This page is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Her page could use a lot of editing--unbalanced sections, info not up to date, etc. If someone could take some time to look into it that would be cool. Such a shame for such an amazing artist to have such a poor page.
...not with the participants, but with over-zealous page patrollers who deleted content while it was being created. The organizers need to come up with a template to prevent this from happening and to have one experienced Wikipedian on hand who knows how to stop the process of speedy deletion and to protest such deletions. There is a way to restore deleted articles, and instructions or help can be provided at future events. There is also an appeals process that will restore deleted content. How discouraging to new editors to have their hard work deleted. These deletions don't have to happen. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Since I don't know if I will be able to pass on this information personally I will post it here in print so that if someone wants to know of these processes they won't have to contact me personally-that usually doesn't ever happen on WP, so here is the information you need to prevent speedy deletions and deletions in general:
The trainers at the two events I attended did a good job but did not prepare the participants for the possibility that their work could be deleted if not properly submitted.
Organizers need to anticipate the problems with new page patrollers and have a plan to counteract this problem in new article creation.
Organizers need to know that any content added to Wikipedia by a brand new editor is always immediately flagged for review and scrutinized. A high percentage of those who create new user accounts do so to vandalize the encyclopedia. In addition, even those new users who, in good faith, have added or created content are assumed to be inept and need to have their edits scrutinized.
Instructions need to include the following:
Do not create a draft page for your new article. New draft pages are meticulously and instantly flagged for review by new page patrollers.
Instead, create a sandbox page to work on your new article, sandbox pages are not so aggressively patrolled and will probably survive for weeks as an article is worked on in the sandbox.
Place the template {{underconstruction}} at the top of every sandbox, draft and article page. This slows the process of speedy deletion.
If an article is marked for speedy deletion, its deletion can happen within minutes. The page creator will need to go immediately to the talk page of the new article to protest the speedy deletion with a message. If efforts are coordinated, other attendees at the event can assist in the prevention of the speedy deletion by also going to the talk page and protesting the speedy deletion. The higher the number of editors who protest the speedy deletion, the more likely that the article won't be deleted.
An experienced editor should be at the event who knows how to implement the actions needed to prevent speedy deletion and be prepared with pre-written 'boilerplate' that explains that the article is part of a planned editing event for new editors.
A template should be used that should appear on the talk page of the new article describing the fact that the new article should not be deleted during the event since it is being worked on.
If a page is speedily deleted, an experienced editor knows how to contact the other editor who deleted the article and request that the article be restored.
If the editor who deleted the article refuses to restore the deleted article, an experienced editor knows how to file a 'protest' and ask that the article be restored.
the Articles for Creation process should be avoided by new editors since it slows down the article creation process and editors that review AfCs almost always turn down the requests. If a new editor accidentally submits their newly created article at AfC, an experienced editor knows how to participate in the AfC process and help get the article into mainspace/become live/turn into a real article very quickly.
Yes, after 21,000 edits, I have learned how to work the system. Those editors who aggressively delete content are acting in good faith but are unaware of what edit-a-thons are really like. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC) and User:Bfpage (I have two accounts)[reply]
Hi Barbara (WVS) -- I saw your comments. Sorry to hear you had these issues at the event. We held the NYC MoMA editathon yesterday and while we had some problems there was a lot of effort to encourage new editors to work on stubs before attempting new articles so they could focus on building their skills. And before creating new drafts, asking the new editors to have an experienced editor look at the entry. I believe this was a new effort that worked well and created an encouraging environment for new editors.
I am going to ping @Theredproject: to flag your comment to him.
I am so glad that you found the information helpful. It was frustrating that the new editors were so sincere but had their content so aggressively deleted. Yes, asking an experienced editor to take a look before submitting the article is an excellent solution - but define experienced! Probably an editor with the autopatrolled right would be a good reviewer. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barbara (WVS) -- I guess because we put on so many editathons here in New York City, and there are a good amount of editors who teach WikiEdu courses every semester, those of us from Wikimedia NYC have a lot of experience helping new editors at editathons. If that works as a definition. :-) I don't think I have autopatrolled rights, but I find that the guiding newbies away from creating new articles right off the bat really helps cut down on frustration -- and having conversations about notability, etc. before content is submitted on Wiki really helps. Also having a good ratio of experienced editors to new editors on hand to assist is critical. Again sorry for the frustrations. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barbara (WVS) -- Thanks for alerting us. All of our training materials stress that you shouldn't start out by creating articles, but rather adding citations in an area in which you have expertise. However, you can lead a horse to water but... There will always be problematic editors. The central organizers typically meet-up the day after our event with some folks from Wikimedia NYC to clean articles that need cleaning (and not just ones created in NYC). Although you make a good point that perhaps we should communicate with our node events that that is best practice for them, as well. Can you please post a list on this Talk Page of articles that were speedy deleted? Pharos, Theredproject, Failedprojects and I will take a look. --Siankevans (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. No coach. Everyone starts by writing a new article. New WP:BIOGRAPHY. Of the living. It's like you all buy your first skis and head for the killer slope without an instructor. At least here you don't beak bones or die; just the articles do. This winter when I learned about this I considered timing my spring visit to Pittsburgh to coincide with it. Then decided it would be chilly for my other business in town. Had I known, I would have rescheduled and you would have one experienced coach. Perhaps you will try again at a time convenient to me, or another coach, or you will grow your own coaches. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am an interloper here, as I have not been involved with the editathons; but I am an admin who spends a lot of time working the speedy-deletion queue, and I can advise you how to avoid premature deletion of your newbies' pages. With one exception I will come to later, it is only in the main encyclopedia space that new pages are aggressively patrolled. When I read Barbara (WVS)'s comment "Do not create a draft page for your new article. New draft pages are meticulously and instantly flagged for review by new page patrollers" I was baffled, but I presume by "draft pages" she meant "half-finished pages in the main space." There is a "Draft namespace", pages whose title start with "Draft:" and entries there are not aggressively patrolled or speedied (except for copyright problems, attack pages or blatant advertisements).
There are three ways your new users can work on pages without risking premature deletion:
Sandbox - each new account has one, automatically;
Userspace draft - pages with titles like "User:<username>/<article title>". You can make one directly, or by clicking Help:Userspace draft and filling in the title;
Draft page - create directly with title starting with "Draft:", or use the WP:Article wizard. That may be best if several users are to collaborate on the article.
With each of those, it is possible to submit the article to AfC for review by an experienced user, who will either accept it or provide feedback, but if you do not want to do that the article can be transferred directly to the main space after it has been completed and properly referenced, with much less risk of deletion.
The exception I mentioned above is main user pages. They are patrolled because of all the users who come here only to write a Facebook-style user page about themself. Your newbies can avoid trouble here by saying in the first edit on their user page that they are here on an editathon, and something about the kind of edits they plan to make. That will make clear that they are contributors, not Facebookers.
