Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

In a discussion on the Village Pump, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights proposed preventing users creating new articles until they gain autoconfirmed status. The Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) rationale was:

1. This would reduce the workload on New Page Patrollers;
2. New users would be "bitten" less due to the resulting reduction in stress on the part of those most in contact with them;
3. New users are less likely to be disenchanted by their article being deleted – because they would not be able to create them automatically, but instead send them through WP:AFC;
4. Autoconfirmed users with 10 edits to existing articles would enjoy an easier learning curve than trying to create an encyclopedic article with their first edit.

Notes: autoconfirmed status is automatically given to editors who reach 10 edits and whose account is at least 4 days old. Under the proposal, editors without the status would not be able to create articles in mainspace without some form of assistance. Possible forms of assistance include the Articles for Creation system, the Article Wizard (an exemption can be engineered for non-autoconfirmed editors using it) and the use of userspace drafts in combination with a request to move the draft to mainspace.

View from User:Fetchcomms

This is basically repeating what was discussed at the Village Pump. I don't think this RfC will result in anything conclusive, because the change is so massive that we will probably end up having a community-wide vote on whether or not to do this.

I propose two things:

1. This RfC be ended or put on hold for a short period of time (one month?) as the arguments from the VP will only be repeated.
2. A more efficient AfC, article wizard, or other article creation system—possibly even a MediaWiki extension later—be designed and tested, and data collected.

I hate to bring up the words "pending changes" again, but I think a strict PC-type trial (maybe just one month long, no questions asked) that collects data we can use to analyze both the a) editor retention rate and b) the article retention rate, would be very helpful here. Because otherwise, we're going off random opinions that have no solid backing other than Wikipedia philosophies.

Users who endorse this view

1. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Hits all the right points. NW (Talk) 20:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Didn't understand this one at first. But yes. I see broad support for change. If it's short of a consensus, we should run a controlled trial, rather than letting speculation stop a potentially good idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Not sure about putting it on hold, per se, but I think that any trial with a very clear scope would cause much less drama. bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Ironholds

This is going to be a bit TL:DR, so I apologise for that, but this is a pretty big topic, and a pretty important one. New users and new articles are primary to Wikipedia. We are a project built around a simple goal; to be "The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". That is our mission statement. An encyclopaedia, that anyone can edit; two clauses which sometimes, inevitably, conflict. When they do, one has to be partially sacrificed for the other - be it restricting editorial rights to protect our encyclopaedic status, or tarnishing our position as an encyclopaedia in an effort to include more people in the box marked "editors". In this case, we are being asked if we support the former - a restriction on who can edit, or who can edit in a particular fashion, to protect our position as a compendium of that knowledge we judge to be notable. When making changes which impact on part of our statement, we need to take a lockean balance-of-rights approach; restrictions must be:

1. necessary for the upholding of the mission statement as a whole, or other elements of the mission statement, and;
2. the smallest possible restriction necessary for the upholding of the mission statement (or elements thereof).

So, does this restriction pass that test? In my opinion, no.

There are various arguments put forward in favour of this proposal. The first is that it will reduce the workload of those who patrol Special:NewPages. I admit, this is the case, but is that workload reduction necessary? Special:NewPages has a 30 day "buffer"; after an article is more than 30 days old, it falls off the back of the log. Fairly simple. At the moment, the buffer has 20 days remaining - in other words, even with the complaining about how difficult and stressful being a new page patroller is, we could happily not touch it for 3 weeks and not suffer an issue. I don't mean to ridicule those complaining, because I understand the issue. I'm a patroller myself, and I've cleared the entire backlog twice. I'm not ignorant of the workload patrollers face. But the workload is not as bad as it's being made out to be, and people are failing to take into account the long-term possibilities; that if an effort is put into accepting and tutoring new users, they will become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Any issues with more people needed at Special:NewPages can be solved simply by getting more people involved.

Another argument is that shifting people from Special:NewPages to WP:Articles for Creation will reduce the "bitiness" new users experience, and thus the problem with retaining them. I disagree. Special:NewPages is a place categorised by stress and a siege mentality, which comes from having a backlog, a small number of contributors, and the feeling that Everything Will Break if things aren't done immediately. That's where bitiness comes from. Shifting people from Special:NewPages to AfC will not fix the problem, it'll simply move it - by ensuring that the Articles for Creation people become stressed, backlogged and overworked. Sound familiar?

New users are less likely to be disenchanted from editing if their articles are sent through AfC, yes. However, a lot of new users simply won't bother trying. The AfC interface is problematic, and many new editors create articles for the immediate thrill of doing so. Denying that thrill will send a lot of them off, never to return, during a period when we're having significant problems with attracting users. If you want to do this, you have to improve AfC to a decent standard first; you can't just shove this into place and then scramble to fix things afterwards.

This proposal does not address actual problems, alternating between shifting the burden to another party and simply driving off contributors. If you want to fix the issues, fine, but don't kill our intake of new users along with it. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. very strongly. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. ^ Juliancolton (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. The proposers intentions are pure but I just don't see the current proposals for locking down article creation (or trying to push them to AfC) as helping the issues stated. History shows that the amount of good faith editors that will be lost is under appreciated and the amount of bad faith editors who will give overestimated. The AfC idea makes logical sense but the current structure of the process and the significant historical precedence we have on wiki shows that the backlog, and the problems, will likely only move from one place to another. James of UR (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. I tried AfC the other day as an IP. I managed to do it only because I was proposing a redirect. There are too many steps and too many options. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Hear, hear. Stickee (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. ϢereSpielChequers 07:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Ruslik_Zero 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Protonk (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. I don't see the length of the New Articles backlog as particularly problematic. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
12. At the moment, we need that influx of users. Long processes are scary. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 04:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Definitely agree. This change would discourage a lot of potential contributors and merely shuffle workloads. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Agree. A bureaucracy is more likely to drive away new users who have potential than a pack of bitie wolves at NPP. Abductive (reasoning) 07:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Strongly agree. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Agreed. The bottom line is: "to be "The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". Any measure that conflicts with that is bound to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences and must be avoided at all costs. André Kritzinger 11:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Strongly agree. This is a terrible proposal and contrary to the principal of wikipedia. There are enough editors here to sort out the new articles anyway. We need to be doing everything we can to encourage growth and new content from new editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Strongly agree. Some of the best content I've seen in recent months has come from non-autoreviewed editors. It would be more than a shame to force them to go through extra hoops to create articles. I don't believe the patrolling backlong to be that severe as yet. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    If some of the best content you've seen in recent months has come from new editors then you and I are obviously inhabiting different universes. In any case, the aim ought to be to make patrolling less necessary, to reduce the burden on existing editors. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

20. Timneu22 has expressed his frustration with new articles to me in the past, so I understand that patrollers may perceive inexperienced users as nuisance. Nevertheless, I don't believe that shifting the burden to a new group isn't going to reduce the overall levels of frustration. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Strongly agree, I don't think I would have ever started contributing if I had not been able to start immediatiely by creating an article and then got hooked. Davewild (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Unquestionably agree. The encyclopedia has survived thusfar on these principals. LiteralKa (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
23. I agree strongly. The problems that come from this openness are far outweighed by the credible invitation to become part of the encyclopedia's future through contributing. I have seen great work come out of the blue that this would frustrate. Wareh (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Strong endorse - the project is not served by selling part of its soul for a modicum of convenience, even if that be substantial, which this arguably won't be. What's that, an encyclopedia anyone can edit? See fine print for qualifications and restrictions, other conditions may apply. If the intent is to solve the problem of biting, making the entire project less open and friendly isn't a solution, it's a surrender. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
25. I largely agree with Ironholds here, and I am surprised there is so much enthusiasm for this poorly thought out proposal. It is indubitable that further restricting what new editors can do will lead to fewer new editors. How could it not? Chick Bowen 22:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    Here's a statistic for you. According to figures published in The Signpost, in February more than half (52%) of the 21,366 articles created by new editors were deleted. In what way is that a desirable state of affairs? What's more discouraging? The likelihood that your new article will be deleted, or being asked to at least superficially familiarise yourself with some of the ropes before creating your new article? Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    Notwithstanding the amount of work it creates for new page patrollers, 52% doesn't seem that high to me. That means 10,000 articles were kept. Chick Bowen 23:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    It means that 10,000 articles weren't so obviously crap that they met the CSD criteria, which is a pretty low bar. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

26. Ironholds makes a lot of good points on this; I particularly agree with the last paragraph. CT Cooper · talk 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. Strongly agree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. --Gwern (contribs) 23:46 7 April 2011 (GMT)
29. Agree. If this policy had been in place when I created my first article, I would not be an editor today. This proposal will not be appropriate until the AfC process is simplified and streamlined. --E♴(talk) 01:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Very well put. Just like Pesky below, I very much doubt that I would have become a regular editor if such "safeguards" had been in place back in 2004. The principle of "anyone can edit" also means that if you notice an article missing (like I did on 20 March 2004), you can create it without having to jump through some hoops. I fully understand the reasons for this proposal but I also think that there are ways to reach those goals without practically dismantling a founding principle of this project. Any restriction that basically says "You have to first prove your worth before you can create an article" (even if the requirements may be low) is not creating a welcoming and collegial editorial environment but instead adds more unneeded "classes". On a side note, while I do support the principle of self-government, I do think that such a drastic change should probably be approved by the Foundation. This proposal effectively makes it impossible for anyone to create articles without first editing and thus has potential to change the way Wikipedia is perceived by others. SoWhy 08:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Agree, especially with Denying that thrill will send a lot of them off, never to return, during a period when we're having significant problems with attracting users. I would like to add that auto-confirmed is awarded on a per-project basis, and therefore experienced users from sister projects would be surprised to find they first have to prove themselves here first. That seems like very condescending behavior to me! Jane (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
32. Strongly agree, though I can see the point of the proposal. I'm one of those who would most likely not have come back if I;d had to go through a clunky process to get my first article (2006) in place. I think a lot of people "want to do it NOW!!", and curbing the enthusiasm of new editors who may well have some real potential in future is probably not where we want to go. Pesky (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
33. Absolutely. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Jayron32

Lets keep this short and sweet (which is very hard for me to do). Edit is not the same thing as create articles. Newly created accounts can still edit existing articles, so there is no loss to Wikipedia's core mission by disallowing new users to create articles. By restricting article creation to autoconfirmed users, we substantially reduce the number of deleted articles without affecting the core mission, since new users may still contribute. Since creating a proper article (one which will survive deletion and stick around) is very hard, this will allow new users to "get their feet wet" and to learn basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. 4 days and 10 edits is enough to do that, without being so long as to drive away potentially serious users. Restricting article creation to autoconfirmed users is a change we should make.

Users who endorse this view

1. --Jayron32 20:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (as writer)
2. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Pol430 talk to me 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Users who do "get their feet wet" rather than diving into the deep end right away are more likely to have positive experiences. Mr.Z-man 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
8. There's something to be said for letting them learn to drive in the parking lot, instead of jumping onto the highway. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Even restricting article creation to editors who had ever made one edit in an existing page might help. The people at the biggest disadvantage are the ones whose only main-space edits are at a page they created themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
10. To recycle my favourite metaphor for this issue: creating articles is like learning how to drive. The status quo is an Angry Dad giving his kid the carkeys and saying "off you go, try not to crash and burn, WHAT ARE YOU DOING, YOU IDIOT, DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO DRIVE?". This is why driving instructors exist. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
11. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Basket of Puppies 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Silverseren^C 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Rd232's metaphor is a true one --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. MER-C 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
17. A sensible approach - one must crawl before one can walk. And of course, WP:AFC remains an available option for new users with a desire to create new pages.--JayJasper (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Racepacket (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Per Rd232. The metaphor is apt. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Rschen7754 06:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Giving potentially serious users a hoop or two more to jump through is not a bad idea. It might make them feel more important and give them a sense of belonging to the project, rather than those who don't give a hoot and just breeze in to to vandalise, make hoax, attack, copyvio, and test pages, or paste huge chunks of foreign languages they have no intention of translating. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Hut 8.5 10:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
23. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
24. -- Donald Albury 10:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
25. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
26. To avoid repeating what others have written already – my views mirror those of 7 (Mr Z-Man) and 21 (Kudpung) above Apuldram (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
27. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
28. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Danger (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Tentontunic (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
31.  Sandstein  19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
32. Rd232's metaphor is perfect. bobrayner (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
33. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Brammers (talk/c) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
35. Killiondude (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
36. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
37. Elekhh (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
38. Yoenit (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
39. Shrike (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
40.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
41. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
42. Jayron32's reasoning is clear, concise, and—in my opinion—correct. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
43. My thoughts exactly. Excellent points. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 03:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
44. Agree completly. Lugnuts (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
45. Wikipedia has changed from the slap and dash days when we wanted to grow and any content was welcome. We did grow, though we also gained a reputation for publishing unreliable and poor quality material. We are now in the days of more demanding quality article building, and our reputation is improving. Article editing and article creation is more difficult now, and it requires an editor with more than a five minute attention span, and who has the patience and willingness to read guidelines and follow consensus. Editors who are not prepared to wait, listen and learn are not the editors we want. SilkTork *^YES! 11:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
46. Sole Soul (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
47. Absolutely. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
48. This makes more intuitive sense to me than the counter-proposals. We should at least try this and figure out which fears and hopes voiced in this RfC turn out to be true. Pichpich (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
49. —mc10 (t/c) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
50. Steve2011 ^Chat 00:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
51. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:48pm • 06:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
52. eo (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
53. Also agree with JayJasper --- User:Shuipzv3 Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
54. I've been expecting this for a while now. About time. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
55. Very persuasive argument. - Artoasis (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
56. --BelovedFreak 11:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
57. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
58. --Coemgenus 12:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
59. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
60. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
61. patitomr (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
62. Works for me. It takes just a little time to "learn the ropes". If the new editor is serious about contributing, then a break-in period won't hurt. As an encylopedia, we still expect minium standards, don't we? Cuprum17 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
63. Well said. SheepNotGoats (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
64. I made quite a few IP edits before registering to create my first article. Definitely helps with acculturation. I see only an upside to requiring some of that. Ntsimp (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
65. Well said. Sounds like good justification to me. Ruby2010 talk 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
66. Agreed TomorrowsDream (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
67. Yes. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
68. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
69. Probably a good idea TheTechFan (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
70. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
71. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC) - Spend some time patrolling the User creation log and you'll begin to see the patterns that gave birth to this discussion: Almost all new articles created by new users fall into two types: Pure vandalism, and piles of incorrectly formatted text. Thus my endorsement of the above viewpoint.
72. This. Newcomers should be encouraged to enhance and improve existing articles. Get them used to things there, then they can create. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
73. Imzadi 1979 → 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
74. This will decrease the pressure at on new page patrollers, AfD patrollers, and admins who patrol CSD's by quite a bit. And this comes from a user whose first non-IP edit was to create an article (which later went on to be a GA). I don't think that having to get auto-confirmed would have stopped me from creating the article. —SW— ^babble 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
75. THANK YOU! Nobody leaves in 4 days, esp when they're allowed to make edits from day one. Ratibgreat (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
76. Yes. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 18:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
77. Otelemuyen (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
78. I know this is a contentious issue but--as a vandalism patroller--I believe it may result in a net improvement. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
79. This will help make the encyclopedia a bit less of a target for trash edits. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
80. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
81. yes, wholeheartedly agree. Soosim (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
82. If they can't wait 4 days, it wasn't meant to be. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
83. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
84. Agree; would like to see the autoconfirmed requirements go up and hope that as an added plus we might curtail paid article writers and COI's by making them provide other productive work apart from what they are after.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
85. I appreciate the clarity of this presentation by Jayron32. A better balance of rights with responsibilities, no doubt. Sunray (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
86. Agree . Reduce the number of bigheaded proud people who make self-glorifying articles about themselves. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
87. Agreed. I don't put much weight into the concern that new users who want to create new articles won't bother with WP:AFC (I probably wouldn't have even noticed or cared about this mechanism as a new user, so who cares?). I think most would just wait a short while and do the small amount of edits to get their credentials (autoconfirmed), and many of those eventualities will seem like a sudden, delightful surprise for the user. I'd much rather have new users get their chops by learning how to edit properly before creating an article, which literally requires several wiki skill sets. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
88. Schlitzer90 (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
89. Very well said. I'd like to add that improving existing articles is often more important than creating new articles, given that there are no longer so many broad topics not yet covered. IPs are of course welcome to improve existing articles, and statistics have shown that they do that more than they contribute bad-faith or good-faith nonconstructive edits. But articles created by IPs are many times more likely to have to be deleted than their simple edits have to be reverted. --Jsayre64 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
90. Agree Openskye (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
91. Agree - the best start by putting a little toe in the water first to test the waters before going in, and adding an article-create restriction means that new users have to take time to twiddle with things a little bit before expanding things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
92. Agree There are so many good points being made, all spurred on by Jayron32's core argument: "edit is not the same as create article". And I would add this: mechanisms are already in place that make distinctions between IP and user (q.v. semi-protection). I don't think it degrades the "openly editable" model, it merely refines the permissions. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land   02:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
93. This is exactly the comment I hoped to make. Further, people who try to create their own article to promote a business will perhaps think twice before sending it through AfC. Whereas, they might hope that it wouldn't be noticed if they made it themselves. Strong support, Cliff (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
94. Fair and well said. DP76764 (Talk) 03:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
95. — Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
96. Concur.  Ravenswing  04:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
97. A key reason that autoconfirmed status exists is so that those who may wish to vandalize or disrupt are deterred. Someone wishing to create a junk article just for giggles might not want to go through the process of having to make 10 other edits and having to wait four days first. Conversely, a new editor wishing to make a constructive new article probably has a better head on their shoulders, and wouldn't find having to go through a very small confirmation process a hindrance to their goal of adding something worthwhile to our community. Restricting new article creations to autoconfirmed users is a proposal I endorse. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
98. Herostratus (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
99. canticle (talk)09:13m 8 April 2011 (UTC)
100. It might mean that the number of people needed at AfC is going to increase dramatically. The people at AfC are competent and used to backlogs though. This is needed, I think. This is doable too. So let's do this and hope for the best. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
101. Agree. --Phospheros (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
102. Your opinion is correct! --Ghostshock (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
103. Sound argument Warren (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
104. Agree. It's a very small hoop to jump through and it's much better that a new editor has a couple of minor edits reverted in the process of learning what's what that an article that many have taken a significant time to produce. PRL42 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
105. Ditto? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 12:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
106. Editing is not necessarily the same as creating. Anyone can set up an account, and make 10 edits over 4 days. The mission is not compromised. The proposal brings new editors in on a more gentle learning curve; We'll have a better chance of retaining them. --Kvng(talk) 13:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
107. Reluctantly agree Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
108. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
109. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Mr.Z-man

Will shifting the NewPages backlog to AFC just result in a bigger backlog at AFC? Almost certainly. Are "restrict article creation and have new users use AFC" and "no change" the only options? Absolutely not. The restriction of new article creation should be accompanied with a shift in focus to improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. If new users create their articles at AFC, they're still going to fail in large numbers because its still difficult. We should be encouraging users who want to contribute to contribute to our existing body of stubs articles. We have over 3.6 million articles; how many notable topics are there that are so unrelated to anything we currently have an article on that a new article is necessary? People seem to read WP:N as some sort of commandment: If its notable, then it must be in a standalone article. By using a quantity over quality approach, we're doing a disservice to readers by scattering related information all over lots of tiny articles and we're doing a disservice to new users by encouraging them to start editing by doing one of the most difficult editing tasks first.

Users who endorse this view

1. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. My point exactly. There's no shame in making existing articles better. Quality over quantity. --Jayron32 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Mergism does have its appeals. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. This approach is particularly valuable for subjects described at WP:ORG. We do newbies no favors by permitting them to write articles that nobody ever wants to read, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
6. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Sturgeon's law applies to Wikipedia, too. MER-C 04:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. --JayJasper (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. That's basically my editing/mainspace philosophy in a nutshell. It's not how many pieces on the Wikipedia globe, but how they fit. –MuZemike 07:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
11. -- Donald Albury 10:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Apuldram (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Indeed. At this point in the game, we should redirect new users toward improving rather than creating. Less cruft, fewer n00b roasts. (Oh what shall I eat then though!) Danger (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Brammers (talk/c) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Permastubs are evil and utterly useless to our readers. Yoenit (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
17.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
20. ... with the caveat that "improving the average quality" is best accomplished by actually improving articles, rather than deleting articles on encyclopedic topics but deemed too problematic to fix. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Useful thought. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Yes, "shift in focus to improving existing articles rather than creating new ones" is wave of future. Herostratus (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Bloat will kill off Wikipedia. Too few eyes on too many stubs and other junk will lead to problems. We could probably stand to shed a few hundred thousand articles as it is. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Wikipedia has matured. New articles are not as valuable as they once were. Policy needs to reflect this. --Kvng (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
25. As well as expanding stubs there's also Category:Redirects_with_possibilities. In both cases we have "placeholders" for subjects that the community has already decided are "encyclopedic". (Well mostly, stubs do go to AFD) Turning these into articles instead of creating new ones is less likely to get a newbie nastygrammed off of Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Sven Manguard

I am of the longstanding view that Wikipedia has too much bloat already, possibly as high as 300,000 articles worth of it. We're inconsistent at best and deliberately manipulative at worst when it comes to interpreting notability guidelines, especially for things that touch on modern popular culture. I don't participate at NPP because I know that I will personally be more heavy handed with deletions than most, and I don't want to be the direct cause of other people's suffering, so to speak.

The answer, I believe, is to make all non-autoconfirmed users go through Articles for Creation, and to refocus Articles for Creation with an eye on efficiency. Recently, AfC got rid of the 'hold' option for nominations, which is a step in the right direction. In reality, it needs a policy shift towards the very explicit:

"If it can be made ready easily, do the work yourself and push it live. If it can't be, userfy it at the creator's namespace, leave them a message, and then if the person comes back (which is rare) work with them in the namespace then push it live. Anything that can't be saved gets declined, anything that needs deleting gets tagged."

I say this because while de facto policy is moving in this direction, too much of AfC's time is still wasted on waiting for people that will never come back to help fix problems that can be done by the reviewers themselves.

This has three benifits:

• The RPP will shrink dramaticly, I would expect.
• Because AfC has a focus on getting articles ready before going live, this will result in less articles needing wikification, less unsourced articles, less articles with major problem tags, etc. If you don't think that's the case, consider this: By making all non-autoconfirmed users use Files for Upload to upload images, the amount of copyvio images has gone down.
• Ideally, because we'd have more human interaction and personalized response, we'd be able to have more positive responses to Wikipedia by the new users.

There is a downfall:

• Fixing articles is more time consuming than placing deletion tags on them. This will likely cause backlogs if the current level of AfC participation remains the same. However hopefully AfC would be able to recruit people that were doing NPP, and the people that do wikification and cleanup, and have them do what is essentially a similar task in a centralized location.

I think this will work, and I think it's the best option. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. My idea, so... Sven Manguard Wha? 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. I like this as a next step if this RfC passes. AfC can indeed use some streamlining, and doing it in the style Sven recommends will help with the "But then AfC will be backlogged instead of NPP!" problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Pol430 talk to me 22:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. That would help. Rd232 ^talk 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
6. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. The only issue is that we would need to have these "drafts" deleted 3 months after the last time they were edited so we don't have a glut of these that need to be taken care of. I would be more then happy to help improve brand new articles if this goes through. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Seems reasonable. Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Definitely worth further discussion. -- Donald Albury 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Yes. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Yoenit (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
15. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:50pm • 06:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
16. --JaGa^talk 16:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
17. I agree. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Well, "make all non-autoconfirmed users go through Articles for Creation" ... yes, that would be a valid alternative (to simply forbidding article creation by non-autoconfirmed) and would be OK to try this instead. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
19. I also think it will work. --Kvng (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:HominidMachinae

This is a tough issue for me because I see good points both ways, but my opinion remains that the quality of Wikipedia, and its long-term prospects would be better served by limiting article creation.

Wikipedia is at a turning point of sorts, we already have almost all of the high-visibility and vital articles created (in other words, the articles that an encyclopedia must have to be taken seriously as a source of knowledge have long been stable articles). That places less importance on the creation of new articles and more importance on focusing on creating and maintaining a high level of quality.

The problem with allowing new users article creation ability is that they don't understand the community norms. I would say of my work at NPP fully 80% of the material meets the criterion for speedy deletion. They're not vandals, that's important to point out, they just don't know any better. They don't understand that 'well he exists' isn't a good reason for making an article about their 9th grade biology teacher, or their garage band or why they can't use myspace as the only source for an article. They could be good editors in time, but giving them immediate article creation access does not serve that purpose.

It is inherently bite-y to delete someone's first and only article, but just because we wait an extra week doesn't make it less bite-y either. An article about a garage band that meets three different CSD categories will always be an unsourced article about a non-notable garage band, no matter how long we wait. The solution to not biting these newcomers is to help make sure they have read the "big three" (wp:RS WP:N and WP:V) and understand what they can and cannot do before the user and established Wikipedia community are both faced with the uncomfortable situation of dealing with their unsuitable rookie article

In summary, as Wikipedia moves from its teenage years into adulthood the focus must necessarily shift from growth to maturity, from the desire to get as many new articles included as possible to the task of sorting, filtering and polishing those articles. There is little to lose from forcing pre-vetting of articles from the very newest editors and much to gain in terms of reducing the undeniable tide of poor articles that are creating a significant backlog.

Users who endorse this view

1. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Pol430 talk to me 22:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. With one minor tweak: They don't necessarily have to read the policies, just understand them, learning by experience is the key here IMO. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
6. A slower introduction is likely to retain more editors in the long run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. What WhatamIdoing said. Rd232 ^talk 23:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
8. --Jayron32 00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Silverseren^C 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Quality over quantity. I somewhat disagree with the bit about noobs contributing garbage don't know any better -- the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia obviously forbids schoolyard nonsense, spam, band advertising, vanity and the like. MER-C 04:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
11. --JayJasper (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. In fact, giving them immediate article creation access may be detrimental to their long-success as editors. Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Rschen7754 06:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Giving potentially serious users a hoop or two more to jump through is not a bad idea. It might make them feel more important and give them a sense of belonging to the project, rather than those who don't give a hoot and just breeze in to to vandalise, make hoax, attack, copyvio, and test pages, or paste huge chunks of foreign languages they have no intention of translating. And in my experience at NPP, although 80% is about right, at least half of that is from the 'don't care' creators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. -- Donald Albury 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Yes. Quality, not quantity, should be the aim Apuldram (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Danger (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Kudpung says exactly what I was thinking (but more eloquently). bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
20. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Brammers (talk/c) 22:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
22. The times, they are a-changin'. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
23. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Yoenit (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
25. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
26. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
27.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
28. I wasn't going to worry about participating in this discussion, but I had to support this excellent statement of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Yes. We are now in the quality development stage. And we do also need to pay attention to the thousands of pages of unsourced original research that was created in the early days of Wikipedia, and often lies hidden in orphaned or uncategorised pages. SilkTork *^YES! 11:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Agree completely. The priority should not be creating yet more articles. Efforts should be much more focused on significantly improving the vast number of poorly written, unreferenced, etc. articles that we have already. -- Alarics (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Ageed. Hekerui (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
32. --BelovedFreak 11:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
33. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Very well stated. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
35. --JaGa^talk 16:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
36. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
37. ... noting that WP:N is still not a policy, I don't disagree with it being one of three key things that normally torpedo new articles. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
38. I likey. Ratibgreat (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
39. Yup. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
40. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
41. Mgcsinc (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
42. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
43. Herostratus (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
44. Well said. GRAPPLE X 12:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
45. Definitely will take some of the WP:BITE out of Wikipedia and we desperately need that. --Kvng (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:My76Strat

I think every perspective highlights valid consideration; To this extent, I think we have the best balance achievable, currently in place. After consideration, I believe we should keep everything related, as it is. I would agree that the Article Wizard could be improved, but that is a separate consideration.

Users who endorse this view

1. My76Strat (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:DGG

I cannot easily think of a better way to kill Wikipedia. It should be obvious to everyone that our medium- and long-term survival depends of new editors joining, becoming active, and staying active. Many people join in order to write articles on something they want to write about--let's say half, though it may be greater. About half the time, what they write is capable of being a decent article. Probably of those whose first article is not possibly useful, half are capable and willing to learning how to write a good article, if treated nicely and the standards explained to them. This suggestion proposes to discourage about 40% of the people who want to join Wikipedia. It would really need to have amazing benefits in order to be worthwhile, and the benefits would need to be proven in advance.

The benefit that is proposed is eliminating the half of new articles that are not good. Actually, it won't even do that. Of the hopelessly bad articles that get written, probably half the people are determined to write them in any case. This certainly includes any POV pusher, and any serious vandal. But we catch these pages usually- fewer get through now than was the case a few years ago, based on my experience actually working on the problem: I've deleted over 12,000 articles in my years as an admin--and most real junk is now removed before that by the edit filter. In general, I do think new users should start making trivial edits and work up from there, and that's the advice I always give. But people have many ways of doing things, and there are many perfectly OK editors who started with an article. I'm not at all sure all of them would have started if there were any blocks at all to the process--considering that so many of the complains of people who tried to use Wikipedia and stopped has been the difficulty with even the current interface. I didn't find it difficult myself, but I was used to HTML, and used to other forums.

The real thing we need to do is positive work with new editors. In a sense, this will solve the problem of insufficient experienced editors to help the new ones--there will be so many fewer new ones.

Users who endorse this view

1. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Scray (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Agree esp. wrt "Easiest way to kill Wikipedia." --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Agree, people join to write 1 thing (We almost all started as a SPA). Taking away things like that is much more significant then recognized. James of UR (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. I wouldn't be here today without Akin Ayodele – I created an account just to create that article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. It is a quarter rather than a half of those who start editing. But we should be trying to keep more of the good faith newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Creating articles is one of the primary reasons why new accounts are created, including mine (and that had to survive CSD and PROD in its first week). Perhaps some sort of stricter quality control should be introduced, but a blanket ban on non-autoconfirmed users creating articles? I think not. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   What's proposed is "a blanket ban on non-autoconfirmed users creating articles" without any assistance (via AFC and/or Article Wizard and/or userspace draft+request to move to mainspace). Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

   Right. But for most new users, that equates to the same thing. AfC and userspace drafts are techniques that few new users could easily find out about unless they'd spent a fair amount of time editing anonymously, in which case they're probably well suited to independent article creation anyway. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, probably, but that's fixable. eg we should make MediaWiki:Nocreatetext ("you can't create this article" message) more like MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext ("you can't edit this article" message), pointing to relevant options. (We should really do that regardless.) Also at the moment I think search hides the redlink "create a page" option if you can't create a page, and it would probably be better to provide the redlink and let it go to MediaWiki:Nocreatetext. Rd232 ^talk 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

8. Ruslik_Zero 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Agree, other than with the figures which are rather arbitrary (see WSC above) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Agree very strongly. NeilK (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Totally agree. -- Orionist ★ talk 12:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
14. it's dead already, but this is dancing on the grave. Slowking4 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Agree. We need fresh blood to prevent further calcification of the project. This proposal would limit the supply. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Agree. If one considers only those users who will mature into useful editors, it is a bad idea to restrict them. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Very well put. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Agree 100%. Newbie users need freedom to create articles. --Marcusaurelius161 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Agree with DGG completely that to prevent new editors from creating articles would be extremely damaging to content in the long term. Wikipedia depends on new editors from different parts of the world to write new content. It is then up to us established editors to sift through it and built upon it and delete the non notable stuff. We need need new contributors on wikipedia to have the freedom to route out new topics. The obvious no notable ones are usually speedied anyway♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Prettily put. Especially as someone whose first substantial edit (on another account, lo these many years ago) was a new article. This cannot but discourage new article creation. And yes, the people who want to put crap up will simply put it up there regardless; a lot of what I see in newpage patrol is POV-pushing stuff that keeps coming back again, and again, and again... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Just as an example: Hoge Heren, UP 6916, Isabella Cortese, 2011 Rio de Janeiro school shooting, Márton Illés - all recently created, perfectly correct articles that were not created by autopatrolled users. The problem isn't as significant as is being suggested. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
22. New users won't commit themselves to meeting the new requirements. Requiring autoconfirmed status is a turn-off. The only new users willing to commit themselves to the extra effort will be the determined, ideological POV-pushers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
23. its an issue of trust. We need to trust these new contributors. Errectstapler (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Davewild (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
25. While this may be seen as contradictory, I agree with this position as well--at the least, the cautions need to be heeded. While "Autoconfirmed" isn't a particularly high hurdle, it is a hurdle, and one which we should mark (if adopted) with well-documented guidance of the pathway between a new user and their ability to create new articles. The hurdle should serve to educate, rather than outright eliminate, the clueless newbie. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
26. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. Tibetologist (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. I don't think it will kill Wikipedia, but I agree with the point that whatever happens, this should be approached with caution. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Very strongly agree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Hits the nail on the head. Frickeg (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Eloquently put. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
32. I don't always see eye-to-eye with DGG, and I can't speak for the numbers, but yeah, I strongly agree with this view. J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Cardamon

If we make this change, I suggest automatically creating a sandbox for every newly registered user, and automatically leaving each new user a message explaining how to get to their sandbox, how it can be used to work on a new article, and how long it will be until they can make articles. Cardamon (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. I suggested something like this recently. It could just be a subpage in the user's userspace, with an additional tab added via CSS/Javascript to access it, with a nice helpful header in it (like MediaWiki:Welcomecreation, perhaps, only the user can actually get back to it). Obviously the new tab would need to be deactivatable via a Gadget - I think many would find it useful, but it's bound to irritate some. Rd232 ^talk 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. This is a seperate issue from letting new users create articles, but it seems like a very good idea --Jayron32 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Sure. It could also be done manually along with giving them welcome templates. Rivertorch (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Brilliant idea, I'm all for making it easy for them to contribute if they have something to contribute I'd even be all for having a way for them to contact an admin saying "I think this is ready, can you move it?" HominidMachinae (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Great idea. Sandboxing helps to improve quality and build confidence Apuldram (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. I agree. Strongly encouraging article creation in a user sandbox would help new users experiment in a safe place. Would be good to make this and "Your first article" more prominent on the Welcome template --CharlieDelta (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Worthwhile compromise. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Yep, that's a good idea, and I think we should carry on with it regardless of the result of this RfC. -- Orionist ★ talk
10. A good idea, with the caveat that sandbox edits ought be dated somehow (to prevent them from becoming forgotten WP:WEBHOSTs). Danger (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Anything that gets the user used to the way WP works, before diving into the main article space has to be good  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
12. I didn't sign on for this one already? Oops. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
13. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:57pm • 06:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 10:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Interesting idea. --BelovedFreak 11:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
16. ditto Cuprum17 (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Strong support! That would be really helpful for new users. Farscot (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Sandbox, or an article wizard, or something. We should redirect, rather than outright block, new users. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Useful idea. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Yes, something like this. Direct them to a sandbox, or an article wizard, or some place, rather than then just saying "no you can't do this yet". Herostratus (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Agreed. It should also contain a link to AfC and the guidance boards. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Others have argued here that the main reason people create accounts is to create articles. If that's true, shouldn't we be setting new users up for the regardless of whether we make the proposed policy change? --Kvng (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Shooterwalker

Asking an editor to make 10 edits before creating a new article isn't a lot to ask. I see it as much more difficult to ask someone with no editing experience to create an article that doesn't run afoul of basic policies like verifiability, original research, and neutrality.

The difference of opinion comes down to the impact. Some people warn this will literally kill Wikipedia, because if people can't create articles in their first ten edits then they'll never want to participate at all. It's obvious that I agree more with those who think this will keep new users from wandering into a difficult area, reduce the clean-up workload, and lead to a more friendly learning curve for new users. But the problem is people are just going to advocate for whatever scenario they believe in, based on their ideological preference of what Wikipedia should be.

Why not be empirical about it, instead of being ideological? Why not test it?

I propose a pilot study. Not sure what the parameters would be: a particular subject area, or to try it for 14 days... But it would allow us to measure the real impact, and measure the benefits against the cost.

Users who endorse this view

1. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Yes, a trial, see my view at the very top. We should compare making all new users go through AfC vs. the current system. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Such a major change should be planned as much as possible to collect data and consider how it works in practice. However it's also enough of a culture shift that I think it would need to be more like 3 months to see how the community adapts to the new philosophy of trying to help newbies (as opposed to defending Wikipedia against a continuous onslaught of newbie jokes, spam and mistakes). Rd232 ^talk 23:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Unlike Rd232 I don't see this as a major change, just basic common sense. Nevertheless it's perhaps prudent to consider some kind of trial along the lines he suggests if that will assuage those who do not see the proposal as common sensical. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. I see no downside to attempting to test this in a careful manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. A trial will be the best way to accurately assess the effectiveness of this proposal. Airplaneman ✈ 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. A trial would probably be the best way to determine how effective this will be. Silverseren^C 02:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Agree in spirit, though I am not sure about technical feasibility, or on actual mechanics of how it should work. Afraid of implementing needed changes if something like this leads to "paralysis by analysis", so I have my concerns, but at least in spirit we should be open towards studies like this. --Jayron32 03:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

    This could probably be tied to the autoconfirmed right; rather than require 'user' (ie, login), the software configuration would require 'autoconfirmed'. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 01:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

11. MER-C 04:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. if technically feasable, I'd be all for it. It would be nice to be able to measure in percentage terms the reduction in CSD usage and deleted articles, and see if it impacts signups. I share Jayron's concerns about waiting forever while collecting data, however. It should be a defined trial with defined objectives. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Without a trial, all we have are speculations and conjectures. T. Canens (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Fourteen days, IMHO, is far too short a time to measure editor retention, and trials must be carefully constructed and analyzed (cf. the current arguments over PC), but we really could use some hard data on what works. -- Donald Albury 11:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. (edit conflict) I am unsure one can measure the ratio of "articles that newbies created that wouldn't be otherwise created and would miss important content". Then again, any study is better than no study, as it now stands (afaik). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. I agree; there are some widely conflicting beliefs on what the effects would be if the very newest editors were restricted to working on existing articles instead of creating new ones. I do not agree with those who feel that it would cause a serious problem by deterring new editors, but that concern is valid, so I think it would be very useful to run a trial to see what happens. Make the scope of the trial clear - we don't want another PC. However, I think that 14 days is too short:

    A: Part of what we'd want to test for is a behavioural change among existing wikipedians as well as newbies, and that might take a little while to settle down (as a couple of backlogs are cleared and existing editors gradually find new things to work on &c)

    B: It might be useful to see what happens to the newest editors over a slightly longer period; the effects could, presumably, last longer than the first two weeks of their life as a wikipedian. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

17. Would recommend a longer trial period, but I can see that a compromise will probably be required. Brammers (talk/c) 22:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Let us be empirical whenever feasible. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Always in favour of trials, rather than assumptions Yoenit (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Tests are good. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
22. A trial is sensible - though it would need to be conducted over a long enough period to measure impact. SilkTork *^YES! 11:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
23. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:59pm • 06:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
24. --BelovedFreak 11:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
25. Mainframezen (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
26. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. A trial would be welcome, BUT you to gather the right data, which will take at least a year. You need to determine not only if the new editors still create articles under the new rules, but also if their retention rate is affected by the new rules. Maybe they'll go trough the hoops to create their one beloved article, but still leave at the same rate as before, and their first article may still be junk. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Trial, yes. Tijfo098's point about needing a year to measure retention is well taken, but: this is not possible, a year-long trial is essentially the same as adopting for good. True, a short trial won't give any retention data, but you can't have everything. 14-day trial, or something like that. Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Two things: 1) The trial better have an end date, the community won't stand for another indefinite trial like PC turned out to be. 2) Cardamon's idea above should be incorporated into the trial. With those things, I'd say yes. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Kaldari

So much for all our campus ambassador programs, not to mention all the random college classes that have started integrating Wikipedia editing on their own initiative. Just when we were starting to get a large influx of serious scholarship into Wikipedia, we're going to shut the doors behind us. This semester alone, we have several hundred college students adding new Wikipedia articles through the public policy initiative. If we implement this policy, we won't be seeing any more of that in the future. Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is a very important issue to raise but it can probably be fixed by adding the autoconfirm flag to those who are part of recognized university programs. I am a Campus Ambassador and I know exactly what you are talking about. If it's not already I'll raise it on the CA talk page to see what might be done. I would like to request that if the proposal to require autoconfirm is passed then it specifically allow for granting of autoconfirm before the normal threshold is up. Basket of Puppies 01:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a conversation on the ambassadors talk page here. Basket of Puppies 01:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

comment We could also easily change the program to have people create their articles in user space as drafts which are then moved by an administrator involved in the ambassador program to mainspace when they are ready. I think that encouraging the sandbox draft as best wiki practice would be appropriate for a program encouraging people to get into editing in any regard. In addition it's possible for a user to be confirmed without being autoconfirmed, by editing their bits isn't it? HominidMachinae (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Most of the professors in the ambassador program already require their students to edit some (often random) articles before picking a target article, so this change wouldn't affect them. Many of the classes also require the students to improve an existing article, so they wouldn't be trying to create a new article for a while. I don't see any significant impact on the ambassador program from the proposed change. -- Donald Albury 11:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be the typical site moderator who screams "Source?!" at everything, but how do you know this? Juliancolton (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My comments were based on my personal observations from being an Online Ambassador. In many of the classes the students are required to pick an existing article to improve. All the classes I've looked at require the students to get their feet wet by making edits in existing articles before settling down on a specific article. Can you cite any classes where the professor has asked the students to create a new article without first doing some editing in existing articles? I would be interested in seeing any case of classroom assignments that would actually run afoul of this proposal. -- Donald Albury 21:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have had students create new articles in my college classes. In general it is their first contact with Wikipedia. I have not however done this as part of a formal 'campus ambassadors' programme. Tibetologist (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How did that go? Many of us are arguing that editing an existing article is a better way to get started on WP. Can you share any experience to the contrary? --Kvng (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:WereSpielChequers

We have several problems with the current New page patrol process, a large proportion of the articles coming in do merit deletion or being turned into redirects. Currently we are fairly efficient at deleting the vast majority of the new submissions that merit deletion. However we often do this in an unnecessarily bitey way and worse still a significant minority of speedy deletion tags and even deletions are incorrect. This annoys our newbies, and some of our longstanding if intermittent editors, and has brought us bad publicity because of mistakes and over zealousness by people deleting articles or tagging them for deletion. Much of our problem at newpage patrol is due to miscommunication between Wikipedia and the 25% of our new editors who start their wiki career by submitting new articles. The symptoms of that miscommunication include hundreds of thousands of articles every year that we manually tag and delete. Deleting those articles is an effective way of treating the symptoms of our miscommunication, but it does little to solve the problem.

So this is a complex multi-faceted problem and solving it merits several changes to Newpage patrol:

1. We currently communicate our requirement for new articles to be notable, verifiable and encyclopaedic by tagging the ones that aren't for deletion, and usually informing the author that we've done so. This is communication after the event, and would be much better done up front by edit filters or other software. We need the article creation screen used by new editors to include a routine that checks for the presence of a reference, and if one is absent asks the author for an independent source such as a newspaper article. This software needs to have routines capable of spotting links to Myspace, Facebook or LinkedIn, explaining that such sites are acceptable as a link to the subject's own website, then returning to the page that asks for a reference. We also need a clear prominent option for the creator to tick that "the subject has not yet been reported on by journalists or other writers unconnected to the subject" have that leads to a page explaining our notability requirement with an option to have the article emailed to the author.
2. Currently it is optional to notify the author when you tag their article for deletion, and occasionally we get newpage patrollers who consciously choose not to do this. I accept that there are some circumstances such as RTV where notifying the author is inappropriate or overkill. But it should no longer be acceptable to leave a newbie with a redlinked talkpage when you tag a newly created "good faith" article for deletion. Informing such authors should be seen as part of the process of tagging an article for speedy deletion.
3. Many new articles should be deleted on sight, especially those that are validly tagged as G3 or G10. But for most good faith contributions there is nothing to be lost and much to be gained by leaving the article a few hours for the second or third edit that gives it context or explains why the subject is notable. Giving patrollers an extra choice for a new article of a 24 hour pause would in effect create an incubator in article space with the author unbitten but give rescuers the opportunity to rescue the article before it risked being tagged for deletion. Full proposal at strategy:Proposal:Speedy_deletion_-_24_hour_pause_for_some_articles.
4. Some templates are needed to warn our readers that an article is spammy or unreferenced. Others may be useful in they are proven to persuade some readers or newbies to fix the article. But many templates serve neither purpose,so we have no benefit from them to outweigh the cost of template bombing an article. such templates should be replaced with hidden categories. We don't need to warn a reader that an article is uncategorised or an orphan, and we certainly don't expect newbies to start their wiki career fixing such issues, hidden categories would serve our purposes just as well and without the disfigurement of templates.

Users who endorse this view

1. ϢereSpielChequers 00:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Airplaneman ✈ 02:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Totally agree and I think focusing on things like that are going to help both NPP issues and new user issues. I do think many of our templates need a bit of a rework as well :) We seem to like mean looking templates..... James of UR (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. We can change NPP, or we can change article creation requirements. The latter is process-based and easier to implement, the former avoids most of the issues but is harder because it's people-based, and people can be ridiculously stupid at times. NPPers are always working hard and many of them follow these types of informal guidelines, but having something written that tells new users "your article must be V w/ RS etc. and might be deleted in 24 hours if you don't come back" could help. And re. templates, can we just make them not fake-sounding? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. (except that it is not unreasonable to create a p. in several edits, and the ref need not be added in the very first, as long as it is promptly added. The difficulty in allowing for this in screening is the only reason why I have not made a similar proposal to his #1.) DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Indeed we have several problems with the current New page patrol process, many newbies might start their career by making new articles - ironically, many start their wiki career by policing them at NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Agree. Perhaps together with the Sandbox idea proposed by Cardamon above which would provide for a "not ready for mainspace" option to move a poor/embryonic article to the user's sandbox along with the a menu of a few links to the basic requirements. That would be a lot less bitey.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
10. -- Orionist ★ talk 12:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
11. These are good ideas worth discussing whether or not this change goes through. Danger (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Good ideas. They need further consideration regardless of what happens in this current discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 11:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
13. This could fix some of those times where a patroller nukes a new page, and the page turns out later to be a notable-enough topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
16. These are excellent ideas. Frickeg (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
17. In addition to the idea above a link to the wikipedia-en-help IRC channel and a talk page for help should be given in an editnotice. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 03:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from MER-C

Something we can do right now as a stopgap measure (via a couple of lines in MediaWiki:Common.js) is to force all non-autoconfirmed users through the article wizard. Hopefully this will flatten the learning curve a bit and slow the inflow of crap while we work out a more permanent solution.

Users who endorse this view

1. MER-C 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Support as a short-term stopgap measure.--JayJasper (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. If that can be done, I think it's a good idea, especially as it can be done quite quickly. Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   From my post at VPM, the code is like: if ( user is not autoconfirmed && url.contains("action=edit") && namespace == 0 && page does not exist && !url.contains(some parameter in the URL that signifies the user went through the wizard ) { location.href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AW2" } (though not sure if location.href works now). Everything here can be discovered through pre-existing JavaScript variables -- wgAction, wgNamespaceNumber, wgUserGroups, wgCurRevisionId (==0) and whether the URL contains the preload from the wizard. To avoid the wizard, one needs to be quick to stop the page from loading or add the preload parameter to the URL (unlikely). MER-C 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

4. no mater what the outcome is we should do this --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Should be done only as an interim solution if and only if the outcome is to require autopatrolled status to create articles.Marcus Qwertyus 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Just by the size of this discussion, it looks like this will take a while. The stopgap proposal is an improvement to current policy. I'm not convinced it is uncontroversial. I'm not convinced that it is any easier to implement that the original proposal. I do support it though. --Kvng (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Promethean

We have many different things to consider here and some of these things are: Are we trying to make it easier for ourselves at the cost of fucking new users over? Are we staying true to our "anyone can edit" motto? What impact this will have on our dwindling user base? I've briefly thought about all of this and this is my 2 cents on the matter. New pages are something that needs to be addressed, the ratio of crap to actual useful stuff being created is completely over the top in most cases and it has come to a point where we have to make the changes we want to see. Every competent user on Wikipedia wishes that new users would get an understanding of our policies before they started creating articles and we have to provide new users with a reason (and the time) to gain that understanding. If new users can just click the create button, why on earth would they want to go through all the hoops of checking whether the topic is notable and has sources etc? It would just be easier for them to play the hit (it doesn’t get deleted) and miss (it gets deleted) game of article creation. So no, if we restricted article creation to autoconfirmed users we would not be fucking new users over, rather we will be equipping them with the knowledge so less of their articles are deleted (which makes a happy user) and they will play a greater role in the community for a longer period of time. The only people we might be putting off are those who don’t give two hoots about what they are publishing and that is a good thing.

In regards to our "The free encyclopaedia anyone can edit" motto, I feel that people need to remember that building a free encyclopaedia comes first, the anyone can edit bit is secondary. So if restricting new page creation to Autoconfirmed users reduces the ratio of crap to useful stuff then I am all for that. I would like to add that dealing with this now WILL have a positive flow on effect to other areas such as cleanup, CSD and AFD, NPP etc.

The Article Creation Wizard is a great idea and my proposal is this:

• Restrict article creation to Autoconfirmed users only.
• Force any user to use the Article Creation Wizard for their first 5 articles.
• Make the Article Creation Wizard a preference option so people can keep being forced to use it if they wish after their first 5 creations.
• In the mid-long term (if not required for the above), make the Article Creation Wizard an extension.
• In the mid-long term, Allot of our project pages and templates are not 'New User' friendly by any means, some are quite technical and other require Mediawiki syntax knowledge to use properly. This really has to be addressed.

Creating articles is allot like uploading images and we don't allow non auto-confirmed users to do that, so this would also bring things into line with other areas.

Users who endorse this view

1.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Do note that creating articles doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "anyone can edit", since they can still edit Wikipedia as much as they want without creating an article. Also...I think 10 articles is a bit high, 5 seems more appropriate. After 5 articles, you should know what you're doing. Silverseren^C 05:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Even as a moderately experienced Wikipedia editor I wouldn't attempt to freehand a new article, there are too many steps to follow to make a proper article. I also very strongly support re-writing projects and templates and even policies to make them more readily understandable to newbies or perhaps creating a lightweight summary page to point new editors to that covers the most important points. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. This probably needs to be discussed as a separate issue, but I do like the idea. However, what changes to the software would be needed to make this automatic? Would redirects count as articles for this? Lots of things to consider. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Rivertorch

Recruiting and retaining editors is critical, but not just any editors. One hundred conscientious editors who are willing to take the time to learn the ropes and get it right, in terms of both the content they add and the procedures they follow to add it, are more valuable than 10,000 editors who neither have any understanding of what Wikipedia is about nor particularly care to learn.

The current bar for gaining autoconformed status is set quite low; four days and ten edits is often insufficient to reveal whether a new editor will be an asset to the project. It is likely that any person unwilling to cross that very modest threshold before being granted the privilege to create a new article is someone lacking the patience and diligence necessary to become a good editor. Considered in the context of the constant bombardment of "junk" articles that Wikipedia faces every day, requiring autoconfirmation before allowing new users to create articles seems like an entirely reasonable policy that should be enacted.

Users who endorse this view

1. Rivertorch (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Silverseren^C 06:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Rschen7754 06:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Go through your IRL circle of friends right now and ask around among them to see who edits Wikipedia regularly. We are a rare bunch. --Jayron32 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Apuldram (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Rd232 ^talk 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
10. MER-C 12:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Explains why this proposal will do very little damage. There are also benefits for new users in terms of a friendlier learning curve. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
12. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Danger (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15. bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Spot on. Brammers (talk/c) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Mr.Z-man 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Yoenit (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
20. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
21.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Yes. If Rivertorch hadn't written this, I would have written something similar. SilkTork *^YES! 11:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
25. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
26. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:59pm • 06:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. I have high standards for what I'd hope to see in Wikipedia, and I constantly find that people consciously lower their standards in the interests of being nice. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. We can greet, guide, and mentor, new users without having to accept bad articles, it just takes a lot more work than placing a delete tag. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
29. --BelovedFreak 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
30. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
31. --JaGa^talk 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
32. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
33. There is indeed a power law distribution in new editor productivity. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
35. I agree and would like to see the autoconfirmed requirements go up to serve as a filtering mechanism. If they don't care to make 25 edits & two weeks worth of editing...I don't care to see their article make it onto the Wiki.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
36. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
37. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
38. Herostratus (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
39. —Coroboy (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
40. The qualified editors we lose due to being bitten must be far greater than the qualified editors we retain by allowing them to create a new article within their first 10 edits/4 days. --Kvng (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from The Blade of the Northern Lights

I seem to be the one who got this started, and I've made my view pretty well known. I'll only add the following points. One, the backlog is down, for now, but it's trending upward again. We had it down to nothing briefly, and to keep it there I was regularly patrolling around 200-350 pages a day. Secondly, it may be that 25% of new users start by trying to create an article, but that still means the majority of new users will be unaffected. When I joined, in March 2010, it was to fix typos; I didn't really get into it until a month or so after I joined. Furthermore, I would submit that a substantial number of these new users are only here to promote their wares; I strongly suspect that the vast majority of editors whose first edit is to post about their garage band have no intention of helping the encyclopedia. We have a system now where it's frequently difficult to tell who's here to spam and who could actually turn into a decent user; I will make any effort necessary to retain the latter, but I don't want to encourage the former. This is not only a problem for the new users, it makes NPP a very lonely, isolated job; new users get a bad impression of us when we tag their articles for deletion, and even a couple of misfires (which happen to everyone doing anything here) bring wrath upon us. This sort of job actually fits my personality pretty well, but I've learned over my 20+ years of living that my personality is extremely unusual. I would, however, agree that a trial run would be the best way to go; if it does turn out to be a complete fiasco, we can reconsider our options. I doubt it will, but stranger things have happened.

Users who endorse this view

1. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Well, just know that all of us established users really appreciate the work you guys do. :) Silverseren^C 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Rivertorch (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Brammers (talk/c) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Boo to backlogs. Yay to backlog patrollers. Danger (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
6.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
8. --BelovedFreak 11:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes trials are good. Herostratus (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from NickPenguin

Interestingly enough, my 5th edit was the creation of a new article, back in 2005. Would this appearing as a new page get deleted with today's standards? Probably. Would that have strongly influenced my decision to stay? Definitely. Would the current version get deleted if it showed up looking like it does? Maybe. Would everyone involved benefit from some guidance in the creation of their first article? I think so. And we are seeing the beginnings of this undercurrent with the Wikipedia:Wiki Guides program.

I think many of us, especially editors who have been here a long time, are subconsciously caught in the 'old tyme' thinking that increasing the article count is the only way to increase coverage, and thereby increase credibility. If the statistics show anything, regardless of silly things like facts and truth, Wikipedia is the go-to place for most people on the planet.

If we look around, it's easy to say Wikipedia has reached it's most current plateau. And I mean this in terms of the number of editors, the number of articles created per day and the quality of those articles. I think we are in the middle of a paradigm shift in how the wiki is improving, especially in the last few years now that most policies and best practices are considered long standing. Now, major improvements to coverage and quality are through existing articles, rather than new articles.

We should only allow auto confirmed users to create articles, simply because the kinds of articles that still need to be created, and the standards we hold new articles to now, take a little more effort and a little more knowledge of how the community operates. Investigating new articles should be done by editors who have been here a while, and know what it's all about. This would probably also increase the quality of both newly created articles and new editors, since you have to make an effort to stick around to create articles. No more of the driveby-delete-disappear cycle, instead we would include the word discussion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Editors who poke around a bit are also more likely to discover requested article lists. Danger (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
3. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Good points. People who start editing because they see something they think they can improve (typos, style, etc.) are more likely to become continuing contributors than are people who want to create an article about their pet topic. -- Donald Albury 21:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
7. "[M]ajor improvements to coverage and quality are through existing articles, rather than new articles" is probably wave of future. How about this: You only get to create a new article if you delete an existing one first. OK, just kidding. But do endorse NickPenguin's point generally. Herostratus (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Danger

I like the proposal in principle, but I'm also concerned about the attention span of new users. I think that something like this would be a big enough deal to create a new user flag. Instead of using the current auto-confirm flag, use an alternative based solely on edit count so that a person can sit down, figure out how to use Wikipedia, make a few edits and then create a page. If I were starting over now and I were the sort to write new articles, I would never have the patience to wait four days doing nothing; I would probably make 100 edits in the first few days and then get bored. So, perhaps set the confirmation to 15 edits on 2 different pages, at least one of which is in article space (so the user has gotten out of the sandbox).

Danger (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I've changed my mind based on talk page arguments, but if others want to endorse this, okay. Danger (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Experience editing is the key here. I believe the time requirement on autoconfirmed is just to deter vandals. Mr.Z-man 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. I could probably accept this as a reasonable compromise if one is necessary. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Brammers

The slew of poor quality articles that new users create (80% are deleted, according to User:Yoenit) wastes potential contributors' time and that of the new page patrollers. I believe the statistics compiled by Mr.Z-man are telling: less than 0.65% of new users whose article is deleted will stick around, but many more users whose first actions are edits will be retained.

Wikipedia is no longer a young project. With every extra article, maintenance and vandal fighting becomes more work. At over 3.5 million articles, I believe that the bulk of future work will be (to quote Albert Michelson) "in the sixth place of decimals", i.e. refining and improving rather than article creation. After ten years, everything obvious has an article; the days of huge gaps in coverage which must be plugged are out. The days of MOS, REF and 3LA are in. The need for rapid numerical growth in the articlespace is a bygone, and quality requirements are much more stringent.

Our need now is for new editors who have the patience to develop a grasp of the tools and the guidelines with which we build this admirable project. My first edits were damn unencyclopedic, but after a dozen or so I was getting a better idea of things. I suspect that after ten edits and four days, any problematic editors would have been picked up and either coached (assuming good faith) or blocked (as vandalism-only accounts).

To summarise, forcing new users to make edits before they can create articles will:

• Expose them to what the encyclopedia is actually about (not a garage band directory, or repository for your CV, or a soapbox)
• Deter some instant-gratification vandals
• Help new users who really want to improve the project get assisted by established users
• Do no harm to the project: as I've said and as evidence has shown, most new pages are not kept
• Grand summary: this measure would encourage competence in new users and be less bitey than stomping on pages created by willing but inexperienced newbies.

In the long term, the project must adapt to its growing maturity or it will wither and decay.

Users who endorse this view

1. Brammers (talk/c) 22:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2. As I noted above, I'm unconvinced that the age of an account matters, but otherwise, I concur. Danger (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

   • Sorry for being ambiguous: I believe that the four day wait would give ample time for other users to see any problematic edits via their watchlists. Ultimately I think the number of edits is more important, but that the "cooling off period" is also a necessary restriction. Brammers (talk/c) 22:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

3. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
4. bobrayner (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
5. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
6.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
7. - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Yes. We are at a different stage. We must address our current concerns. Growth is not a priority. Cleaning out the existing poor quality edits is more important. SilkTork *^YES! 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes. As Wikipedia matures, focus must move toward quality control, especially a change like this that makes for a less bitey experience. --JaGa^talk 16:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
11. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Thanks for the statistics. I disagree with the MOS part: it's a perennially edit-protected page due to never ending opinion wars between regulars that should probably invest that time in improving some articles instead. I hope you're not suggesting new editors need to pass the MOS exam before being allowed to edit. Also, I disagree with "everything obvious has an article", unless by that you mean everything you see on pop TV. Plenty of book-length topics don't have an article. I can give you examples if you want. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    • No, not at all. Expecting new users (and even most regular users) to memorise a 70-page document would be unfeasible and extreme. I used MOS as an example of the "quality over quantity" approach to improving the encyclopedia. As for the "everything obvious" article, I used "obvious" in the sense of "obvious to a member of the general public". In specialised areas, there is still room for improvement. I've noticed that by the third year of an undergraduate chemistry degree, a few of the topics taught have either thin or no coverage on Wikipedia. But the chances of someone deciding to join solely to write one esoteric article would probably be fairly slim (e.g. a lot of the fungus articles are created by a few prolific editors, not new users). Off-topic: is there any list of "technical articles that are not yet created but we could do with", such as ones one might encounter during the course of an undergraduate degree? Brammers (talk/c) 13:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

13. Herostratus (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:bobrayner

The current system is a shameful waste; the large minority of new editors who start by creating an article will usually find that it's speedied (which upsets them) or, if they're lucky, it will languish under a heavy burden of tags (which frustrates them). Either way, much labour is wasted. Meanwhile, more experienced editors also spend lots of time trying to clean up this mess when they could be making substantial quality improvements elsewhere; or, if the surge of new pages slowed, NPPers could take the time to make deeper improvements rather than a ten-second tagging.

This is a huge waste of willing volunteers - wikipedia's most precious commodity. There's so much more improvement that they could make - new and old - on en.wikipedia's huge pile of existing articles. We shouldn't worry that a lightweight restriction will prevent some important new article being created - it's a low hurdle and there will still be thousands of willing & talented article-creators around.

Users who endorse this view

1. bobrayner (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC) NPPers are already supposed to be doing more than a WP:NPP|ten second tagging.
3. You're probably right, NPP is likely the biggest inefficiency we put up with in order to maintain "anyone can edit [anything at any time]" at all costs. Mr.Z-man 13:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Airplaneman ✈ 13:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
5. --Jayron32 14:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Well said. The labor and time of existing volunteers–especially NPPers and other maintenance workers–should not be taken for granted or wasted. Danger (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
7.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
8. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Rivertorch (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
11. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
13. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Herostratus (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Radical view from User:Collect

Perhaps we are looking at this backwards. There is no doubt that new articles just created by new users do not generally meet WP standards. The current system is "delete new non-notable articles even if less than 1% of the new users will ever try again at all." This is not-good. I suggest that new articles be auto-tagged as "in progress - noindex" and allow editors to try contacting the new user to explain how to improve the article which, in the meantime, would not be "published" to mainspace. Indeed, the "pending chages" software would likely be of immense benefit for such a change in procedure. New editors who write about clearly non-notable topics (My Dad) would get a polite non-templated welcome saying that, while the editor personally would love to meet your dad, it is not really important enough for an encyclopedia article without something special others can look up about him. The purpose of this suggestion is to get the retention rate at least up to 2%. Clearly the current system fails at editor retention utterly. Second part: Also end the unfriendly "your edit was deleted" welcome message (other than for obvious vandalism). Tell the person why the edit has a problem, not just that it was an evil edit (yes - that may mean a menu of templates for those who do not wish to write sentences) . Collect (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Collect (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2. NeilK (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC) This is a step in the right direction
3. I've separately advocated that articles deleted for notability concerns should go into some sort of purgatory, where they remain available for imrpovement, but are not searchable from outside the site. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Orionist

I didn't take part in earlier VP discussion, so this is hopefully a new view:

I thought we already have a way to deal with backlogs: we get more people to work on them. Ever wondered what all these unreferenced BLPs, Wikification and copyediting drives are all about? If we apply the same logic of this proposal to other backlogged areas, we'll end up sending to AfC or userfying every single article that is not Featured, and restricting any editing in main namespace to administrators. This proposition will only shift the load to AfC, and soon we will have editors working there complaining about the huge backlog and how we should add hurdles for new editors. AfC is not that helpful either, I can see there very good articles, better than many on the main namespace, that are declined for reasons like "needs more inline citations" or "wikify". Another thing, if 80% of new pages are really deleted for good reason, then why on earth would we want their authors to make 10 more edits - edits that they don't want to do in the first place? We'd be only multiplying the problem by ten, and adding a huge amount of questionable - if not vandalous - edits to the backlog of RC patrollers. And what if after a while, the number of NP patrollers goes down, and they - again - face the same problems? Should we raise article creation threshold to, say, 100 edits and 20 days? And what if the patroller numbers go down again?

Most new pages that are worthy of deletion do not constitute a real danger on the 'pedia. If they are about obscure or non-notable subjects, no one would read them anyway, except maybe the creators and their friends. If the subject is notable, but the article is crappy, people will stumble upon it and improve it, that's the whole point of the wiki, and that's how Wikipedia has become what it is now. The real danger comes from POV pushers, WP:POINTy editors, and uncivil editors who could be well established. These can not only destroy the quality of articles, but also chase away other editors, newbies and veterans alike. Hurdles should be set up for them, instead of the well-meaning but inexperienced.

Some alternative suggestions:

• Recruit more NP patrollers. Have a look at the methods used by successful projects and follow them. Spread the word, I think most Wikipedians have no idea what NPP is.
• Article Wizard can be a great tool, used by new and established editors alike, but not the way it is now. If it's ever going to be useful, it should be turned into a real wizard, not a bunch of instructions. The AfC can also improve. As a start, editors can lend a hand at creation instead of judging. Once these two processes see significant improvement, we can discuss rerouting new users through them, but in any case, that should happen because they are useful to new editors, and not because we want to "slow them down": We are checking new pages in the 'pedia, we are not defending it against a Hun invasion.
• To reduce the chance of "bitiness", several things can be done: a "grace period" can be set up, during which pages shouldn't be tagged or deleted, I guess a duration of one hour for tagging and one day for deletion would be suitable, with an exception for harmful material (e.g. libel, hate speech). Another thing could be tweaking the tags and templates, and including big, clear buttons or links to help areas, where newbies can ask friendly established editors (Wiki Guides for example) who'd have the patience to explain the policies, or talk on their behalf to the taggers/deleters, thus avoiding the bitiness or lessening its impact.

Other solutions can be devised. The proposal above, however, would cause many more problems, without solving any.

Users who endorse this view

1. -- Orionist ★ talk 12:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
2. the thesis that "i will stop biting people, if we make it harder for them to put their fingers in my mouth" is farcical. behavior modification will require what you suggest, and above all leadership Slowking4 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
3. I tend to agree. The wizard is ugly, and AfC would need more volunteers. Why not just volunteer for NPP? Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Ronhjones

As most have said, the need for new pages is not as great as years ago. We have an excellent range of articles, and the number of really good articles that need to be created must, by definition, be very low. Therefore why not stop all page creation in article space, making the users make all their new pages as user subpages. When the user thinks the page is ready he can ask for it to be moved. Move rights need to be the same as for files - i.e. for those who have the Wikipedia:File mover right. Will also stop new users moving articles unnecessary, and may also reduce cut and paste moves.

Users who endorse this view

View from User:Malleus Fatuorum

Wikipedia has become so desperate to attract new editors that it ignores the retention of existing editors. There are plenty of articles, but far too few of them are even half-way decent. The new editors who need encouragement are those who pitch in and improve articles, not those who create articles on their newly formed garage band or whatever on their first edit, as I think the statistics clearly show.

Users who endorse this view

1. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Thank you for being so frank on saying this. Some of the above skirts around the issue (including me), but you say it well. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
3. More or less, yeah. Rivertorch (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Yep. MER-C 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Malleus makes a point, and I share Jayron's sentiment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
6. bobrayner (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Grabbed the nettle by the stem. Brammers (talk/c) 09:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
9. I agree, editors who come to WP to create an article about their garage band, something they heard at school or saw on YouTube, or their company or themselves, are not likely to become helpful contributors to WP. -- Donald Albury 10:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes. While there is an important focus on newly created articles, we should also look at existing articles. Try clicking on Random article 10 times and see if you're satisfied with all ten articles you encounter. We need quality editors who are willing to work on improving existing articles. It is a shame that so many WP:Vital articles are in such a poor state. SilkTork *^YES! 12:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
11. I wouldn't have worded it quite so strongly against attracting new editors, but how to encourage new and existing editors to improve existing articles definitely doesn't occupy enough of our mindspace. Encouraging prioritising of articles to improve (eg WP:Vital articles, per Silktork) is also important and not done enough. One point made elsewhere I think (this RFC is getting long) is that new articles on closely related subjects can easily end up pretty duplicative, so you end up with 2 crappy overlapping articles which then at some point take a lot of effort to merge and/or properly demarcate along the line the topic should be split. There is, in general, too much emphasis on creating new articles as a goal in itself, rather than taking the goal as expanding Wikipedia's coverage of encyclopedic topics in a way that is useful to readers. Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
12. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
13. a little freaked out that I'm agreeing with Malleus about something, but somehow I am. I wouldn't say that all new editors who want to write articles are of the garage-band type, or that we should not encourage editors who want to create new articles at all, but Malleus speaks the truth when he says that prioritizing those who want to create their own pet article over those who want to improve the 'pedia through various other methods is silly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Couldn't say it better myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
15.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
16. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
17. --JayJasper (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Shockingly enough, I agree completely. Mind you I'd go further by tightening up the notability guidelines and culling upwards of 500,000 articles (the 300,000 currently unsourced articles and the massive bloat that teeters on the edge of even the low standards we have now. I'm quite confident that we can cut half a million articles without really losing anything. That, however, is a separate matter.) Sven Manguard Wha? 07:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Sure, I agree with this. I don't have much of an idea how to improve the situation, though... Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
21. Sound comment. Also tend to agree with User:Sven Manguard's OT point, especially if it results in a reduction in articles about (to me) non-notable schools and other educational establishments, many of which are of irredeemably poor quality and frequently vandalised. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
22. BelovedFreak 11:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Agree 100%. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Enric Naval (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
25. --JaGa^talk 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
26. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
27. One way to invest in the retention of existing editors is to devise ways to reduce the amount of janitorial work required to maintain the project. This change would result in a precipitous drop in the number of AfD's, CSD's, and new page patrolling required, and would free up experienced editors to do more valuable tasks. —SW— ^confer 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
28. We need to balance attracting new, productive editors to at least replace the actual attrition rate of our productive contributors. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
29. Otelemuyen {talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
30. I agree with this feeling, but I don't know what if anything it entails for the question at hand here. We need some real statistics as to how many new junk articles are created by new editors relative to mmkay articles created by new editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Agree with this sentiment
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
32. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
33. Pol430 talk to me 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Fully agree. Pedro :  Chat  09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
35. A belief I have held for a while now (but at the same time, we should still be gentle with all good-faith and potentially productive newbies, regardless of their first edits). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
36. In general yes, though some areas are still woefully underrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Worm That Turned

A new article requires an administrator to delete. Sure, we can use speedy deletion criteria, but it still requires an administrator to do the work. Moving to this system will therefore reduce the amount of vandalism that cannot be reverted by normal editors. Autoconfirmed status does not take long to get, and there are alternative methods to creating articles. This seems like a good move to me.

Users who endorse this view

1. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
3. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. True, it would reduce CSD work as well as work at NPP (which has been mentioned before), so freeing up editor time for other things. That's probably not that important (I certainly think the key issue is the new editor experience), but it does, and that's obviously a benefit. Rd232 ^talk 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Rd232

Somewhat reluctantly I add an additional view to the growing list, because Jayron32's view (the leading view in support of the basic idea of restriction) does not mention some key points. So, in addition to everything said in favour of preventing brand new (non-autoconfirmed) editors from creating articles in mainspace without some form of assistance, it must be emphasised that such editors should still be able to quickly create articles with assistance. I see three assistance options, and I think all should be available if the restriction is implemented.

1. Articles for Creation. I think the key element of the immediacy of the status quo actually involves a form of feedback - of look, it's really there on Wikipedia, I CAN create it! (in parallel to the more common I CAN edit it!). The AFC system should provide much of the key "I CAN create it" experience. AFC may not put the article live into mainspace as quickly as the status quo permits, but it does (should) provide fairly quick feedback, and in particular, it gives new editors the crucial expectation of positive feedback, as opposed to the present experience of creating an article without knowing what feedback to expect (which feedback typically turns out negative, via deletion or tagging).
2. Article Wizard. An exemption can be engineered so that editors going through the Article Wizard can immediately create articles. This is partly to reduce the workload on AFC, partly to direct users who aren't really interested in feedback away from AFC. It also provides users who want it real immediacy of creation.
3. userspace drafts in combination with a request to move the draft to mainspace provide a way to quickly create articles without going through AFC or Wizard, which some find very offputting. This needs a little work to make it clear how to do (from the "you can't create a new article" message) and then how to request a move to mainspace if the user isn't willing to wait (possibly adapting the Article Wizard's userspace draft preload, which provides some help). user:Cardamon's view mentions a per-user sandbox which could work well to make this approach easier to grasp for the newcomer.

Users who endorse this view

1. Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
3. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. I'm flexible on which/how many options are available, but some options should be available and well-advertised. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Absolutely essential points to make this change work right. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Support options 1 and 2. These exemptions are reasonable ways for legitimate new users to create new articles. Some editors come here explicitly for the reason to create a legitimate article, and may not be interested in making 10 other edits to other articles. If a user created a userspace draft, however, they would probably (hopefully) already be auto-confirmed after they finished their userspace draft, so this option is probably unnecessary. —SW— ^comment 18:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
   1. They might well get to 10 edits, but do so quite quickly (< 4 days). Hence the need for a clear path for requesting moves (eg via WP:FEED or WP:NCHP) to avoid frustration. Besides which, a request ensures a second pair of (more experienced) eyes before the article goes live. The potential feedback there reduces the risk of deletion/tagging/etc. Rd232 ^talk 19:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
7. --JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Marcus Qwertyus

If we are going to require autoconfirmed status to create articles we should also require reviewer status to review them. There are 5,500 reviewers already and it can easily be requested.

Users who endorse this view

1. Marcus Qwertyus 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from AGK

A suitable compromise would be that anonymous users can still create new articles, but that pages they create are not viewable except to them and to registered users until the article has been confirmed in much the same way as FlaggedRevs provides for. AGK [•] 14:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)re

Users who endorse this view

1. AGK [•] 14:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2. ...Or make it viewable but require that the article eventually be patrolled at some point Currently all articles that aren't patrolled after (3?) months disappear from the patrol log. Articles that are written by autoconfirmed users could still expire from the list after a set amount of time. This would prioritize page patrolling of articles written by new users by backlog patrollers. Marcus Qwertyus 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

   It's 1 month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

3. There is mileage in this. I think that "article incubation" is probably the sort of thing, though the term has been taken over by an existing process that holds deleted articles in a community userfication space. A process whereby articles created by unregistered or new editors are automatically placed in an incubator which is noindexed and not part of article mainspace would be great. I think that is what people have been looking for all this time, and keep missing. The article would remain in the incubator until an admin or reviewer checks it over and moves it into mainspace or deletes it. The current Article Incubator is misnamed, misunderstood, has been misused (people deleting articles out of process), and doesn't work. It might be an idea to hold a RfC on the existing Article Incubator to see if that can be made to work under a new name (Community Userfication?) or simply closed down so the Article Incubator name can be used for this idea. SilkTork *^YES! 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
   1. How is that different from my third point in my View (userspace drafts)? Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly contrarian view from Daniel Case

For one thing, I thought this was already a requirement. But with all the UAA work I do, I should have realized it wasn't. Perhaps I was confusing the semi-protection requirements with the creation requirements. It doesn't matter.

Now, if I were forced to take a stand on this RfC I'd say, do it. A lot of accounts that begin by creating articles are indeed SPAs that create an article about something non-notable and, no matter how politely you treat them about this, never edit again as far as I can tell (and by "as far as I can tell", I mean that I've actually had email dialogues with some of these people about this). Whereas a lot of accounts that begin by editing existing articles (and by editing, I should clarify that they are actually adding good-faith factual information, or copy editing, and not just spamming external links) seem to have more staying power. To generalize from my own experience, I had had my account for a month before I felt the courage to create a new article (clip show, if anyone cares), and I was still so apprehensive about doing it that I created it anonymously (that was still allowed at the time). It's been almost six years and I'm still here.

So as far as this proposal goes I will say at the very least, get data on whether editors who start by creating articles or editors who start by merely editing existing articles (again, as opposed to spamming or vandalizing them) before we make any decision.

But that's not as far as I want to go.

Everybody above seems to take it as a settled assumption that the decline in activity from newer accounts is a Really Serious Problem and that if we don't do Something Drastic Right Now Wikipedia won't be around in a year. Or a day. Those of you as long in the online teeth as I am may remember "Imminent death of the net predicted. Film at 11. The only difference is whether this proposal is seen as an acceptable tradeoff in light of this.

I do not dispute the facts about the editing patterns of new editors. I am, however, beginning to have second thoughts about the extent to which this has been seen, or been allowed to be seen, as some sort of existential threat.

We say this often enough to mock it as a cliché, but it's no less true for that: This is a project to create an encyclopedia. It is therefore about creating and maintaining quality content above all else. How we continue to grow and adapt as a community can only be considered within the context of that goal.

We should not consider it our goal to attract as many new users as possible. Yet we are on the verge of discussing this and fretting about this to the point that perception will trump reality, that the discourse about this will make any actual underlying facts, their implications or the lack thereof irrelevant. And when you have reached that point, you no longer have a problem but a moral panic or the equivalent.

Or to be a bit more restrained, I note that we presently have no article on the well-known organizational phenomenon of goal displacement (And no, I don't mean this; see here instead). Because it seems to me that without some skepticism at the right time (i.e., now), we're headed in that direction, with the usual deleterious effects likely.

The smaller amount of new accounts that become regular editors is an issue. A concern, perhaps. And certainly not without some relevance to the question of how welcoming we are to new users. But it's not a PROBLEM.

For it has been equally true that while this has happened, the total amount of edits has remained relatively steady as the existing core of editors has increased their activity. I see other indicators that, from an editorial standpoint, the community is doing quite well for itself. I note that we seem to be producing as many featured articles as we generally have, and the proportion of defeaturings to FA promotions has also remained relatively consistent. Likewise more articles have reached GA status in the last couple of years than the years before. The amount of new admin candidacies has declined, but no more than the amount of new long-term editors (IMO) (and maybe that's not such a bad thing, to be honest).

And is the decline in new editors necessarily the result of, or only of, our practices toward new editors and new articles? I suppose it is true that we have become more efficient at sizing up a new editor and assessing their potential than we were in 2005, allowing less time for a vandal to become a serious editor. But I also have to point out that, with five times as many articles as we had back then, perhaps new editors see less places where they can add new information (An interesting metric in this regard would be the amount of new editors in the last few years who have built up their edit counts on pop-culture phenomena that did not exist in 2005 ... episodes of, say, Lost that have aired since then and associated articles. Or newer TV shows that have become very popular, like Modern Family). Maybe we should find out what newer editors are editing and what we can do to encourage more of this, before we go throwing what may or may not be solutions at what may or may not be problems.

We may also have to consider that we have captured most of the user base that has the time and inclination to effectively write and edit open-content online encyclopedia articles in worldwide collaboration. Especially with strict requirements for sourcing and such ... a lot of us too easily forget, I think, that many people don't have pleasant memories of writing papers in school and approach the imperative to footnote their work with the same dread I'd have if I had to factor quadratic polynomials again on a routine basis.

And that such a user community is OK working with a decidedly retro editing interface that lacks WYSIWYG capabilities (believe me, when we solve that problem, we won't be worrying about what we can do to attract new editors. In fact, we'll have the opposite problem. And then, anyone who doesn't remember what that problem was like will be pining for the days when we had discussions like this.) Or true social-networking capabilities (We could stand to learn a few things from Facebook) that could enhance the editing experience. Within a few years web users will expect that sort of thing, and we will need to provide it if we want to get some of them into our community).

So here's to conversations that I think we should be having. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2. --M4gnum0n (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Danger (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Rd232 ^talk 18:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
6. --JayJasper (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Agree -- As a gnome-ish, for-the-most-part contra-vandal, I see the problem being not so much one of quantity as quality. There seems to be no shortage of people who think it's fun to trash articles. (Even the fictional Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory suggested they "vandalize some Wikipedia pages" for fun.) I'm not at all sure that someone having a millisecond attention span and unwilling to wait less than a week to create articles is the sort of person that will help build a good encyclopedia. But, then again, I could be wrong. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
8. --Jayron32 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Agree with the general tenor. Many excellent points. Settled assumptions part (para 3) overstated; I don't assume that at all. Rivertorch (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

   Good; I'm glad some people are keeping their heads on. That does seem to be the view on some of the mailing lists, though. Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

10. The reason we thought it was a requirement was because if the users follow the suggestions and create their article as a draft in their userspace, they are unable to move it into mainspace until they are autoconfirmed. So the people who follow the suggestions are punished, while those who dump new articles directly in main space are rewarded. Gigs (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    That is a very, very good point. Rd232 ^talk 21:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

11. Not sure I fully agree with everything here. But very well thought out... and more experience than me. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Brief view from Anetode

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate metaphor which seemingly ignores everything said by proponents of the proposal. Also a "view" which adds nothing to existing ones, and ignores the instruction at the top of the page to avoid unnecessary proliferation of views - so I've moved it here. Rd232 ^talk 19:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved back. It's all right if you disagree with my view, but I would appreciate a respectful treatment of it. Although concise, the metaphor I brought up took some consideration. In order to save people the time of reading multiple paragraphs which would have detailed my reasoning I would much rather offer a thesis. My intention is to get people to consider this statement and comment on whether their conclusions are ultimately similar. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I gave your view rather more respect than it gave the proposal. Rd232 ^talk 19:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. You may have the impression that this view is in some way contemptuous, but that was not my intent. It's honest, if unorthodox. And speaking of unorthodox, please allow me the following parable:

Imagine wikipedia as a vast and empty plot of land where people are allowed to build whatever they want and help each other out. After the first couple of years the plot accumulated a sparse number of shacks and, oddly enough, the foundations for a number of skyscrapers. More people come and join the build as the years go by. Wikipedia is no longer a plot, but a sprawling city. Many fine structures are erected and people who occupy them feel a sense of comfort and achievement (and rightfully so).

Then something bad happens. The people in the nice houses become vary of the litter of small shacks from the continuing influx of builders. Such ghettos are blamed for lowering property values. A fence is put up wherever newcomers attempt to lay even a brick. Now they need a license, a security check and a complete blueprint to populate the wiki-metropolis.

Unsatisfied with the lack of camaraderie and the price barriers instituted by the emergent wiki-government, they leave to create their own suburbs, towns, dens and lairs. The mighty skyscrapers require constant maintenance, but the lack of new talent gradually turns them into a state of disrepair.

So the point is, you don't have to limit new constructions to established "citizens". We need fresh talent, more houses to store new ideas. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And with that metaphor, you can also end up like Rio or São Paulo, with a small elite that does a lot of good for society with a giant morass at the fringes progressively growing larger and degrading the overall appeal of the city. Or you can institute some building codes and prevent that from happening in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Very nice job describing the status quo. Now how does it relate to this proposal? Or did you think you don't need a license, security check and a complete blueprint to prevent your shack from being crushed by a bulldozer right now? Yoenit (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did have that impression. Your extended metaphor deflects that impression, but also fails to take into account that the issue here is not exclusion, but lack of skills. We don't allow just anybody to put up a building in a city anywhere they like, without any assistance or supervision. Even if they're trying to build something desirable, there's a good chance they'll make an almighty mess, and then get upset when they fail and the neighbours angrily point to the flaws. Much better to ask for help beforehand, getting the neighbours' help (see my View on the key assistance issue). The second house they build they'll still struggle, but at least have some degree of clue, plus be clearer about the community's expectations. Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I take exception to your assumption that the issue boils down to a lack of skill. It's premature to gauge skill potential - or lack thereof - from a couple of simple contributions. The issue here is experience. Without the opportunity to engage in article creation at the base anonymous level there's no incentive to pursue editorial experience. And while a few contributions may acclimate a user to wiki markup or layout, they are no substitute for starting of with an idea (new article) to build on. User status (anon/new/old/admin) is a formality where the actual content is concerned, so the definition of a community must be widened to include the entire readership as potential contributors. This is the very premise of a wiki, the nose or eyes or what have you, the principal distinguishing characteristic. If it is encumbered by too many layers of bureaucracy then the growth and development of the project is compromised. Requiring autoconfirmation effectively destroys the first couple of steps to experienced contributorship and isolates the idea of a community to an internal wiki that not just anyone can edit. This is just another case of the neighbours crying NIMBY. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't distinguishing skill from experience here; it's not about "gauging" skill since anyone can attain autoconfirmed status purely off their own back without anyone else getting involved. The issue is that creating new articles (which most new users do not start off doing) is a difficult thing, and 80%+ of them fail. That right there suggests that something is broken and needs fixing for the sake of the newcomers, not for the sake of the existing editors. Insisting that new editors go through a creation route which involves a modicum of assistance if they want to put something live in mainspace in less than 4 days is very very far from putting up barriers. It's repeatedly asserted that only unwanted editors like spammers will be willing to wait 4 days; well what sort of editors refuse to create an article merely because they're required to get some assistance in doing so? Are these editors actually a loss to the project? I would say not. There are both quality and quantity issues about converting readers into editors, where those readers wish to begin by creating an article (most don't), and on both counts, insisting that they get some help so that they don't flat on their face 80% of the time (WP:BITE) ought to be an improvement. Finally, whether this is formally done as a trial or merely kept under review for possible cancellation, we should keep a close eye on the impact. Speculation only gets you so far. Bottom line: the status quo is really crappy [it worked very well when Wikipedia was young, but as of 2011, it's crappy], and we ought to try something different. Rd232 ^talk 23:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You make some very good points and a trial might be a workable idea. Overall though, I think that this proposal runs counter to the model that's made wikipedia a success. 10 years is still pretty young for such an ambitious project. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If we were writing a paper encyclopedia, I would agree. But 10 years on the internet is basically a generation, if not several. 10 years ago, IE6 was the top of line, there was no Firefox, Facebook was still 3 years away from being created, and Google was only about 3 years old. Mr.Z-man 01:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Grrr. Ten years ago, Netscape was top of the line and IE was more like bottom of the barrel ;) Your point is well taken, though; a decade at Wikipedia is an eternity. To Anetode: in general, I like methodical trials and careful analysis of hard data, but I'm not sure that would be workable in this case. If this proposal is enacted and then compelling evidence shows it to be having a deleterious effect on either clueful new editor retention or the creation rate of worthwhile articles, I'd be inclined to support its repeal. Rivertorch (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Tijfo098

I looked at the data, and unfortunately it's not the right data for the question at hand here. If the new editor's fist edit is kept, the data gathered tells us nothing about whether their first article is kept or not (of if he ever creates one). Also there is no data (in those tables) on articles created by old editors in the same period (kept/deleted or total). The only thing you can answer is:

• Assuming your goal is just to retain new editors and nothing else (no regard for article quality, articles created, or retention of old editors), you're better off preventing new editors from creating articles: 1.33% retention for 1st edit being article creation vs. 2.57% for regular mainspace edit. (I did not consider the non-mainspace action relevant. Do we want more users that focus elsewhere? I also did not calculate the statistical significance of this.)

However, by not allowing the new guys to create article right away, you might not have gotten at least 2,375+ kept articles (and possibly more; they may have created more than one each). Maybe they wold have created them under the new rules, maybe not. There is no way to tell that from the data gathered. We also don't know if the "non-create" editors ever created any articles after their first edit (to compare with the 2,375+), or if their edits were plain reverted, which means they might also have been a net negative. Sadly, based on data gathered, you cannot even answer the question:

• Assuming you want to retain new editors whose first article is kept, are you better off preventing new editors from creating articles?

If you assume that among those new guys only those who created an article on their first edit ever created one (big if), the answer to the above is no (i.e. the proposed measure contradicts the goal of retaining new [minimal] quality contributors), because based on the data gathered the retention rate of editors who created a new article that is kept is above average for the mainspace sample. (4.4% vs. 2.32%) But, unless you have some data on the article creation of non-create-by-first-edit editors, you can't really answer the big if part. I doubt anyone followed this, but hey, everyone has an opinion, informed or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Blackwidowhex

As a new user, I see contentious points are points of pressure on Wikipedia. It's what drives the new Wikipedia users to contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia should make it mandatory that new wikipedia users be warned that their first articles will be deleted and be advised how to create articles that are not contentious, before the new user makes an article. Blackwidowhex (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• It is not a given that an editor's first article will be deleted. There are many of us who created a first article after having made a few edits over a few days, without the article being deleted. I believe that making new editors wait a few days and make a few edits before they can create an article will increase the chances that the first article they create will survive. I also believe that the potential editors who are not willing to make a few edits and wait a few days before they can create their first article are not likely to turn into productive long-term contributors to Wikipedia. Of course, we need to do more to help new editors. There are many ways to do that. Helping new editors does not diminish the benefits of adopting this proposal, however. I would also note that the problem is not "contentious articles". Editors may be contentious; articles are not. It is unsourced (and often unsourceable) articles about non-notable subjects that are the problem. -- Donald Albury 21:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It is though a probability that a new editor's first article will be deleted, according to what figures are available. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• We try to give new users advice. The problem is, creating a new article is just really hard. If we give people all the advice they need, no one will read it because it would be too long. However, the skills needed to create a new article do not have to be taught. The point of this proposal (as I see it) is to have new users learn from experience, rather than the community continue trying (and failing) to teach by passive advising. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so this is a rewrite for my flawed view. It's a definite phenomenon that people prefer getting it done to taking the time and get it done right. I would think that most people do not need to be introduced to the idea of citations. I would think it's a standard practice with today's education. The Article Request log is also backed up. So new users perhaps are overwhelmed if few Wikipedia articles come to mind that they like to edit. Here are two possible modifications to make: Wikipedia could detect if a new user adds an article without references and then stop the article from being created. And have the create new article pages written with "may be deleted" big and bold. Blackwidowhex (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Barts1a

I personally think that this proposal is a good idea. It will allow users to learn the basics by editing existing articles rather than learning only how to get a slap on the wrist for creating a non-notable article. Good faith but incorrect edits are much easier to correct and point the user in the right direction with than good faith but non-notable articles. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and support asking new page creators to register Tim bates (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That is already required. You seem to misunderstand the proposal here. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:NatGertler

I agree with those who say that this would set an unnecessary bar. However, I think in addressing this situation, we should be looking for ways of being less discouraging through our new page deletion, and be careful of doing anything that makes proper page patroling too difficult (as a frequent deleter, I can tell you that one of the reasons I do NPP is that it's simple; when I have a minute or two I can look at a few new pages, and with Twinkle I'm a click or two away from calling for deletion of things that qualify for deletion; if I had to engage in a conversation to justify each one to its author, I wouldn't be doing much patrolling.) If possible, I would like to see most categories of deletion not actually delete but rather userfy the page by default. I'd like to have Twinkle leave a message saying "Your page has been removed from the Wikipedia listing because we require articles about organizations to say why that organization is notable, and yours doesn't. However, your article is still right here (LINK TO USERSPACE COPY), and we encourage you to improve the article and resubmit it by such-and-such a process. Here (LINK) is a guide to the sort of content that suggests notability of an organization. And if you need any help or have any questions here (LINK) is my talk page." Make it seem less like we're rejecting their work outright, and that the time they spent creating the article is down the tubes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with NatGertler's idea. It may be that new users creating a new article not yet up to scratch would appreciate the kindness of a twinkle-generated anonymous loss, while still having the ability to continue work on their contribution until it's at an acceptable point for inclusion. There should be, in that case, an algorithm that counts their twinkle rejects so they get no more than 2 or 3 before an actual person reaches out to them with some helpful words. Sctechlaw (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Good Idea Jane (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:dankarl

Oppose. There are users who would rather jump in and create a new article and they may be the better informed users with writing and research experience in other venues; although they would be well advised to start offline or in user space, this concern is more a matter of mechanics than of content. If you have researched your topic and know the basic rules of notability you should be able to produce a decent start that will stand scrutiny.

Putting in something that amounts to advance peer review is contrary to WP:Bold and imo would encourage blandness.

That said, there will be new users who do not know the rules. I really like User:NatGertler's suggestion in the post above. I also think patrollers should back off a little bit and wait til a new page has not been edited for an hour or so before doing anything, to avoid both the impression of a slapdown and possible edit conflicts. Dankarl (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)