User:Sphilbrick/Feedback Patrol

Draft of possible description

This is a Wikipedia communal patrol dedicated to providing feedback for new editors.

The mandate of this group is to respond to requests at

Requests for feedback
Wikipedia:New contributors' help page (To the extend that the request is content related, as opposed to technical requests.)
Category:Requests to move a userspace draft

This group does not attempt to help editors trying to gain a GA or FA rating This group does not intend to take on tasks currently handled by the WP:NPP

This group must recognize that Wikipedia, to new editors, can be quite intimidating, so we want to avoid biting. The goal is to provide constructive feedback, and if possible, actual help in improving the article, in a friendly, welcoming way.

Discussion area

There are two reasons driving the desire to create such a group:

The Requests for feedback forum has existed for years, but the volume of requests was generally met by the volunteers dropping in until a few months ago. At that time, the very successful Article Wizard was launched, and it encouraged editors to create an article in user space, then go to the Feedback forum to ask if it was ready for Article space. The concept is great, but the volume of requests increased roughly ten-fold, and the number of editors responding to requests has not kept up.
The template {{move draft}} was created, which adds a userspace draft to Category:Requests to move a userspace draft. That category is virtually unmonitored. Because it can be addressed by editors, not just sysops, it is not showing up in the sysops backlog

One of the first tasks is to determine whether the mandate for this group is sufficiently distinct from that of WP:NPP to justify a separate group.

Editors choosing to start an article in userspace will not have their article appear in the New Page listing.

Should New Page Patrol be expanded?

One option is to expand the mandate of the New Page Patrol to include these pages. However, my first reaction is that might be counterproductive. The NPP is used to tagging article with notices of deficiencies, but this would be annoying to a new editor who is specifically writing in user space to have the freedom to get an article up to snuff before asking for feedback. The triggering event for NPP is the creation of a new page in article space. The triggering event for feedback is not the creation of the page in article space (it is earlier than that), nor it is the creation of an article in user space (it is later than that).

The triggering event is a request from an editor, either by a post at Requests for feedback or by the addition of the {{move draft}} to the article. Obviously, there is no prohibition against new Page Patrollers monitoring both of those locations, but we should decide whether we want to simply push the NPP to expand their mandate, or ask a new group (with overlap as desired by the individuals) to address the Feedback issues.

Why not let WP:RM handle Moves?

One of the areas proposed for coverage is requests to move a userspace draft. Given that we already have a process for handling requested moves, isn't it obvious that this group would be the ideal group to process the moves?

First, I'll emphasize that if any individual or self-identified group wants to make Wikipedia better, I don't want to stand in their way. However, despite an occasional request to clean up the backlog, it isn't happening. As I thought about it, I concluded it isn't as obvious a match as it appears.

Generally speaking, requests at WP:RM involve articles that aren't necessarily deficient in terms of copy edit issues. The sole issue is the title itself. Editors who volunteer at WP:RM need to have interest and expertise in a number of areas:

Capitalization rules
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issues
WP:UCN
WP:TITLE

Regulars could add to this list. In contrast, a {{move draft}} request almost never involves questions about the title itself. In theory, it ought to be noncontroversial, and the choice of a title itself is usually noncontroversial, but in almost all cases, the editor making the request is relatively new, typically with under ten edits (or they wouldn't need to make the request). As we all know, Wikipedia has a plethora of policies and guidelines, and the typical new editor isn't reading and absorbing them all before boldly creating a draft article. In an informal survey, I found over four out of every five requests have serious deficiencies which should be remedied before moving. As a consequence, the skill set needed to assess the move draft request is the ability to assess and give advice regarding issues such:

I don't doubt that the editors manning the WP:RM desk are conversant with these policies, but the mindset on encountering a Requested Move is the set of issues about the title. Such an editor is not expecting to have to read the entire article for structure and provide a feedback assessment, but that's the typical response to a {{move draft}} request.(I don't think it is appropriate to do a one person AfD determination, so I use a very low hurdle for what should be moved).

In summary, {{move draft}} request is a de facto request for a feedback review, and would best be handled by editors who are expecting to provide feedback, with little emphasis on title issues.

Pure volunteer or some structure?

One argument for identifying a new group is that I'd like to add a little bit of structure to the process. For example, when I see a request for feedback on a band article or a footballer, I know I am out of my depth, and would like to ask someone else to look at it. It would be nice if we could get some volunteers and identify some broad categories of interest. Another possibility, after we get the move request backlog down, is to automatically send a note to talk pages if the backlog gets too high.

Organizational tasks

Poll some editors to gauge reaction
Talk to some NPP member to see if there is concern about overlapping mandate
Discuss whether to follow a purely voluntary mode or to have some process
Design a cool userbox
Design a cool barnstar for members doing solid work
Design an attractive page for the patrol page
Consider whether standard language could be incorporated into Twinkle or some other semi-automated system (recognizing that templates sound like templates, and aren't as welcoming as customized messages).

Operational tasks

Tasks to undertake after (if?) we get organized:

Recruit editors to join the patrol
After sufficient number of volunteers, follow Captain-n00dle suggestion to create a process to list every move draft at Requests for feedback, ideally in an automated way as part of the template.
Go through Requests for feedback archives to identify editors who has received advice and are still active editors—see if they would be willing to join, or at least review one or two requests.

Comments on this page

Looks good, not much more i could add..Perhaps emphasizes we plan to do this in a VERY welcoming manner! Point to the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers or mention this in some way. Moxy (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't want to be critical of the NPP, as I think their logo is cute, but the notion of a uniformed cop holding up a hand signaling STOP is exactly the opposite of the theme I want to portray.--SPhilbrick T 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me - and I agree with both of your comments! I'll look at this again next week when I have a chance to do so without the kids interrupting! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a separate patrol. Some of the articles that are added to WP:FEED will show up on NPP also because they are created in the mainspace but a majority of the articles won't be in NPP because they are in the userspace. The good majority of the editors who go to FEED actually try to work through the issues raised by those providing feedback. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sphilbrick's point about the NPP logo. It gets the point across but I think it sometimes might scare away newcomers into thinking they are in serious trouble or something, because of the policeman guy. Chevy monte carlo 16:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As to the reasons why to create a group, whilst I cannot really comment on the second point (I never really use the category that is mentioned there) I definitely agree with the first point that has been made. Sometimes there's many requests that are still pending and they are left all day because of the lack of respondents. The number of requests often exceed the number of respondents who are willing to review, and I think that it's a great idea to create a group to highlight the problem and perhaps increase the amount of traffic to the forum by helpers. The draft description is great, and there's not much more I can really say. Chevy monte carlo 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously, at this point, I'm preaching to the choir. What we need is more people like you, so I'm mulling over how to identify potential ~~victims~~candidates.--SPhilbrick T 16:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What about getting Chzz involved? I think he is away at the moment but I'm sure he'll be happy to provide another opinion/review...He might just be part of the 'choir' though, what with being an administrator and all...(No offence...!) What about just posting on the talk pages of users who are still active but have contributed to the Feedback Forum in the past (By looking through the forum archives) - even if they aren't using the forum anymore they might have something to say still... Chevy monte carlo 20:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Both good thoughts. I was planning to invite/commandeer past contributors, but I was planning to do that after reaching agreement that the concept was sound. Seems to be heading that way, but I'd like one more pair of eyes and Chzz is a great suggestion. I'm thinking of turning this page into a formal Wikipedia page next weekend (unless Chzz has other thoughts, then notifying Village Pump. I'm still trying to figure out how to add more members, if the "regulars" just agree to be part of the patrol, it won't do anything to alter the ratio of requests to volunteers.--SPhilbrick T 22:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thx for letting me know. Yes, I'm away, so not as active as normal. This does all sound v interesting, and yes, I'd like to be involved; I will read it properly and respond more ASAP, which should be within 2 days. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, support entirely the idea of helping new users out--perhaps this could also be coordinated with IRC though? (There's #wikipedia-en-help of Freenode, which is general editing help, but it's possible to create a separate one for feedback requests if needed.) —fetch ·comms 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As you know Fetchy, I'm a strong advocate for help over IRC - and indeed I would strongly support pointing FEED users and others to it. However, I would advise against creating a separate channel - by keeping it simple, ie the help channel for all, it means it is more likely that helpers will notice new users joining. Same reasoning as my comments about forwarding the AFC help channel to help. Splitting things up really isn't a good idea.

Captain-n00dle (talk · contribs) just made Template:Feedbackreply-sm and, at my suggestion, linked to the IRC help there. I do think that is an excellent idea.

I will comment more, further down. Chzz ► 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I summarised the benefits of only having one IRC into: People seeking help are likely to be new and having to find the correct wikiproject's IRC channel just adds to the confusion that they are needing help with! If necessary we can always PM them or refer them to a different channel/wikiproject [sic]. Regards, Captain n00dle \^Talk 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My only concern with that would be the large influx of new users joining IRC, some not knowing where to type, others confused with multiple conversations, others not understanding PMs, etc. Is it possible to make some sort of brief, but informational notice about the help chat, so new users know how to get feedback from IRC effectively? I mean just covering basics--where to type, how to ping helpers if needed, and to ask a question instead of "i have a question", etc. —fetch ·comms 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of IRC "soft redirect" or template that explains some basics? Captain n00dle \^Talk 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Freenode Webchat interface could be improved greatly.

In addition, a guide to the chat, in simple terms aimed at brand-new users, would be very helpful.

People often wonder what 'name' they need to put in. I often get users asking "what name do I use? my real name my Wikipedia name, or what?" Examples from the last few days include;

I tried to "pop in and say hello" on the chat thing you described, but I have no understanding of how it works so I gave up. It said to enter desired username. Was I supposed to enter yours? Mine? I think it needs more up front explanation to be useful1
Do I tick the "auth to services" checkbox on the "connect" page? 2

... let-alone what Auth to services means, and how to type when they get there.

Perhaps this sort of thing could be dealt with by the channel owners, group contacts, etc. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Some comments from Chzz

I don't quite understand the remit; why FEED, NCHP and CAT:DRAFT? Seems a somewhat odd collection, especially the latter.

Regarding new users making new articles - there are, currently, several ways of doing things.

They can use WP:AFC, they can create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, use the WP:WIZARD, or just create the non-existent live page. Each system works in a different way.

Not long ago, I did start a conversation about Wikipedia_talk:AFC#Why does this process exist? - the point being, there is a discrepancy between a) policy decision that new users cannot create articles, and b) our 'bending over backwards' through AFC to let them do just that. Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for making it as easy as possible...but the various processes that exist means that users are treated in very different ways, depending on the route taken.

Anyway - back to this discussion - why these areas, and not e.g. WP:RA, or WP:PR, or even WP:ADOPT? Is it because these are perceived as being backlogged or under-represented? Is this to 'clear the backlog', or is it supposed to be a longer term solution?

If we do concentrate on these areas, which other areas will suffer? (Please...bear with me...I might sound negative, but I'm not...I just think these things worthy of consideration) - we have limited resources, and we cannot magic up more people - well, we can work on that, of course - but for projects like this, we have to work with what we currently have available. So, is this project an optimum use of our most valuable commodity - viz. expert-time?

Sorry - I'm getting side-tracked; let me stop this becoming TL;DR;

Why concentrate on users that choose to use FEED, NHCP and drafts, as opposed to those who make a 'real' article? CSD is harsh, with all the large banners; many editors get angry and give up, if they do not receive prompt help with it. Currently, we work pretty hard to 'rescue' AFDs but very little is done to rescue articles created through the more 'traditional' route - the latter, of course, being mostly registered users.

This is odd, because, we give more help to people who don't bother registering.

Also, I do not understand what NPP has to do with this stuff. Nor do I know how this {{movedraft}} works.

It's all a bit vague at the moment. I think that working to reduce the FEED backlog is a good idea, but the rest, I'm not sure how it fits together.

NHCP is a different kettle of fish; perhaps the 'solution' to that problem (if there is one) is simply to get more of the people who respond at helpdesk to look there too. Or merge 'em, somehow.

In conclusion: I think this idea needs to be stated more clearly, before bringing it to a wider audience. Chzz ► 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, you hit on some important issues. First, let me explain how I got to this point, and why I chose what appears to be an odd conglomeration of areas. I'll try to persuade you that it is a little less odd than it appears at first blush. My main goal is to put together the germ of an idea, get good feedback from people like you, and use that to turn it into a more coherent proposal. I do agree I want more tinkering before going live.

Background - I've been trying to help out at both the Help Desk and WP:FEED for some time. Help is fun, but frankly, it is well-staffed, so sometimes the fun is trying to see if you can answer a question before someone else gets to it. Feed is the exact opposite. When I first visited the forum, there was very little traffic—not a lot of requests, but even fewer volunteers helping out. Then the Article Wizard was revamped, very nicely, I might add, but it funneled users to Feed. Appropriate, but the volume of requests at WP:FEED increased tenfold. On occasion I'll appeal at Help for some help, but it is a continuous struggle to keep up.

Move Draft Then, about two weeks ago, I stumbled across Category:Requests to move a userspace draft. It had 242 requests, some going back to December. I don't know how to tell if anyone was responding, but I'm guessing that with the number of requests from December and January, that it wasn't getting much, if any attention. I think this is appalling. We tell brand-new editors, most of whom are struggling to learn how to create a draft, that if they place a template on their draft, someone will come along to move it for them. In 242 cases, a potentially solid contributor to Wikipedia showed up, worked to make a draft, asked for it to be moved, and we ignored them. For months. I can't imagine a single one of them has a positive thing to say about Wikipedia.

I've started cleaning out the backlog, and have gotten through about 150. I got the backlog under 100, but it is creeping up again.

What's Move draft have to do with Feedback You may wonder why a request to move a draft is any work at all - Sounds like a couple hours, tops, if you aren't very fast. However, take a look at two of them. Two, just in case you accidentally stumble across one that is easy. In over 90% of the cases, the article needs work on Notability, Layout, and almost always, referencing. I've tried to provide a semi-customized message to every one of them, to let them know how to improve the article. (In many cases, this is a fruitless exercise - if they asked for a move in December, and haven't edited since, they are probably not coming back, but I think our attitude should be to respond in good faith in all cases.) In others words, the request is a simple move request, but in most cases, it is a de facto request for feedback. They think it is ready, but it is not.

There have been a few successes. If it is more than a few days old, but in decent shape, I post to the editor that I am willing to move it, but I want to know they are around. A few have responded, and we have some new, acceptable articles.

To summarize this last point, 90% of the time an editor places the template on their user page, it turns out to be a need for feedback, not just a move.

NCHP As for New Contributors, many times the question there is a request for feedback. In some case it is a technical question - e.g. how to I create a table to do such and such, but I thought it would make sense to include all those places where a user was asking for basic level feedback.

I didn't include WP:RA or WP:PR simply because I've had no interaction there. I agree they ought to be part of the conversation. I am leery of biting off more than I can chew, so I wanted to start with something manageable, and if it works, consider whether expansion makes sense. That said, it is worth spending a little time to think through where the overlap occurs. Roughly speaking, I think this effort is directed at editor who haven't yet hit triple digits in their edit count (or not much beyond that level), while I think of WP:PR as a resource for a more experienced, but not yet expert editor. However, I'll re-emphasize that I don't spend any time there, so I could be off base. It's worth discussing.

Adopt As for WP:ADOPT, I'd like to see it expanded into almost a mandatory concept. (I instinctively rebel at the term mandatory, but I could see it as a default, with an opt-out option.) I've been toying with responding to the Strategic Initiatives, and my theme was going to be Welcoming New Contributors - expanding Adopt was going to be part of the discussion.

(I didn't miss the "which areas will suffer" and, in fact, am working on a separate draft related to that, but it needs much more work.)--SPhilbrick T 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I approve of the direction that this seems to be going in. I'm struggling with suggestions/ideas/feedback as I always do though. However I definitely agree with a union between "move draft" and "feedback" as those article often require feedback, I would possibly go a step further and say that every article tagged with move draft should have a section on feedback requested before being moved to namespace. Although please feel free to disagree, as I probably have less experience than many here :-) Regards, Captain n00dle \^Talk 15:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As an example, this was the first example I clicked on: User:Hillmank77/G Lane Hillman as you can see, it would benefit from a centralised discussion at WP:FEED IMHO Captain n00dle \^Talk 15:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We are on the same page. I had given some thought to looking into making the {{move draft}} automatically generate a listing at Requests for feedback. I haven't pursued it for two reasons:

I don't have the technical know-how to build a template that also posts at a forum
I'd like to make sure the forum is properly staffed before adding more to the workload. I'm already concerned that some editors are turned off because they ask and don't get a timely response; in some cases, none at all, so I'd like to get the number of volunteers up before adding to the work load.

That said, it's worth adding to the list of tasks (see new section on Operational Tasks)--SPhilbrick T 15:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Understandable about the workload! We don't want more users not getting help until we have a plan!

As with the automatic forum post, I don't know if it can be done, but you could add something like this to the move draft template:

Once this page is ready to be moved, Add a Request for feedback to this Month (remember to link to this page).

Captain n00dle \^Talk 15:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of automating this process, I believe User:RFC bot does something similar to what might be required. However it might be better to have authors create their own Request for Feedback, that way they can ask specific questions and request the areas they would like more feedback. But perhaps there should be an automated (or semi-automated via templates) category of {{move draft}} articles without WP:FEED requests.

Perhaps the category could be added to the move-draft template and then a WP:FEED volunteer could remove it using a template parameter? Captain n00dle \^Talk 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest ideas (being implemented)

Several editors have discussed ideas. The latest idea is to move the remaining pages to WP:AFC, where the editors at that project are best equipped to help turn a draft into a real article, if there is potential merit.

The first step is moving the stale requests to AFC. That may be completed soon. The next step is to deprecate {{Move draft}} and replace it with a process to handle future requests directly at WP:AFC. The details of that step haven't been fully worked out.--SPhilbrick T 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sphil, are we getting side-tracked by the minutiae here?

We did lots to reduce the backlog at Feed, and discussions re. archiving are ongoing, on Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback.

We moved the {{move draft}} stuff into AFC, and I believe someone removed usage of it.

I agree fully that many, many areas of Wikipedia desperately need improving, but...well, it's a Wiki. It seems to me like your project idea (correct me if I am wrong) is actually a suggestion for a project coordinating help in general, mostly focused on the newer / new-ish users, with regards to content creation. As such, great idea - and if you decide to form a project to do that, that will be great; but I recommend that, in the proposal, there is no point in 'firefighting' - I suggest getting the group set up first, and then, within the members of the group, suggesting action-plans? I think this discussion began as a proposal for a group, but is now in-danger of getting too involved in the actual fixes, which were the purpose of creating the group - if you see what I mean? Chzz ► 01:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)