→Growth Features - Mentors: new section |
|||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Hello NPPers, following up on [[Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Preparing_to_scale_up_the_Growth_features:_two_questions]] - what do you think about a targeted message to NPP'ers asking if they would like to self-enroll in the mentor program? This program gives brand new users an option to send a question to a "mentor". I thought this may be a good group to recruit from as you deal with new pages, often by new users that could use guidance. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
Hello NPPers, following up on [[Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Preparing_to_scale_up_the_Growth_features:_two_questions]] - what do you think about a targeted message to NPP'ers asking if they would like to self-enroll in the mentor program? This program gives brand new users an option to send a question to a "mentor". I thought this may be a good group to recruit from as you deal with new pages, often by new users that could use guidance. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
:Not a bad idea. You can put me down. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 19:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:08, 10 February 2022
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
/patrolled pages for discussion on development of the special patrol page (inactive). |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Reading times
- Welcome: 2:42
- The Purpose: 3:40
- Special:NewPagesFeed: 1:19
- op level areas of concern: 2:03
- Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO): 6:41
- Conflict of Interest (COI) and paid advocacy: 5:09
- Recreations: 0:49
- Sourcing issues: 0:46
- Deletion: 5:02
- Drafts: 1:35
- Foreign language pages (WP:Notenglish): 2:36
- Article titles: 5:06
- Stub tagging: 0:28
- Categorizing: 0;23
- WikiProject Sorting: 0:31
- New unreviewed article: 0:8
- Be nice to the newbies: 2:01
- Unreviewing: 1:42
Where to suggest changes to PageTriage?
I have some suggested improvements for PageTriage (mainly, showing the deletion log of the article) and I'd like to know where to submit these ideas. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Elliot321, you may wish to post this in the correct forum where it will be seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Kudpung thanks, I had forgotten all about this comment. Oh well, the dichotomy of talk-about-a-project-page and talk-about-what-that-project-page-document is lost on all of us, occasionally. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Cite Unseen script to add iconic indicators to sources
Recently updated Cite Unseen, a user script that adds icons to citations to denote the nature and reliability of sources. I figure patrollers might find this script useful when it comes to evaluating the sources of new articles. The recent updated added icons to citations that are editable or from advocacy organizations, as well as sources from WP:RSP ( marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted; generally reliable is also available, but opt-in). This is in addition to other icon categories, such as state-controlled, opinion pieces, press releases, blogs, and more.
Just note that Cite Unseen is here to provide an initial evaluation of citations and point out potential issues, but it's not the final say on whether or not a source is appropriate for inclusion (see usage for more guidance). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is interesting SuperHamster, but you may wish to post this in the correct forum where it will be seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Notice of TfD
I've noticed a template discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#Uw-NPR series, that may perhaps be of interest to editors who work on NPP, so I'm posting this notification. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Required attribution for copied or translated content
When new articles are created by copying or translating content from other articles or Wikipedias, providing attribution to the original authors is required by Wikipedia's licensing requirements. I didn't see anything about this requirement on this page, or is it perhaps covered on another page here? (I'm not a page reviewer, and this is my first time here.) No page should successfully pass new page review if it contains unattributed copied or translated content. Adding User:Diannaa. (please mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mathglot, honestly this might be a bit beyond what can be expected. NPP is triage, and adding a million extra things to check will make the job impossible. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 20:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Insertcleverphrasehere:, I get it about the million extra things, I really do. I both appreciate New page reviewers enormously and don't envy the work you do, but at the same time, the attribution requirement is just that—a requirement—and stands above things like WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV which are policy thus very strongly recommended but still subject to WP:IAR, whereas WP:COPYRIGHT is a policy with legal implications and cannot be ignored, period.
- My main point is that if there is currently no mention of including attribution for translated/copied content at the guideline currently, then it should be added. I wasn't sure if you are objecting to adding it at all, or just saying that we can add it, but with the long list of things that reviewers already have to look out for, you can't expect reviewers always to check for attribution as well; I could understand the latter, better than the former. Leaving it off the list entirely seems like a bad idea, especially since I believe translated articles are a very small percentage of the total (but correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mathglot, we can mention it under the copybook section in the guide, sure, but in the absence of other clues I don’t see any reasonable way to check this on a regular basis. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree about not making the NPP workflow more complex than it already is. I also agree that a sentence could be added to highlight awareness of the topic. Perhaps something like
If you notice a translation from another Wiki and there is no attribution in an edit summary or on the talk page, you should add {{Translated from}} to the talk page, and notify the user.
–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree about not making the NPP workflow more complex than it already is. I also agree that a sentence could be added to highlight awareness of the topic. Perhaps something like
- Mathglot, we can mention it under the copybook section in the guide, sure, but in the absence of other clues I don’t see any reasonable way to check this on a regular basis. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it's important to include something about this, as it is commoner than might be expected even among quite longstanding editors to omit the attribution.Ingratis (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ingratis is correct. Even some long-time editors forget, or ignore it. But for the purposes of NPP, I'm more interested in establishing good habits in new users (and in reviewers who deal with them). I'm not here to point fingers, but if anyone is interested in a relatively new editor (3 years) with 200 article translation-creations, including recent ones at a rapid clip, none of which have attribution, email me and I'll provide a link. I'm sure they are not alone in this, although they are a particularly prolific example. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Novem Linguae:, I'd like to recommend an amended version:
If you notice a translation from another Wiki and there is no attribution in an edit summary
or on the talk page,you should add one to the edit summary. You may use this model:NOTE: The previous edit of 22:31, October 14, 2015, contains content translated from the French Wikipedia page at [[:fr:Exact name of French page]]; see its history for attribution.
This is per Wikipedia's licensing which requires such attribution. For further details, please see WP:RIA.
- The talk page {{translated}} template is not required, it's just a nice-to-have; if a page reviewer wants to go the extra mile and mention the template, that's nice, but not necessary. The required bit is the edit summary attribution statement. Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Further clues about how this might be worded, can be found in the user warning template {{uw-translation}}, which may be placed on User talk pages of users who forget to include translation attribution, or at Help:RIA-TRANSLATE. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Have taken a first cut at this, using some of the ideas from the discussion above. The section on the page jumped right in to copyvio detection with no introduction about what copyvio is, or where it comes from, so I added some intro text copied from the policy pages about it to provide a segue from the general topic to the detection and treatment of it wrt NPP reviewers. Mathglot (talk)
- (edit conflict) @Novem Linguae:, I'd like to recommend an amended version:
Growth Features - Mentors
Hello NPPers, following up on Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Preparing_to_scale_up_the_Growth_features:_two_questions - what do you think about a targeted message to NPP'ers asking if they would like to self-enroll in the mentor program? This program gives brand new users an option to send a question to a "mentor". I thought this may be a good group to recruit from as you deal with new pages, often by new users that could use guidance. — xaosflux Talk 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. You can put me down. Onel5969 TT me 19:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)