Naive ideas to improve en-wp

[Dan of La Mancha]

[*]Pending Changes on all BLPs

Applying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.

Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.

[Giraffe Stapler]

[*]Pending Changes on all BLPs

Applying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.

Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.

Why not both?

[Zoll]

[*]Pending Changes on all BLPs

Applying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.

Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.

ECP for politicians.

[Mojito]

[*]Pending Changes on all BLPs

Applying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.

Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.

Ahh yes, on its own the Pending Changes would quickly become overwhelmed. I think that semi-protection could help.

Another issue IMHO is the silly COI situation. On one hand, advertising agencies are able to write articles for their clients, as long as they make a token disclosure. On the other hand, people get run out of town for trying to correct factual errors in the article about them.

[Mojito]

As I said I think WMF can end the cruelty regime, if not already on its last legs. Which starts with a community accepted Terms of Service and Standard of Conduct as well as a Code of Ethics that should be compulsory when you click signup. Users should be given a grace period to opt-in or be labelled as wild cowboys with a special user icon.

The site's Terms of Use includes "Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users". So I think that the problem is actually with the enforcing of this.

[Ryuichi]

[*]Pending Changes on all BLPs

Applying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.

Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.

ECP for politicians.

With BLPs, it's often editors who meet ECP that are the problem.

[Mojito]

There is the Mentorship feature of Wikipedia:Growth Team features (T-H-L), which essentially puts a newcomer in touch with an experienced user who can answer their questions on editing Wikipedia.

This sounds like a good idea, but in practice it largely falls flat. The "experienced volunteers" often turn out to "vandal fighters" and "new page patrollers" instead of people who actually write new articles or copyedit, Like 64andtim (T-C-L) who has managed to rack up over 12,00 edits since creating their account in May. It's another hat for the hat collectors.

hmm, let's look at the requirements...

You need have at least 500 edits and have had an account for 90 days to sign up as a mentor. It is also expected that a significant proportion of your 500 minimum edits will have been made in mainspace.

that's a damn low bar

So someone I know created an account a few weeks ago and has been doing gnomish stuff to learn how things work. The only human interaction in that time has been having a few edits reverted, by gatekeeper editors for questionable reasons.

If that's anything like a typical new user experience, it's not a good way to retain new editors.

[Ron Lybonly]

Idea:
If Wikipedia won’t term limit democratically recall admins, consider 6 month sabbaticals combined with a 6 month ban from noticeboards. I think some might come back a bit mellower.

This would be for all admins after 5 years.

Maybe it could be shorter than 6 months - whatever might break some habits

[Ron Lybonly]

Develop a comprehensive exam for admins to take periodically. They’d take them privately as many times as it takes to get a passing score.

The point would be continuing education,not be to weed people out.

[Mojito]

Develop a comprehensive exam for admins to take periodically. They’d take them privately as many times as it takes to get a passing score.

The point would be continuing education,not be to weed people out.

I think this would be a good idea. It shows good faith towards admins, while improving their knowledge about current rules.

Perhaps it also helps illustrate why unbundling the admin tools would be helpful.

[Vigilant]

Develop a comprehensive exam for admins to take periodically. They’d take them privately as many times as it takes to get a passing score.

The point would be continuing education,not be to weed people out.

The WMF could develop this but it would take 14 years and would corrupt the file system of he computer that runs it.

[Mojito]

Idea:
If Wikipedia won’t term limit democratically recall admins, consider 6 month sabbaticals combined with a 6 month ban from noticeboards. I think some might come back a bit mellower.

This would be for all admins after 5 years.

Maybe it could be shorter than 6 months - whatever might break some habits

Some editors (both admins and not) could use an enforced holiday to calm down. But I think this would be also blocking a lot of even-tempered editors in the process. Maybe the core problem here is that it's currently so hard to do anything meaningful about bad admin behaviour.

[Ron Lybonly]

Idea:
If Wikipedia won’t term limit democratically recall admins, consider 6 month sabbaticals combined with a 6 month ban from noticeboards. I think some might come back a bit mellower.

This would be for all admins after 5 years.

Maybe it could be shorter than 6 months - whatever might break some habits

Some editors (both admins and not) could use an enforced holiday to calm down. But I think this would be also blocking a lot of even-tempered editors in the process. Maybe the core problem here is that it's currently so hard to do anything meaningful about bad admin behaviour.

I wasn’t very clear. They’d be desysopped only. They’d be encouraged to keep editing.

[Mojito]

I wasn’t very clear. They’d be desysopped only. They’d be encouraged to keep editing.

Ahh, thanks for clarifying.

[Mojito]

This one is more of a minor technical gripe than a serious problem. But why isn't there some form of permalink for topics on talk or discussion pages?

Once the topic gets archived, the original link dies and it becomes hard to find. For example:

sideshow alert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ailed_hawk

[rnu]

This one is more of a minor technical gripe than a serious problem. But why isn't there some form of permalink for topics on talk or discussion pages?

Once the topic gets archived, the original link dies and it becomes hard to find. For example:

sideshow alert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ailed_hawk

Absolutely. That's an incredibly annoying issue.

[el84]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ailed_hawk

On the new skin, there is a link at the top-right of the page named "Tools". Click on that, then click on "permanent URL" and you'll get a URL with a diff in it, giving you a permanent link.

If you're not using the new skin, it used to be located in the left-hand side sidebar.

[rnu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ailed_hawk

On the new skin, there is a link at the top-right of the page named "Tools". Click on that, then click on "permanent URL" and you'll get a URL with a diff in it, giving you a permanent link.

If you're not using the new skin, it used to be located in the left-hand side sidebar.

The issue is that links that do not use the permanent URL get broken by archiving. So you have always to chose between linking to a particular state of an ongoing debate using a permanent URL or to link to the ongoing debate and accept that the link will break in the future.

[Dan of La Mancha]

If you've got an account, there's a gadget you can enable in your preferences called find-archived-section which, when it detects that you've followed a broken link, automatically searches the archives and gives you a link to the archived discussion. This is incredibly useful and I've long thought it should be turned on by default.

[Mojito]

If you've got an account, there's a gadget you can enable in your preferences called find-archived-section which, when it detects that you've followed a broken link, automatically searches the archives and gives you a link to the archived discussion. This is incredibly useful and I've long thought it should be turned on by default.

Thanks, that's really good to know. It sounds like a useful workaround (as long as there aren't multiple sections with the same name)

[rnu]

Immediately indef (and if applicable desysop) anyone who mentions (or in any way alludes to) an editor's experience (be it edit count, age of account, ...).

You'd get rid of a lot of the abusive editors and admins real quick.

[Giraffe Stapler]

This morning I saw someone remove articles from the "see also" section because they were already linked in the body. Not everyone who comes to Wikipedia reads the entire article. Most probably don't, so they may not see those links. I get it - rules must be followed, but maybe that particular rule might be relaxed in favour of actual usefulness?

[rnu]

This morning I saw someone remove articles from the "see also" section because they were already linked in the body. Not everyone who comes to Wikipedia reads the entire article. Most probably don't, so they may not see those links. I get it - rules must be followed, but maybe that particular rule might be relaxed in favour of actual usefulness?

I agree. Unless the "see also" section is unreasonably long they should aim for usefulness. But then again, Wikipedia isn't for the readers, is it?

[Mojito]

Immediately indef (and if applicable desysop) anyone who mentions (or in any way alludes to) an editor's experience (be it edit count, age of account, ...).

You'd get rid of a lot of the abusive editors and admins real quick.

Absolutely. Maybe go for a series of escalating bans though.

[Dan of La Mancha]

All new accounts are extended-confirmed by default. If you make more than 500 mainspace edits in a year, you're demoted to autoconfirmed. If you make more than 1,000 mainspace edits in a year, you lose all rights. Make more than 5,000 mainspace edits in a year and you'll be blocked for disruption. (Reverts don't count towards the total. Exceptions can be made on request for automated/semi-automated edits, with the content and utility of these edits being subject to rigorous review.)

I just want to see a Wikipedia where people edit carefully rather than quickly. "Careful" in Hawaiian is akahele. Akahelepedia has a ring to it.

[AndyTheGrump]

All new accounts are extended-confirmed by default. If you make more than 500 mainspace edits in a year, you're demoted to autoconfirmed. If you make more than 1,000 mainspace edits in a year, you lose all rights. Make more than 5,000 mainspace edits in a year and you'll be blocked for disruption. (Reverts don't count towards the total. Exceptions can be made on request for automated/semi-automated edits, with the content and utility of these edits being subject to rigorous review.)

I just want to see a Wikipedia where people edit carefully rather than quickly. "Careful" in Hawaiian is akahele. Akahelepedia has a ring to it.

Brilliant!

[Randy from Boise]

All new accounts are extended-confirmed by default. If you make more than 500 mainspace edits in a year, you're demoted to autoconfirmed. If you make more than 1,000 mainspace edits in a year, you lose all rights. Make more than 5,000 mainspace edits in a year and you'll be blocked for disruption. (Reverts don't count towards the total. Exceptions can be made on request for automated/semi-automated edits, with the content and utility of these edits being subject to rigorous review.)

I just want to see a Wikipedia where people edit carefully rather than quickly. "Careful" in Hawaiian is akahele. Akahelepedia has a ring to it.

Shucks, I'm at 2,350 for 2024.

I had no idea what a shitty person I was.

t

P.S. One of the several things this truly terrible idea implies is that automated editing is bad. Another is that all content-creation should be done off-wiki and imported en bloc.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I had no idea what a shitty person I was.

Don't get down on yourself, Tim. You probably have other redeeming qualities.

[Randy from Boise]

I had no idea what a shitty person I was.

Don't get down on yourself, Tim. You probably have other redeeming qualities.

People keep looking for them but............. Nope, I just suck.

t

[Ron Lybonly]

I had no idea what a shitty person I was.

Don't get down on yourself, Tim. You probably have other redeeming qualities.

People keep looking for them but............. Nope, I just suck.

t

Nope, you’re a really good human being. A mensch. Folks here see that.

[Kraken]

It's Wikipedia. If you create perfect articles in one edit and leave gnoming to the other people, you will be viewed with deep suspicion. And it will take you over 5 years to meet most people's minimum criteria for Admin.

[Jip Orlando]

How about a supplemental essay on over-categorization called WP:CATCRAP?

[Mojito]

How about a supplemental essay on over-categorization called WP:CATCRAP?

Hahaha, great idea.

[Mojito]

WP:AN/I (T-H-L) can be a nasty place. As per the instructions at the top of the page of it being for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems", it should be a last resort. Instead, it is often the immediate response to a conflict and the instructions to first try WP:DRV or a discussion on the user's talk page are frequently ignored.

So, to reduce the tendency to go straight to AN/I, I suggest that a "procedural close" be the response for any issue that has not had sufficient attempts at resolution before it was brought to AN/I.

I find it surprising that there is no template for posting new AN/I threads (unlike the Edit Warring noticeboard, for example). A template that includes "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" would be helpful here, I think.

[Elinruby]

WP:AN/I (T-H-L) can be a nasty place. As per the instructions at the top of the page of it being for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems", it should be a last resort. Instead, it is often the immediate response to a conflict and the instructions to first try WP:DRV or a discussion on the user's talk page are frequently ignored.

So, to reduce the tendency to go straight to AN/I, I suggest that a "procedural close" be the response for any issue that has not had sufficient attempts at resolution before it was brought to AN/I.

I find it surprising that there is no template for posting new AN/I threads (unlike the Edit Warring noticeboard, for example). A template that includes "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" would be helpful here, I think.

[Elinruby]

Can you use CSS on wikipedia? I have an image-heavy article that looks like crap one way on a phone and utter crap in a completely different way on a wide-screen laptop.

[Kraken]

Have Google rank pages individually.

[rnu]

Can you use CSS on wikipedia? I have an image-heavy article that looks like crap one way on a phone and utter crap in a completely different way on a wide-screen laptop.

Help:Cascading Style Sheets (T-H-L)
Help:Cascading_Style_Sheets#CSS_in_wikitext (T-H-L) is probably the relevant section. No idea if it supports such things as using different styles for desktop and mobile.

[Kraken]

Restrict WP:TFA (T-H-L) to WP:VITAL (T-H-L)

(only showcase the most important articles as Wikipedia's best work on the "Today's Featured Article" section of the front page)

[Giraffe Stapler]

It's quite likely that I've already complained about this, but I would benefit from a "notes" field in my watchlist. I often wonder why something is on there and have to look at the article or the history to figure it out. I would like to be able to just jot down "edited by sockpuppets of x" or "pedophile honeypot" or something like that.

[Jester]

It's quite likely that I've already complained about this, but I would benefit from a "notes" field in my watchlist. I often wonder why something is on there and have to look at the article or the history to figure it out. I would like to be able to just jot down "edited by sockpuppets of x" or "pedophile honeypot" or something like that.

Maybe try keeping them on your sandbox or a subpage? You have the hassle of needing to find in page the title but it works.

[Elinruby]

Can you use CSS on wikipedia? I have an image-heavy article that looks like crap one way on a phone and utter crap in a completely different way on a wide-screen laptop.

Help:Cascading Style Sheets (T-H-L)
Help:Cascading_Style_Sheets#CSS_in_wikitext (T-H-L) is probably the relevant section. No idea if it supports such things as using different styles for desktop and mobile.

hey three clicks no crash!
Thank you. I will investigate.

[TheSpacebook]

• Phone number verification for accounts and IPs can’t take part in votes for things like deleting and moving (or only phone-verified accounts can vote). There also needs to be a lot of security around these phone numbers and obviously are not published during checkuser investigations. It's harder to create new phone numbers (and usually requires money), very easy to create new email addresses (and is usually free). This could be seen as going against the idea of a "free encyclopedia", but users do have to pay for access to the internet already.

• Contentious and controversial claims being cited with a book are not allowed until the editor can provide a copy of the actual text (backend, so no copyright). I’ve said in another thread that I have a conspiracy theory that when editors want to make up facts, they cite a book, as it’s less likely that people will check and it’s harder to verify.

[Elinruby]

• Phone number verification for accounts and IPs can’t take part in votes for things like deleting and moving (or only phone-verified accounts can vote). There also needs to be a lot of security around these phone numbers and obviously are not published during checkuser investigations. It's harder to create new phone numbers (and usually requires money), very easy to create new email addresses (and is usually free). This could be seen as going against the idea of a "free encyclopedia", but users do have to pay for access to the internet already.

• Contentious and controversial claims being cited with a book are not allowed until the editor can provide a copy of the actual text (backend, so no copyright). I’ve said in another thread that I have a conspiracy theory that when editors want to make up facts, they cite a book, as it’s less likely that people will check and it’s harder to verify.

Yep. Preferably out of print and in Polish

[smallchief]

Here's a naive idea: ban stubs.

There was a time and place for stubs -- but that time is long past. If you can't write 250 referenced words or more about a subject, it isn't an encyclopedia article.

[Elinruby]

Here's a naive idea: ban stubs.

There was a time and place for stubs -- but that time is long past. If you can't write 250 referenced words or more about a subject, it isn't an encyclopedia article.

In one sense I agree. In another, I have been working on 16th century North Africa recently and the stubs are actually enormously helpful when it comes to (for example) sorting out the many names of Dey .Mohammed ben-Othman Pasha (T-H-L)

[Elinruby]

Here's a naive idea: ban stubs.

There was a time and place for stubs -- but that time is long past. If you can't write 250 referenced words or more about a subject, it isn't an encyclopedia article.

Btw

It doesn't look like anyone has done this yet. If not shame on us

[Midsize Jake]

It doesn't look like anyone has done this yet. If not shame on us

----

welcomesmallchief.jpg

[Randy from Boise]

Here's a naive idea: ban stubs.

There was a time and place for stubs -- but that time is long past. If you can't write 250 referenced words or more about a subject, it isn't an encyclopedia article.

Here's a completely random Colts season stub. Whattaya propose doing about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Balt ... lts_season

Does it really matter that there are fewer than 250 sourced words?

t

P.S. Welcome to WPO!

[Elinruby]

----
welcomesmallchief.jpg

Damn right. Break out the confetti