Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

August newsletter

Kudpung, I just updated the draft with the latest info. I also removed some things that I don't think we are ready to talk about. The bug/enhancement list isn't ready for prioritizing yet. Please take another look before we publish. Also, if we are asking for signatures on the WMF letter, we have to all agree on the final version. I made the last changes, on top of some from NL - have you seen it recently? MB 04:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO its now much too long. For best impact it should not be longer than this. I've removed the info about my article in The Signpost because what with the open letter and the BoT election coming up, it would probably be overkill. Perhaps the month after when we know more about how the new top people at the WMF are settling in to their new $400K jobs. If many of the 600 hat collectors will ever come back to reviewing - or even start reviewing - I'll run for adminship again. It won't pass but with the huge shortage of RfA entertainment this year, it would be good for a laugh. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
It is only 344 words (excluding the small text in the footer). Your draft was 366 words of plain text. [That is with the info on The Signpost article removed from both - you didn't actually remove it]. The graph in my version is larger which makes the newsletter physically longer. I think it is the length of the body that really matters in deciding whether people will read it not. The small text in the footer invites people to skip that if they are not interested in those routine things.
The caption on the backlog chart for the next newsletter is currently "New Page Review queue June 2022", was this left over from the last newsletter? I considered changing it to "August 2022" but I was unsure if that's what you meant to use. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that was an oversight. Thanks for reviewing this, and congratulations on your RFA. Kudpung, If you are still around, I think we are ready to send it out. MB 14:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
MB I would remove this entire section, I think we should at least try to thing positive and not all doom and gloom:
The bad news is that most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,500. Understandably, it seems many people are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
and not fill the gap with more text and info. As I said, you're wasting your breath - there is absolutely no chance of expecting the other 600 hat collectors to come back and do something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Kudpung, We can't give an accurate report on the backlog without mentioning that it is increasing (significantly, up 1000 in two weeks). I took out the words "bad news" to make it sound less "doom and gloom". I know most of the other 600 reviewers will not act on this, but I do believe a few may. There were comments in the Barnstar discussion for a new 1/day - 360/year award to encourage "moderate level" reviewing that talked about the elitism of only noticing the effort of mega-reviewers (thousands per year). We need to keep appealing for more of the mostly inactive reviewers to do more - an this newsletter may be the only way to reach them. I also think that talking about the "other 600" this way strengthens the case for pruning the list of the truly/permanently inactive - the impression that there are 700 reviewers makes it easier for people to leave the reviewing to others since there are so many (when there really aren't). MB 13:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
MB, '- the impression that there are 700 reviewers makes it easier for people to leave the reviewing to others since there are so many (when there really aren't)'. - this is precisely what I have been saying many times for a couple of years. It also makes it easier for the WMF to find excuses for not addressing the needs of the software. You are the coordinator for the newsletter and any other tasks you would like to take on, I have no suggestions to make for it, and I apologise if perhaps you feel I have been treading on your toes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Kudpung no, I don't feel like you are treading on my toes. I think we agree on most things - with a little difference on what to say in the newsletter. I put in a request for the newsletter to be sent, you can cancel that and do it yourself if you want. We shouldn't change the WMF letter after people start signing it, so last chance to review that... MB 20:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
MB, I really want to retire from shepherding NPP, but we have seen what happened when I did step back from it a couple of years ago. I have just been wanting to lend a hand to the new coords because they are almost certainly still not aware of the huge task they have before them. Studies in communication have demonstrated that 'less is more'. I therefore believe that the letter to the WMF could be considerably shorter. However, while I agree it's an excellent stept to take and laud its conception, I am not its author and I'll leave any changes up to the people who originally drafted it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech update

Howdy folks. Here's a quick update of patches that were approved recently:

  1. phab:T227250 - Change redirect automatic "mark as reviewed" date from 1 month to 6 months (deployed)
  2. phab:T238025 - Attempt #2 to fix the "missing AFD" bug (will deploy next Thursday)
  3. phab:T41547 - "Articles by autopatrolled users" filter for Special:NewPagesFeed, including a different colored check mark for autopatrolled pages (will deploy next Thursday)

Our efforts to get WMF staff to help with PageTriage were not successful, so I have fallen into the role of software engineer, and I also found a volunteer to review and approve patches. So I've got that part of the workflow down and am in a good groove. I've also got Phab pretty well organized, adding new tickets, updating old ones, and resurrecting the kanban board. I am also fine with monitoring WP:PCSI and WT:NPPR for software bug reports and feature requests, and creating Phab tickets for the promising ones.

So far I'm just working on whatever I want. If you guys want me to prioritize something specific, let me know. I know a couple of you had an idea of presenting a "menu" of options to NPPers and having them rank the items. I don't plan on handling this directly, my plate is pretty full, someone else feel free to head that up. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Deploy for #2 and #3 has been delayed a week, until Thu 8/18 –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Folks who want to help

EpicPupper has asked us how he can help more with NPP. And our newsletter tells folks who are willing to help with coordination to contact us. Any thoughts on how best to utilize these talented and motivated individuals? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There is the list Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Coordinator_tasks. We are in better shape than before. Here are some ideas:
  1. One thing I would really like help with is "clerking" the SI list. I know you want to focus on the more technical aspects of it. If someone could keep the table up-to-date, add other ones that are now phab-only (as we have discussed), and coordinate the prioritization.
  2. Recruitment. That doesn't seem to be on the list, but I believe ICPH used to proactively search for potential candidates. We always need to be on the hunt for more reviewers.
  3. Monitor the mailing list, probably not super-important but it should be kept up to date (see the note about the automated script not always being used).
MB 05:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Monitoring the mailing list is good. I do it regularly. Interesting to note how many users take their names off it every time a newsletter goes out. That's about the level of interest the rights holders have in the process they begged to be part of. Receiving the occasional mass message doesn't hurt anyone or their talk page, IMO removing oneself but not giving up the tools has a more ominous message. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
If you do that regularly, then you should be listed as the mailing list monitor at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#New_Page_Review_Coordinators so everyone else knows it's getting done. MB 21:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I know @Buidhe was doing #2 for awhile. How is that going Buidhe? Are you still working on that task? Would you like help with that task from EpicPupper and others? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Not working on it currently. But I could resume sending mailings to 20 editors at a time on the Insertcleverphrasehere list. (t · c) buidhe 07:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Just now I added Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Potential tasks for new coordinators to centralize our list of tasks that new coordinators could possibly jump in and take ownership of. EpicPupper, feel free to select a task if interested. Others, feel free to add tasks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Novem Linguae! Thanks for adding that. I'd be happy to clerk PCSI and potentially also help with NPP school. I'm adding myself as a coordinator now, if that's fine. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Discord

Insertcleverphrasehere was kind enough to make me a Discord admin yesterday for the NPP Discord server. Thank you very much. I went ahead and installed wikiauthbot so that folks could authenticate. And I worked with ICPH to fix a bug that didn't allow admins/coordinators to assign "Verified Patroller" to anyone. Then I passed out Verified Patroller to a bunch of folks.

I hope everyone is happy with the changes. If you have ideas for additional changes, please feel free to mention them here. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Page tabs

I've always thought the page tabs were a little confusing.

This section is an excerpt from User:MB/NPP sandbox § Current.[edit]


Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15456 articles, as of 22:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

This section is an excerpt from User:MB/NPP sandbox § Proposed.[edit]


Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15456 articles, as of 22:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

Curation tool
(bugs/improvements)
This section is an excerpt from User:MB/NPP sandbox § Instruction sub page.[edit]
Tutorial
(self-taught)
Curation tool
(user guide)
School
(instructed)

I've clarified and reordered:

The tab called "Reviewers" is the most basic info about the NPP right, so I've put that first and named it "Introduction" Then come the other three "Educational" tabs. This puts all the new reviewer info together. I also added some labels - "Curation tool" is not a link to the tool, the way "Page feed" is a link, so that is explained. There are the notes under "Tutorial" and "School" to be a little more user friendly and save a few clicks. The other tabs for experienced reviewers are on the right. I removed "R&D"; that can just be linked within either "Resources" or "Coordination".

Do you think this is an improvement?

I would also like to rename "Suggestions" to something less vague - that page is about bugs and suggested software enhancements (processes are discussed on the discussion page). But I haven't thought of anything better. MB 02:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Less tabs is better. It would fit on more folks' screens, on one line. Maybe the Curation Tool user guide can be moved to the Tutorials page? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah now that I think about it, "suggestions" doesn't really match what that page is. "Software issues", "Bug reports", or similar would be better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've renamed "Suggestions" to "Curation tool (bugs/improvements). I made an new "Instruction" tab which will go to a new sub-page with all the instructional pages (including new ones TBD). I also added "Awards" and "Newsletters" as main tabs - my rational is that these interest everyone. They had been within "Coordination", which is now mainly for coordinators. (Note, this is just a mock-up, the links do not all work correctly. It's still at 8 tabs, only one less than present. MB 22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should give Tutorial (WP:NPP) more weight, i.e. it should be a main tab. That is the non-talk page I most go to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
That defeats the grouping of the instructional pages. What about this, with a direct link to those pages on the second line of the main tab? MB 18:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@MB, MPGuy2824, and Novem Linguae: One-size-fits-all might not be the best solution. I can't remember what it looked like when I created most of the pages back in 2016, but it was a lot less confusing. There are sub sets of pages which might benefit from having their own nav bar. Too many tabs will end with too many cooks, and that would defeat the purpose of having coords; not all 750 patrollers need rapid access to every part of the project - that would only invite unnecessary busywork like the creation of the current nav bar in the first place. For example, not everything under coordination needs to appear on the top of NPP, NPR, etc. E.g. No one but the coords needs to know about the awards or the newsletter editing room - and it was a good idea to split that off already.

'Curation' is already covered as a sister page of 'Tuorial'. 'Curation tool (bugs/improvements)' is wrong because PageTriage comprises two elements: the feed and the curation tool; For want of a better name, I would be inclined to call it simply 'Software' or something similar. 'Discussion' could be shortened to 'Talk', and perhaps shorter words found for some of the others. 'Introduction' is the policy page, a better name of less than 4 syllables would probably be more apt. A smaller font might also help, and is 'bold' necessary? Perhaps looking at the page hits for all these pages, talk, and sub pages might provide some clues as to their importance. I've often thought of having a FAQ page for answers to quick-fire questions for help, and while I was coord I might have done it, but it would take time to build. Anyway, these are all only suggestions, it's your call. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the current tabs so bad? Perhaps we should just
  • keep the current tabs
  • remove R&D which is unused
  • rename Suggestions to Bug Reports (this page is also Feature Requests, but I don't mind the loss of precision in exchange for conciseness)
Awards and Newsletters are related to coordination, so may not need their own tabs that everyone sees. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Page views. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #2

While immersing myself in this, I had a couple more ideas come to me. This is getting complex enough that I decided to do my own mockup. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. I don't agree that "Awards" is for coordinators. Awards are to motivate reviewers - it should be easy to everyone to access them to see what they will get if they put in the effort. WP:Milhist has their awards at the top level and I think we should do the same. It also shows the past recipients, if we are giving an "honor" we shouldn't hide the record of it under coordination - it should be prominent.
  2. I moved "Newsletters" to a tab so people could find the Newsletter archive (the drafting subsection is only for coordinators). But if we are short of space, I agree that is not so important.
  3. The "Reviewers" tab is general info explaining what NPP is. Shouldn't that be "Overview" or "Introduction" and be first?
  4. The backlog template is right above the tabs and has a link to the page feed. What if we added a sorted feed link there, and then eliminated both from the tabs. The two tabs I use the most are Feed and Sorted Feed and if they were both there I would have a single click to either from my User Page - I like that. Others have said they go to the feed from where ever they have put the backlog template. MB 02:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps we can implement the pieces we both agree on, and then pitch the rest to WT:NPPR to get more input. I'd be OK with adding awards (#1). I'm not ready to support #2, #3, and #4 yet. What are your thoughts on the below? Any bullets that you agree with, let's implement.
    5. Reduce the padding so that the tabs appear narrower/thinner like in my above mockup
    6. Split Page feed and Sorted feed into two tabs (will help with narrower/thinner too since everything will be one line)
    7. Remove R&D
    8. Rename "Suggestions" to "Bug reports" –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with 5 & 7 definitely, and 6 is good (if we keep them as tabs and don't implement #4). I sort-of agree with #8, maybe "Software Issues" although that is a little long. There is no rush on this, why don't we keep refining this here longer. Maybe some other watchers will comment too. If we go to WT:NPPR now, we may get too many opinions and no clear direction. Are you really opposed to the second line with further annotation? I thought that really made the tabs much less confusing. "Page feed" is a link but "Curation tool" is a help page - it's not intuitive why they behave differently. This should be easy for those occasional reviewers that don't come here frequently. MB 04:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for your feedback. The second line has line-height that is too big (big gap between "Page feed" and "Sorted feed") and it is not easily fixable. Someone would probably need to nest some divs to fix that. Maybe I'll do it if I get time. But that is one of my motivations for suggesting we get rid of the second line. Also in theory it should be possible to pick clear names using only one line. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Discord admins

On Discord, I notice there is a group "Coordinator or Admin" that has access to do pretty much everything: timeout, ban, create/delete channels, etc. Because of the name of the group, it implies we should give it to any Wikipedia admin that joins the server. Because we're a small server, perhaps we should rename this to "Moderator" and give this out on more of a case-by-case basis. All current "Coordinator or Admin" would be grandfathered in. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like a good idea. If for anything it would keep things consistent. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to move WP:NPPR to WP:NPP, and WP:NPP to WP:NPP/Tutorial

Novem Linguae, this one was part of my tab revamp proposal. Can we clean up this confusion. Just with moves and redirects, the policy page can be at WP:NPP and the tutorial can be at WP:NPP/tutorial MB 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm disinclined at the moment, but could possibly be convinced. Some concerns are the following: 1) our project's main talk page would also move, which could be mildly disruptive and unexpected, 2) people are used to our current shortcuts, such as WP:NPP and WP:NPPR and WT:NPPR, and 3) especially since we are usurping the WP:NPP shortcut and replacing it with the contents at WP:NPPR, we could break a LOT of existing shortcuts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The tutorial is detailed information primarily for someone learning the job. It shouldn't be the first place you go. A lot of the current links to WP:NPP would better if they went to the "policy pages for the user group" - so I don't really see that it would be so bad to "break" existing shortcuts. From what I can tell, the majority of them do not need to go to the tutorial. For example, Talk:Hong Wan has a link that is meant to be a general explanation of NPP and it goes to the 35-minute tutorial. That's not horrible, but I don't think would be wrong to point that to the reviewer page either. In {{Wikipedia accounts}}, there is another general link to explain the perm, and it goes to the reviewers page (as it should). I see this as already very inconsistent. You saw the confusion above. I think it would be more logical to move the tutorial and only send people there that are actually learning the whole process.
And since all these pages have the tabs and the other pages are a click away, I think any disruption would be minimal and short term. MB 02:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The current configuration has been around since 2016 and no one has complained. You'd probably be surprised at the number of hits NPP gets.To change everything now would simply be 'busy-work' and would probably cause more confusion and the creation of lots of redirects, dab pages, and updating of shortcuts. (100s of links will go green). My opinion is: It ain't broke, don't fix it.' I think we have enough work before us rather than cosmetic changes and looking for things to refactor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Just fooling around, and thought this was hilarious, but at the same time, kinda scary. ^_^ Atsme 💬 📧 25 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC Feedback

Hello!

I've put together an RfC to add suppressredirect to the NPP user right. Could I please have some feedback before I copy it to VPP? It's located in my sandbox.

Ping @Novem Linguae, @MB, and @Kudpung at the recommendation of Novem L. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 16:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not completely accurate to say some scripts handle this, because the scripts can only suppress the redirect if the user is Admin or Page Mover. Also, the RFC says "add suppressredirect" to the "NPP toolkit", but it should say "bundle suppressredirect with NPP" or something like that, which is what you said above. MB 18:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mattew, (and FYI NL), WP:NPP is a tutorial. When I created the user group I had to change some page names around to avoid confusion with other kinds of patrollers and/or reviewers. The correct designation and policy page for the user group is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers and the official user right name is New Page Reviewer. The entire system is still broadly referred to as 'NPP' because that is what the process was called berfore it was decided to make it available for accredited users only. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
What all is included in the NPP bundle or toolkit? Atsme 💬 📧 00:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme. Just patrol at the moment. Special:ListGroupRights#patroller –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you for the background! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 15:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey Matthewrb. Thanks for drafting that. I made some edits to the proposal in your sandbox. Please let me know if you're happy with the edits.
Also, what do we all think of the strategy of sending another draftification-ish proposal (this suppressredirect proposal, which is basically a request to make draftifying more efficient) to the village pump? I kind of feel like that could generate some drama and use up some political capital, since folks don't seem to like draftifying very much. Is this efficiency worth the trouble? On the plus side, we have a person to spearhead it, which is great. I'm a weak support at this point, but would love to hear additional opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I said a lot already in the other discussion. If we do try, I really think it should be a limited proposal - extending to 120/150/180, and probably only for NPP - would have the best chance of passing. I would say weak support for that and against outright repeal. I think we need to brainstorm further about what to do with the difficult articles at the back end. MB 02:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
sending another draftification-ish proposal. Sorry if I was unclear. By this I mean this suppressredirect proposal. The essence of it is "we want to make draftifying more efficient", which may not sit well with some anti-draftify editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I don't see that problem. This is focused on minor housekeeping. It shouldn't lead to more dratifying. Many NPPs who move a lot of articles to Draft already have Page Mover primarily for this reason, which is a precedent. But my first thought though is that there isn't a big need for this: 1) This increases the workload of admins who patrol the CSD R2 queue - I don't believe that is frequently backlogged, no admins have asked for this, what is the problem; 2) increases the workload of NPPs who draftify without the aid of a user script - solveable by just using a script, it saves so much time overall why would anyone do this manually; 3) increases the number of unpatrolled redirects entering the NPP queue at Special:NewPagesFeed - not a problem either, unless someone is patrolling new redirects, these are deleted before they are seen in the queue (at least by the main redirect reviewers who work from the oldest first). MB 03:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Copy edits look good, thank you! As for the concerns over sending another proposal, I will leave that to consensus here. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 15:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
NL is a weak support, I guess I am more or less neutral. I suggest starting a discussion at the NPP TP. There is probably no point in starting a formal RFC at the VP if there isn't a reasonable amount of NPP support. MB 04:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't yet know which way I would vote, but I think it's certainly it's worth a first try for opinion at WT:NPR. Of course it might also attract a few hat collectors for the additional string to their bow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I will bring it up at WT:NPR then, as a wider consensus would be useful. As for the hat collection, we do have WP:PMR. From the discussions I saw, suppressredirect was not a concern when creating that right. I suspect the same thing will happen here. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 17:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Need some input

I just commented above: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#break 2 and would appreciate some input, especially on the bot issue and prelim evaluation process before granting advanced user rights. Atsme 💬 📧 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP school coordination

Hi @EpicPupper. Thanks for stepping up as a possible NPP school coordinator. By the way, are you an NPP school graduate? If not, please familiarize yourself with the process as much as you can by reading pages such as Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School, and examples of what I call the short curriculum and the long curriculum. Currently I believe Atsme uses the short curriculum, and Cassiopeia, Barkeep49, Rosguill, and Onel5969 use the long curriculum. I envision the NPP school coordinator starting some discussions on the curriculum and strategy of the school, and helping to recruit new trainers.

NPP is complicated enough that unless someone has participated in dozens (hundreds?) of AFDs and used that massive data to reverse engineer notability, then they could probably benefit from going to NPP school. So NPP school is very important for creating quality reviewers. I think that users with less than 10,000-ish edits that are interested in the NPP perm are great candidates for the school, and that if we have enough training bandwidth, that we should be suggesting it to folks as often as possible. I am an NPP school graduate and I found it very helpful. I am very glad I did it.

Here are some discussions we may want to start:

  • There are some other things at the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School page such as New Reviewer Mentorship and the Peer Review Cohort. I believe they are inactive. Should we revive them? Should we archive them? Should we leave as is?
  • The short curriculum takes about a week2–4 weeks, and the long curriculum takes about 3 months. Should we look into standardizing the length, for fairness reasons? For example maybe it should be 1.5 months, using the long curriculum, but without the final exam.
  • What is our graduation rate? Peeking at some of the long curriculum NPP pages, I get the impression that the graduation rate is under 50%. The short curriculum graduation rate may be higher. Perhaps this data could be collected and discussed.
  • What can we do to make cheating and plagiarism harder? Onel5969 and I decided to delete my NPP school page, for example, because we caught someone paraphrasing my answers.
  • What can we do to make sure exercises of the type "perform 5 of CSD type X" don't put too much pressure on the candidate to do bad CSDs? These were referred to as deletion "quotas" in one RFA and generated some pushback against the school.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Based on the success of my graduates, I would oppose changing what I've been doing as a teacher for NPPSCHOOL. I'm also of the mind that experienced reviewers already know what needs to be taught, but not everyone was born to teach; therefore, a curriculum may be necessary for them to follow, but let's not try to fix what isn't broke. The course I've been teaching is far more involved than what meets the eye, and can last anywhere from just under 2 weeks to over a month, depending on the skill level of each student, and of course time constraints. I question it being categorized as a "short curriculum" – perhaps "customized curriculum" defines it better – but whatever works for you is fine by me as long as everyone understands that my course is not necessarily a short and easy one, and that duration is highly dependent on the student's skill level as an editor. The first exercise in my course is for the student to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, then the NPP Tutorial, and to become familiar with the flowcharts as it may come into play during my Q&A session. There is no time frame for any of the exercises because I may choose to add more or modify an exercise depending on the student. I evaluate a student's strengths and weaknesses on the fly so that I can focus energy where it is needed most. I also work on developing a student's critical thinking skills if I see it is lacking. For example, in the live reviews, we may do a step-by-step walk thru in evaluating their choices in the decision-making process. I modeled some aspects of my teaching method after one of the Harvard courses I took in the past because that particular profs approach was popular and worked quite well for me. HTH – happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 22:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: @EpicPupper is one of my CVUA (counter vandalism unit academy which is a more easier program than NPPS) students and the have finished 2 assignments and abandon the program on assignment 3. I would suggest EpiPupper to take the NPPS program and complete it to better understand on reviewing a new page and its guidelines and to be a NPPS coordinator.
  • Comment @Atsme Good day. I am the one who set up the NPPS curriculum which is the long curriculum for the topic covered, reading material and assignment were carefully selected so the graduated reviewer/editor would have the full understand of what required knowledge/guidelines, and how to review a new page. The short version you conduct might have more graduate but in my humble opinion, it is not about more editors could be graduate but the info, knowledge and the ability of the reviewers need to have to be a reviewers and we should use only one version (long) to get conduct the same NPPS program (trust me, that is more work for not for the participants but also for the trainers but it is a better version (the original one comprehensive program). Cassiopeia talk 00:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    While I appreciate all that you've done for NPP, Cassiopeia, I disagree with your position on teaching. Unless you are finding gross incompetence in my graduates as a result of the course I'm offering, and are seeing much higher proficiency in graduates of your proposed course, then I don't see any reason to fix what isn't broke. Overall, I'm actually quite pleased with my graduates and the work they're doing. Atsme 💬 📧 13:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @Cassiopeia, sorry for my inactivity in the program. I’ll try to complete it. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @EpicPupper if you want to be the coordinator of NPPS, then I would suggest you to take the NPPS program and you can choose any trainers besides me for you would know more about NPPS to better equip yourself as a coordinator. You can always come back to CVUA program whenever you want to for I am always here. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 00:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments above. Hopefully these "food for thought" questions were helpful and didn't step on anyone's toes. By the way, I've marked the New Reviewer Mentorship part of NPP school as inactive. If I am incorrect and this program is still active, feel free to let me know or change it to active. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Novem Linguae, I volunteer to be the coordinator. Atsme 💬 📧 10:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Atsme. Awesome, let's make it official. Congrats. The discussion here doesn't seem to have gotten a consensus to change anything, so let's keep doing what's working, and maybe the NPP school coordinator role can focus on recruiting additional trainers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Cool! B) The School sub-page needs its own School Talk page, please? It is currently going to Reviewer Talk. I don't want to mess anything up by trying to add it myself. I agree about not needing any changes (except for the extra TP). As a sidebar note: it just dawned on me that the belief my course is much shorter may result from the following being overlooked: ...your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. The time spent for that portion of my course is not documented as it occurs prior to the written portion and review exercises. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 14:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hey Atsme. I created Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/School for you. Enjoy :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Stats

Cryptic is doing a truly magnificent job at Wikipedia:Request_a_query#For_NPP. I will be consolidating a lot of this into my article for the The Signpost at the end of next month. It's interesting to note that there is a slight, but distinct downward trend in submissions of new articles along with the concomitant deletions. Not that this will have a positive impact on the work of NPP though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If you repost the graph, I advise chopping off the first and last months - the first only has data for the last two days, and the last is this month so is artificially about a sixth lower than it should be. —Cryptic 13:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
There's probably more to that recent downward trend than meets the eye and if we were to put our minds to it, we could come up with a number of hypotheses for it and the least of them due to the regular volunteer editors. IMO the real reasons are the ones the WMF is wont to conveniently ignore. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting data, thanks Cryptic. I was also struck by the decline in article creations. The average number of creations per month has dropped by about 3000 in the last year... I wonder what could be behind that? Did anything happen to the creation interface in June/July 2021? – Joe (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
If I had to guess - and I completely lack any real evidence for this - I'd say a big part was folks who'd become active during covid trickling away.
The longer-term decline in the data is at least partially, and perhaps entirely, offset by articles created outside of mainspace and moved there (either through AFC or by the draft creator). The data is solely for pages created directly in mainspace. —Cryptic 03:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost

The mention of the WMF letter action has been very kindly added to News & Notes. The GUIs for tools we use that are part of the feed and the curation flyout are pretty much ok while needing a couple of tweaks, but it's the codebase that's obsolete and not compatible with later iterations of MediaWiki. While the whole PageTriage suite was a WMF development, it's the excuses of lack of 'resources' (read: money/staff) why they are refusing to do the ugrades to more important functions and features, and why they insist we do it ourselves - which is ridiculous considering we are encyclopedia content authors and maintainers and have not signed on to be MediaWiki software engineers and do the WMF's work for free even if some of us can. After all, according to some sources, the engineers are getting some pretty handsome US salaries that would make even a European professor in a Thai university envious. I'm not sure that 'obsolete' is quite the word we are looking for. Perhaps Jayen466 could change his entry slightly, or even expand on it a little. I'm a former E-in-C but no longer consider myself to be part of the editorial staff so I wouldn't tread on his toes by doing it myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

the codebase that's obsolete and not compatible with later iterations of MediaWiki. Sorry to push back on this, but got any evidence of this? WMF wikis run the latest iteration of MediaWiki, and PageTriage is compatible with it. PageTriage has technical debt (isn't written in a 2022-era, highly maintainable style, which can make big changes to the code take longer and take more mental effort than normal), but in my opinion it is 100% compatible. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not a software engineer, I woudn't have the slightest clue how to recognose one programming language from another let alone the compatibility of various iterations. There are however plenty of statements from various individuals at the WMF that the code used for PageTriage is not compatible with today's version of MediaWiki, and that, along with their claims of insufficient 'resources', are the two major excuses they they have been using for several years. It's their main claim for no longer being able to make PageTriage Wiki agnostic. Which was in their original plan and why they therefore worked on its development in the frst place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination/Archive_3&oldid=1122729540"