to create a definition, does the ordinary English phrase "mass article creation" becomes undefined? If there is a consensus against creating a definition, is it officially decreed undefinable? In the (admittedly increasingly unlikely) event that any new processes come out of this RfC, are we prohibited from describing their scope unless we get the go-ahead here? This whole thing gives me a headache. – Joe (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 4: Should we prohibit the creation of articles at scale?

This proposal would prohibit the creation of articles at scale based upon a rate definition to be separately decided.

Support (prohibit)

  1. The creation of encyclopedia articles must be understood as a matter of quality, not quantity, and that the rapid creation of articles almost certainly threatens our extant processes for article triage and improvement. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (prohibit)

  1. Much too blunt of an instrument. At the most extreme, we're saying we don't want someone to create 51 GAs in a month on various topics? Or we're assuming they're all stubs? If the latter, a more precise question might be to ask whether we want a minimum level of quality for articles created at scale. Update: I've added Q5 accordingly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There are circumstances where mass-creation is quite justifiable. I'd support the more specific prohibition of mass-creation where notability is not automatic. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think what is needed here is regulation, not prohibition. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per everyone above. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mass creation without preapproval should be - and already is - forbidden, but this goes beyond that. BilledMammal (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Rhododendrites. Pinguinn 🐧 04:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A non-starter. Mass creation—manual or semi-automated—has been one of the most useful tools we have for expanding our coverage of repetitive but encyclopaedic topics (e.g. geographic places, species, sports) and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. We have occasionally had problems with editors doing it badly, yes, but this would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would also be a disaster for efforts to address systematic bias, because we'd be curtailing efforts to expand coverage in under-represented areas, while retaining all the mass-created articles we have now (favouring the Anglosphere/Global North). – Joe (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mass creation of articles is OK if done properly. Hut 8.5 12:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Echoing everyone else. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Articles are good, bad articles are bad. We don't want to stop good articles, but minimise bad articles that have to be taken to AfD and clog up NPP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Plenty of instances where mass creation is perfectly justified (after elections, for example). I do think some parts of this (wider) debate have lost sight of the fact that new articles are the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (prohibit)

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 4A: Should we restrict creation of articles at scale?

Proposed: Mass-creation is permitted for a group of topics when all members of that group meet a criterion directly granting notability. All other mass-creation is prohibited unless supported by consensus at the mass-creation noticeboard (see Q1).

Addendum for clarity, not part of the proposal: criteria that have traditionally been held to grant notability include the GNG (of course), but also SNGs such as NPOL, NPROF, CREATIVE, GEOLAND, and a few others. Topics that meet these standards are not typically also required to meet GNG. The same is not true of other SNGs (notably NSPORTS). The distinction being made in the proposal is between these two categories of notability criteria.

Support (limit)

  1. As proposer, and per comments above. Mass-creation is a problem only when the notability of each created item is not demonstrated. There are cases where groups of topics do meet this criterion (under NPOL, for instance, or GEOLAND) where it isn't a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. That seems fair enough. Several SNGs are understood to be independent of the GNG (for example WP:NPROF: This guideline is... explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline). If the subject of an article meets one of those then there is no need to show that the subject passes the GNG. If you don't think any SNGs should work that way then make a proposal to change the SNGs which don't. Hut 8.5 12:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (limit)

  1. Opposing mainly because I don't understand. Following on the proposer's support !vote, how does passing a SNG like GEOLAND or NPOL not make something notable? I mean, there's the "presumed" language of those guidelines, but that's even in the GNG. What's the distinction being made here? If this boils down to "articles created at scale need to be notable", that's pretty uncontroversial because all articles already have to be notable. If it's that articles have to meet the GNG, it would be clearer to propose that explicitly. I'd also disagree that notability is the only problem with mass creation. Sourcing and rate are the issues I see come up most often. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Rhododendrites. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mass creation is a problem even when the articles meet SNG's, as SNG's are subject to change, and the mass created articles on the basis of SNG's are almost always low quality. BilledMammal (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SNGs should not be "granting" notability to start with, only pointing out when it is likely to exist. I certainly don't want anything that would further encourage that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Either it's notable or it isn't. SNGs are there to help clarify when articles should be created, not mandate what articles are created. Pinguinn 🐧 05:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Notability would be better handled by ensuring articles have some minimum referencing in place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (limit)

Comments from Vanamonde
  • This looks like it's headed for failure already, because the variation in standards among the SNGs is simply being ignored. Some SNGs are written such that they confer notability independent of GNG. Others are not. If a person meets NPOL, they are not required to meet GNG for an article to exist. The same is not true of NSPORTS. Seraphimblade, I'm particularly confused by your position; because not only do some SNGs already grant notability (to the same extent as GNG), mass-creation is currently being justified on the basis of SNGs that do even less. This proposal is intended to restrict that, not enable it. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Seraphimblade

For clarity, my oppose is on the grounds that we never should have had SNGs like the "professor" and "populated place" ones, which purport to confer notability even in the absence of substantial good quality source material about the subject. I'm already seeing a growing amount of discontent regarding that, and don't want something which legitimizes that practice further. I hope relatively soon there, we will see a change in those areas and a cleanup of them like we once had to do with fiction and more recently have been doing with sports biographies. (Of course, not having it on a separate page entirely doesn't mean we shouldn't have anything about it; most populated places, for example, would fit quite nicely on a page like "List of populated places in Example County, Somestate".) Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 5: Minimum article quality when created at scale

Articles created at scale should be required to meet a certain level of quality in addition to minimum sourcing requirements (see Q2).

For example: minimum number of sentences, article size, assessment, ORES score, etc.).

If you support this, you may suggest qualitative or quantitative standards, but a separate question will be required to find consensus for specific requirements.

Support (minimum quality)

# Support. Articles that: 1)were disapproved by the community at the noticeboard for article creation at scale or the Bot Approvals Group or 2)contain no sources or 3)contain only: deprecated sources or sources that are easily editable by unqualified people should be speedily deletable. 1) is equivalent to a deletion discussion, 2 and 3 suggest that the author didn't have any standards whatsoever and their creations cannot be trusted.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Moved down.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (minimum quality)

  1. IMO the basic requirement of containing a source with SIGCOV (as well as any rules that apply to non-mass-created articles) is sufficient. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (minimum quality)

Comments from Rhododendrites (minimum quality)

Adding this question because it comes up frequently and would be useful to resolve one way or the other. Not supporting or opposing at this time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lurking shadow: I agree with those SD criteria for articles created as scale. Moving forward with creation despite rejection at the TBD venue seems straightforward but isn't really related to quality. My thinking with this question was "the community will only approve requests to mass create articles that meet X, Y, Z criteria for minimum quality," and specifically "in addition to minimum sourcing requirements" set forth in Q2. I imagine 2 and 3 would be covered by Q2, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pinguinn (minimum quality)

I don't see how this would be workable. Of the four suggested criteria, the first and second lend themselves to poor writing, as any student tasked with meeting a length requirement on an assignment can attest. The third is based on purely subjective criteria meant to be used by individual reviewers. The fourth is based on an algorithm based on machine learning, not objective criteria. Though there are undoubtedly other ways to measure articles, I strongly suspect they'll all fall short as either not objective or not indicative of article quality. Pinguinn 🐧 05:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Abductive (minimum quality)

The problem is not an undefinable "quality" or lack thereof, but whether the articles are "encyclopedic". In the case of species, there are often users who mass-create stubs which are basically copies of the database entries that they are sourced to. These creations will meet (or can be made to meet) any of the above definitions of notability or quality, but are still useless. Why? Because they don't provide any more information to the reader than the database item that they would find if they Googled a species with no Wikipedia article. Fundamentally, the problem is users who are unclear on the scientific rationale for us humans calling something a species, and on the purpose of an encyclopedia. But this cannot be codified for even a straightforward topic such as species, let alone for all possible mass-creation endeavors. Abductive (reasoning) 14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ActivelyDisinterested

I'm not going to vote on this yet, as proposed it looks bureaucratic. However I wonder if something is needed in regard to WP:BLPs, were mass creation of stubs could be problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 6: New mass creator permission

A new permission would be established to be able to create articles at speed. This would be allocated by an administrator, on the basis of the candidate having a history of appropriate creations as well as clear evidence of understanding relevant guidelines. A 7-day window from application to granting of permission would be required so that other editors can contribute evidence relating to the candidate's competence. Inappropriate use of this permission would be raised at the mass creator noticeboard (if established) or at the administrator's noticeboard, with a relatively low threshold of proof being necessary for revoking the permission.

Support (New mass creator permission)

  1. Support as nominator. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (New mass creator permission)

  1. oppose statement

Comments (New mass creator permission)

Comments from Joe Roe

What would the permission allow you to do that ordinary editors can't? – Joe (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: (Oh, isn't this so much better than threaded discussion?) Maybe something like the AfC pseudoright or the redirect autopatrol list? Or come to think of it, could this be somehow attached to autopatrolled? As far as I know it can't really be a permission if there isn't an associated technical ability. – Joe (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Espresso Addict

Joe Roe: The idea is that only those editors with the permission would be able to do whatever it is we eventually define as mass creation without sanctions. Clearly I need to make that clearer somehow, though not sure how I am meant to do that. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 7: Should we adopt a new speedy deletion criterion that relates to mass-created articles that lack any sourced claims of importance?

This proposal would create a new speedy deletion criterion, A12, as follows:

A12: No reliably sourced indication of importance (mass-created articles).

This criterion applies to any mass-created article that does not have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This would apply to any mass-created article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is a lower standard than notability. If the sourced claim's importance or significance is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Support (proposal name)

  1. This establishes a bare minimum for mass-created articles to avoid speedy deletion, which is that they contain a source that verifies their claim of significance. It differs from WP:A7 both in terms of what sorts of articles are in its scope and its requirement for a bare minimum amount of sourcing rather than merely including a credible claim of significance. This is minimally burdensome on article writers and, in my view, avoids the problems in the framing of Question 2 that several editors have objected to. This proposal is not mutually exclusive with any other proposal made thus far and can serve in its own right as a remedy or as a supplement to other policy changes proposed in this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (proposal name)

  1. Oppose. As an admin who works in speedy deletion, it is already very hard to see consensus between admins over what constitutes an A7-able article. Broadening to all types of articles and adding in the requirements (1) to check that the article forms part of a mass creation set, and (2) that the source for the claim not only exists but is reliable, in my opinion takes this well beyond the limited amount of consideration that speedy deletion is meant to encompass. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I'd like to be at Support, but Espresso Addict is right.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 7a:

Should we instead introduce the following speedy deletion criterion:

A12: Unsourced or obviously unreliably sourced mass-created articles.

This criterion applies if the mass-created article has been unsourced in all of its history, or is only sourced to obviously unreliable or deprecated sources in all of its history.

Support (proposal name)

  1. SupportThis is more narrow. If the author doesn't put this bare minimum of effort into the articles then the mass-creation cannot be trusted.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (proposal name)

  1. oppose statement

Comments (proposal name)

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 8: Delete ranking of editors by created articles

Delete the list of editors by numbers of articles created, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count.

Support (delete ranking)

  1. Support as nominator. One motivation for bulk article creation appears to be gaining perceived prestige as an editor. Much of this is difficult to combat, but simply deleting the ranking is one simple step that might help to change the culture without obvious negative effects. I note (which I had not realised) that in April 2021 the order of the top 100 editors was randomised in an effort to discourage mass stub creation. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (delete ranking)

  1. oppose statement

Comments (delete ranking)

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Question 9:

Neutral description of proposal.

Support (proposal name)

  1. support statement

Oppose (proposal name)

  1. oppose statement

Comments (proposal name)

Comments from Editor X

Please open your own section with username in the heading. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Discussion

Comments from ActivelyDisinterested

As per my comment on question 5, it could be useful to have some limitation with WP:BLPs. Personally I wonder whether allowing it at all is a good idea. But I'm unsure how to word any proposal correctly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor X

Open additional comments sections below. Please limit comments within a section to 300 words.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Requests_for_comment/Article_creation_at_scale&oldid=1114185439"