Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main page   Rescue list   Content menus   Article Rescue guide   Newsletter   Members   Awards   Talk page  


Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron.
If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.
Article Rescue Squadron
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can and help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others as based upon notable topics.
 
News

Request for Feedback on grant proposal for notability detection[edit]

Hi, I've posted a grant proposal for an IEG for using machine learning to determine the notability of articles. I thought it might be of interest to you because one of the problems we're trying to solve with this is that patrollers and reviewers often delete or reject articles or AfC drafts whose topics are notable, but the articles themselves don't meet some standard that they've created. We want to be able to determine notability of the topic independent of the quality of the article, and hopefully convince those vetting the articles to take a second look rather than just deleting. We also can potentially create a tool that you can use to find notable articles in danger of being deleted that can use some fixing up. I'm sure you'll have plenty of ideas about what things to look at that are good signals of notability, and also important caveats to keep in mind. Please come on over to IEG proposal and let us know what you think! Thanks, Bluma.Gelley (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down[edit]

Active editors continue to drop on wikipedia Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Criticism
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.

The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[1]

I want to create a request for comment with some long term members of the Article Rescue Squadron.

This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.

Please e-mail me if you are interested. Walterruss (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


  • This is stupid drama-mongering. Some of us may still be in high school, but Wikipedia is not high school.--Milowenthasspoken 12:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Note:[edit]

Update: the RFC on Jimbo's page has been closed.

(sic) "This Rfc has been closed due to the general consensus that if the users had the authority to make such a decision (and we do not), then we would decide that Jimbo Wales should keep his job as long as he is possibly able and willing. This discussion was also closed due to the fact that the Rfc proposer claimed to have registered as a new user for the first time only three hours prior to making this rather silly suggestion here. Scott P. (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)"

IE: You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. And you don't mess around with Jim. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I support such an RfC, and I disagree with Michael's comic strip view of what Wikipedia is. DuncanHill (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:SPA account User:Walterruss's emailing editors (as he did me) and posting the same RFC at different locations is forum shopping that could be seen as disruptive and possibly deserving of a block (not that it would prevent the return of anyone so determined).
Just as was done elsewhere, this should be closed here as well. We edit at Jimbo's sufferance. He does not do so at ours. Mr. Wales voluntarily resigning is unlikely to happen and he will not be forced to leave by two or three or even four disgruntled voices out of the 22 million+ user accounts. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppoose now I looked at a dictionary what the phrasal verb "step down" means... see my comments about Wikipedia without Jimbo (Idot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

Comment[edit]

Sorry, but I didn't clearly understand: What exactly Walterruss wants from Jimbo? and how it could help the situation? (Idot (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

note now I looked at a dictionary what the phrasal verb "step down" means... (Idot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down... Walterruss

there is no Jimbo in Russian Wikipedia, however Deletists in Russian Wikipedia MUCH STRONGER than in English Wikipedia, so your's suggestion will make situation much worsen (Idot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion[edit]

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

Cirt (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

hi cirt! nice job!
There's a lot of IMHO improper blanking going on in this article: List of British mobsters - would appreciate a second opinion. Artw (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletions_and_editor_retention[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention

If deleted see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewhitebox#RFC

Thewhitebox (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Full text:

Active editors continue to drop on wikipedia Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Criticism

Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Wikipedia has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration.

  1. I remember when established editors posed as new editors, and almost everyone of their new pages were deleted. The larger community was infuriated, not by how new editors were shown to be treated, but that established editors would pose as new editors. I know there is a 80% chance that my article will be deleted within one hour of it being created. If I have no references, it is within 5 minutes.
  2. I remember how Jimmy Wales blessed the wide spread deletion of hundreds of bibliography articles with no notice, writing on the editors talk page what a wonderful job he did.
  3. I remember the secret offline collusion in the case - twenty or so editors were working together to disrupt wikipeda and get tens of thousands of articles deleted. Any other time the editors would be banned, but instead any editors who mentioned the case were warned.
  4. I remember the dozens of articles from mainstream media that complained how an incredibly notable article was deleted often within 5 minutes.
  5. I remember the episode wars over television shows. In which editors wanted to delete thousands of pages on all television series.
  6. I remember how I quit uploading non-copyrighted images from the 1890s because they were always deleted in mass, even when I put the right tags on them.
  7. I have been appalled at many of the really mean editors who have become administrators and the arbcoms. The arbcoms get Jimmy's blessing.
  8. I have been disgusted at how established editors treat other new editors, describing their new article monitoring as "garbage men" stopping "garbage"
  9. I am shocked that every time I see an old editors page from 2006 or before, who really fought for treating editors nicely, he has been banned or left in disgust. Every time.
  10. There is a new trend the last couple of years. I am appalled at extremely ignorant editors deleting whole sections of articles citing copyright violations. They have absolutely no understanding of copyright. Fair use is ignored and deletion is emphasized.

Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors.

Sadly I see only one solution

I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind.

If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it.

Thoughts?

Studies that show why Wikipedia editing is stagnating
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.

The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[2]

The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline
University of Minnesota research finds the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism against contributions made by newcomers and the algorithmic tools commonly used to reject contributions as key causes of the decrease in newcomer retention. The community’s formal mechanisms to create uniform entries are also shown to have fortified its entries against changes—especially when those changes are proposed by newer editors. As a result, Wikipedia is having greater difficulty in retaining new volunteer editors.

"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit"[3]

Wikia6969 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Saving drafts[edit]

Dear Article Rescue folks: I'm sure that you are all aware of the new Draft space, and the db-g13 deletion category which affects drafts which aren't being improved and so are considered "abandoned". The new space has helped with one problem, because at least these drafts aren't deleted within minutes, but many notable topics aren't making it through the process and into mainspace because there is a shortage of experienced editors willing to make the necessary improvements (such as de-fluffing and adding references) so that when moved the new articles will be safe from AfD. Here is a LIST of abandoned drafts that were either declined at AfC or their editors lost interest before submitting. I have selected these from the db-g13 eligible queue as ones which likely can be made into articles. About 550 other titles are no longer on this list because they have "graduated" and are now in the encyclopedia (THESE ONES, and you can see that they are all bluelinks). New drafts are being added to the list as they become eligible for deletion. I would appreciate any help your members here may wish to give in improving these drafts so that they can be made into articles. As far as I know, there are only three editors working regularly on this (and the other two have their own separate lists), so you can see that help is badly needed. Thanks in advance for any you improve or "rescue". —Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The Core Contest[edit]

The The Core Contest is a thirty-day contest focusing on improving Wikipedia's most important and most viewed articles. Prizes in the form of electronic store vouchers will be awarded.

The next (6th) running will be from 0.01 hrs UTC March 1 to 23.59 hrs UTC March 31 2015... so start your engines....
NORTH AMERICA1000 03:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Awards and notability[edit]

RFC here: [4]

Concerns if the notability guidelines should be used to determine if a film award can be included in an article. For example if Ben Affleck won an award that doesn't have a Wikipedia article, that award would not be mentioned in his biography. More details and arguments in the RFC. Editors have said they hope to apply this to all awards eventually not just film awards so comics, books, etc.. would not be able to mention they won certain awards based on notability. This also has potential consequences for AfD since awards are often used to build a case for notability. -- GreenC 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)