This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Teahouse history | |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used |
Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 14 sections are present. |
Decision tree at WP:TRIAGE
I've had an idea for a Wikipedia decision tree to help newcomers with the most common questions and answers. I started putting it down in text form at WP:TRIAGE. Eventually it would be great to turn into a flowchart, like Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#/media/File:NPP_flowchart.svg. I'd welcome any feedback. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- An interesting idea, Tim. It might be a bit complex or overwhelming for a newcomer to navigate by themselves, but as the bones of a flow-chart, it could be good to help Teahouse hosts and everyone else to distil down the pathways of choices and advice we should be giving. I was unclear where exactly you wanted comments and suggestions posted, or if you wanted us to edit WP:TRIAGE directly? I thought it best not to do that, so I'll just comment that WP:VPT seems a better link for technical advice than WP:VP, though I doubt newcomers here would really need to know about that at this early stage of their editing career. But it's a good link to be aware of in that flow of answering questions. Another route to include could be "Are you concerned about an article's notability Y/N?". I'd change WP:TWA to Help:Introduction. I think TWA is so clunky and doesn't work on mobiles (now around 45% of our editors, if I correctly remember seeing this figure mentioned somewhere), and is so out of date that it shouldn't be part of the flow at all now. Oh, and don't forget Newcomer tasks and the Homepage Tab, too. Hope this is a good starter for you to develop this further. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Tim, you might be interested in a similar suggestion now in the archive at WT:Teahouse/Archive_23#Soliciting host feedback on draft help page. Levivich's idea was prototyped by him and still exists at User:Levivich/Help. At the time, I thought it would be useful but I'm not aware of it being widely used. It illustrates one way to implement a flowchart. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Nick and Michael! I just took the Wikipedia Adventure and agree that it's a bit outdated, and it actually wouldn't let me continue past a certain point on my desktop, so I had to quit out. Hopefully someone will take an interest in going through to update it and user test it to improve the experience. I'll see how I can integrate Help:Introduction. And I liked the interactive nature of Levivich's help system - could be an offshoot in addition to having an actual flowchart. And I just added Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/1 as an option. I'll also have to figure out how to name a range so I don't need to change the numbers in the flow chart each time I add a new step. And linking to WP:VPT is a better choice than linking to WP:VP. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (responding to ping) Just wanted to mention that {{help button}} is designed to be easily forked so that it can be used for other types of decision-trees/flowcharts. An example of an existing fork is {{DYK help}}. For convenience, one can see the results by clicking on these buttons: . If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ping me or ask at my talk page. Levivich 21:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that update, Timtempleton, and for taking suggestions onboard. I wonder if you've thought further about my comment as to who it is best aimed at. Are you still wanting to make something quite complex-looking that a newcomer can try to follow, or is it better to focus on a workflow that new hosts can follow in their welcoming and question-answering processes? I don't think they're mutually exclusive, but it really helps to understand one's Aims and Objectives to start with. I'm still of the view that creating a host/helper's workflow could be the best start. Then, having bottomed that, you could distill it back down to a simpler form for a newcomer to follow for themselves. (But then I did always like to overcomplicate things!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm learning more and more thanks to you guys. @Levivich: I just added Wikipedia:Contact us as an additional WP:TRIAGE choice that visitors to Wikipedia might make. @Nick Moyes: This is meant to help visitors understand how to use and improve Wikipedia. There are lots of moving parts, but I haven't seen them synthesized in an easy to follow format. I don't know the best way to share this flowchart with newcomers, but once it's ready for prime time, we could include WP:TRIAGE in a standard welcome message to user pages. It could also certainly do double duty by helping up and coming help desk and teahouse volunteers understand how to help new users. You may have noticed I removed WP:TWA. Newcomers to the help desk or teahouse are constantly being directed there, although I don't think they should be after just going through the exercise myself. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I programmed it User:Timtempleton/TRIAGE1 TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I like it OK, although I must nitpick about the wording in "Contact Wikipedia". As a WP:VRT volunteer, we get hundreds of emails from people who think that they are addressing someone with an official capacity at the Wikimedia Foundation, not other editors who are volunteering to answer the mails. I wish it could be rephrased as something like "Contact a Wikipedia volunteer for help". It would certainly be more honest than what the current wording implies. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I programmed it User:Timtempleton/TRIAGE1 TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm learning more and more thanks to you guys. @Levivich: I just added Wikipedia:Contact us as an additional WP:TRIAGE choice that visitors to Wikipedia might make. @Nick Moyes: This is meant to help visitors understand how to use and improve Wikipedia. There are lots of moving parts, but I haven't seen them synthesized in an easy to follow format. I don't know the best way to share this flowchart with newcomers, but once it's ready for prime time, we could include WP:TRIAGE in a standard welcome message to user pages. It could also certainly do double duty by helping up and coming help desk and teahouse volunteers understand how to help new users. You may have noticed I removed WP:TWA. Newcomers to the help desk or teahouse are constantly being directed there, although I don't think they should be after just going through the exercise myself. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Nick and Michael! I just took the Wikipedia Adventure and agree that it's a bit outdated, and it actually wouldn't let me continue past a certain point on my desktop, so I had to quit out. Hopefully someone will take an interest in going through to update it and user test it to improve the experience. I'll see how I can integrate Help:Introduction. And I liked the interactive nature of Levivich's help system - could be an offshoot in addition to having an actual flowchart. And I just added Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/1 as an option. I'll also have to figure out how to name a range so I don't need to change the numbers in the flow chart each time I add a new step. And linking to WP:VPT is a better choice than linking to WP:VP. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Tim, you might be interested in a similar suggestion now in the archive at WT:Teahouse/Archive_23#Soliciting host feedback on draft help page. Levivich's idea was prototyped by him and still exists at User:Levivich/Help. At the time, I thought it would be useful but I'm not aware of it being widely used. It illustrates one way to implement a flowchart. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Upcoming WMF fundraising campaign
Hello everyone,
My name is Julia and I am the Community Relations person at the WMF Advancement Department which includes the fundraising team. As you might be aware the WMF will be launching the English Wikipedia banner fundraising campaign in late November and it will run until the end of December.
During last years' campaign, I noticed that you had a lot of people coming to this space with questions, suggestions, and complaints about the campaign. I am trying to help to decrease this kind of traffic this year. I prepared a draft Template for you to use. This is a draft so please do add aspects you would like to see in it. Using this template is a suggestion to hopefully make your life here easier in case you get an influx of enquiries during the campaign. I hope it will be useful and if you would like me to make any changes to it, please do let me know.
Generally speaking, you can ping me with anything fundraising related and I will come and help!
Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- The draft is pretty good. I don't know if it would be practical to mention in the message but the two most common comments we get during a fundraising campaign are probably 1) is there a way to stop seeing them, and 2) I've already donated but I still see them. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I added both aspects to the Template. Does this make it clearer and addresses the most common questions? JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it does, thank you. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed a minor typo; the template looks fine, thanks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- The template created last year by the community still works and already had all that information:
{{subst:HD/Donation}}
. Of course, it has a... different tone, let’s say. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- The template created last year by the community still works and already had all that information:
- Thank you for the feedback. I added both aspects to the Template. Does this make it clearer and addresses the most common questions? JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts about amending the page notice for the Teahouse?
I was scrolling through the Teahouse today and came across this question, which extended into a comment branch before discovering that the user was using the mobile view that has a different layout. Does anyone think it might be helpful to add If you're using the mobile version of Wikipedia, please mention that in your question to the page notice that appears when creating a new discussion to head off potential miscommunication? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm. I've only been hanging around the Teahouse a few months now, but I can't think of any other times it's come up; on the other hand, I may've just skipped over those threads because I don't use a mobile interface and generally can't comment on related issues. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe. We don't usually get questions relating to the mobile version of Wikipedia. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf/@Tenryuu How do we know that
We don't usually get questions relating to the mobile version of Wikipedia
? If a user assumes that everyone else is using the same mobile view that they happen to be using, would they think to mention it? I suspect not. So, to that end, a long time ago we added the line "Mention if you'd like a reply specific to mobile view or the VisualEditor." to the 'Ask a Question template. Isn't that sufficient? (Apols for the belated response; I've been rather absent from Wikipedia for the last few months) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf/@Tenryuu How do we know that
How to approach a lack of sources?
Hello all, I will first of all disclose that I am new here, so perhaps there are other common practices or otherwise I am missing, if so please tell me as I truly am interested in becoming a meaningful contributor to this website. Anyways, I am trying my best to translate the de:Gerhard_Gerling article from the German branch of wikipedia into English. Originally I just wanted to translate the article, but since my draft was rejected for a lack of sources and references I began looking for those, as the original article itself lacked them. My issue then became, however, that the amount of information on this individual was rather sparse in all existing references. What I ended up finding was a biography on the individual commissioned by an independent organization to an independent (but accredited and experienced) biographer, which itself used plenty of official and reputable sources, both government and academic.
My question now is, in trying to expand and rewrite this article with the appropriate citations I've found myself nearly solely citing this singular biography, partially out of convenience but primarily out of necessity. I need to ask, is this poor practice? I looked on the article for how to write my first article, and it mentioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize other quality and reputable articles. I just want to make sure that primarily using this one biography, only sometimes supplemented by others, instead of relying on a variety of sources, won't be frowned upon. Jazzertyy (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Jazzertyy This page is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse, and is not the Teahouse itself. Please post this to the main Teahouse page(WP:TEAHOUSE). 331dot (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
oh I got the wrong link thanks Jazzertyy (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
A self-eval quizz for Teahouse hosts
Back in January I floated the idea of having some sort of evaluation for prospective Teahouse hosts. I gave it a go: Wikipedia:Teahouse host training.
I have not finished writing the answer key but it’s complete enough to see what it would look like. Feel free to edit it or comment.
Redde caesari quae sunt caesaris: My initial suggestion was a test with feedback from current Teahouse hosts. Nick Moyes suggested a self-test instead, which convinced me so thoroughly that somehow I ended up thinking the idea was mine all along. But diffs remember. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Ahhhh! Latin!Taking a quick look at it, it actually looks pretty good, tho I would remove the "how do I desysop an admin" one since I've never seen anyone complain about an admin here (i've seen people complain about admins at WP:HD tho). I would assume you look through some of the archives to see what some of the most common questions were. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)- I went looking through the latest archive. It’s a real question. The point is that one should not answer the question directly, but investigate the user, since the question reeks of trolling/sockpuppetry. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Huh that's actually really interesting. But I do agree that if I saw that, I would initially check the user's contribs, mainly to see what admin they are referring to, but also to see if they're simply refusing to understand the rules or if they seem to know the rules but are deliberately disobeying them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I remember seeing "How do I take action against a horrible rouge admin?!" asked more than once (in various different ways). I don't think a "background investigation" has ever turned out well for the inquirer... 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Heh,
9 Dodecacember 2047 (Mars standard time)
199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Huh that's actually really interesting. But I do agree that if I saw that, I would initially check the user's contribs, mainly to see what admin they are referring to, but also to see if they're simply refusing to understand the rules or if they seem to know the rules but are deliberately disobeying them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I went looking through the latest archive. It’s a real question. The point is that one should not answer the question directly, but investigate the user, since the question reeks of trolling/sockpuppetry. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Tigraan You pinged me back in October, but I have not been able to be active here for the last few months - sorry. Your draft 'self-test' is an interesting idea, but very much a skeletal 'work in progress', so might perhaps have been better kept as a userspace draft until a lot more advanced. I've added a few lines to make that clearer.
- I seriously advise removing all signatures and date stamps of other editors' questions. Not only does it make it look like a talk page, but it's not really OK to make it look as though those editors are asking those questions, or, indeed, to embarrass them. A simple copy of a genuine question might be OK (use an edit summary to acknowledge the source), assuming it had some worthwhile responses. In which case, by all means then simply link to the archived question and answers. But that link should just form part of the self-checking answer. I can't offer more comments as there isn't really enough content at this stage, but the idea is a sound one in principle. I started working on something similar, related to WP:ORFA, which you can see in its still-unfinished form, here. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
AFC invitation
Would it be possible to create a variation of the Teahosue AFC invitation for when a user's draft is rejected? Declined is very different from rejected as with Declined the user can submit it again however if it's rejected the user cannot submit it again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf As far as I know, the current "decline" templates invite users to the AFD Help Desk, not the Teahouse. See User_talk:Willajayne for an example. They suggest the Teahouse for any other questions about editing. I'm not sure whether we should be encouraging editors whose draft is rejected to do anything, as that would only get us into arguments over lost causes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Section heading should not start with "[" and end with "]"
I discovered that messed up a notification template.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not interested
I repeatedly read
- Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
or minor variations thereof.
"Featured articles", at the time of their featuredom, presumably satisfy interested inquisitors. Right now it's "I Drink Wine", a song that, we read, is sung/recorded/whatever (lipsunk?) by Adele. Within it:
- [Adele] viewed "I Drink Wine" as reminiscent of the work of Elton John and Bernie Taupin, and wrote it for herself and a friend during a time when she was taking things too personally. The song's lyrics were Adele's attempt to explain why she needed to mature to be more available in their friendship.
- Adele revealed that three songs were in contention for release as the lead single, including one she described as "very sort of '70s, like piano, singer-songwriter-y, [with] a whole band on it, but just very Carpenters, like very Elton".
I sense that the "not interested" stuff above is a little overdone. [Pinging ColinFine]-- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is mostly directed at people attempting to write about themselves, people they work for, or their company, not quoting an article subject in an article. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- You repeatedly read it because two years ago I put it in a template, {{HD/WINI}}, when I got fed up with typing the same message. Perhaps it is overdone - anybody's welcome to tweak the template. ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, how about, say:
- Wikipedia has minimal interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them (none of which can count towards notability). Wikipedia is interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
- though that's only a first bash and surely can be improved. (And apropos of what surely can be improved, "she needed to mature to be more available in their friendship": eh, what?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Adele writing about a song she sings is acceptable. Adele writing about Adele's rendering of the song is probably not. Maproom (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, how about, say:
Possible FAQ?
Has creating an FAQ for the Teahouse ever been considered? I understand that the Teahouse is meant for new users to ask questions which is why there tend to be a lot of the same questions, however have we ever considered making an FAQ to try and reduce the amount of similar questions we receive? I feel that it would make it easier since a new user doesn't have to wait for an answer and instead can check the FAQ for questions that have been repeatedly asked in the past and possibly find the answer to their question. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- @blaze wolf: there is the WP:FAQ. (we should probably link that somewhere...) → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 03:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- That's just a list page for the various FAQs on Wikipedia ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Judging by the number of people who routinely ignore Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is linked prominently on Talk:Muhammad and even reproduced in a permanent first section visible on mobile devices, I am skeptical that a FAQ on the Teahouse would get any attention from all the newbies who want to know why their draft was declined (which I would estimate is the number one question). The same thing goes for the FAQ at Talk:Adam's Bridge. It might reduce the tide of questions in a small way, but doesn't eliminate them. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well obviously it wouldn't eliminate them, that would only happen in a perfect world (one where questions like "why was my draft declined" would exist). However maybe it could help if we had somewhere to direct users other than giant essays and policies? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. It certainly can't hurt, and may even help in a small way.
- It seems that the answers to FAQ questions are pretty much all gathered together in Template:HD/WINI. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Dang. I didn't know there were that many HD templates. Still, it wouldn't hurt to actually create an FAQ page with some of those answers. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well obviously it wouldn't eliminate them, that would only happen in a perfect world (one where questions like "why was my draft declined" would exist). However maybe it could help if we had somewhere to direct users other than giant essays and policies? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Judging by the number of people who routinely ignore Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is linked prominently on Talk:Muhammad and even reproduced in a permanent first section visible on mobile devices, I am skeptical that a FAQ on the Teahouse would get any attention from all the newbies who want to know why their draft was declined (which I would estimate is the number one question). The same thing goes for the FAQ at Talk:Adam's Bridge. It might reduce the tide of questions in a small way, but doesn't eliminate them. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- That's just a list page for the various FAQs on Wikipedia ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ChatGPT tries to answer Teahouse questions
I have fed some Wikipedia:Teahouse host training questions to ChatGPT and it generated some interesting responses. See Wikipedia:Teahouse host training/Answers/ChatGPT. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, chatbots. I don't think they should be used anywhere that they might be taken seriously. For question 4, this one is unaware that there's a difference between owning a photo and owning copyright in it. Here's an excerpt from a Google trained chatbot:
- Suppose you roll two standard six-sided dice. What is the probability to get a total score of 8? Explain your working fully.
- The probability of rolling a total score of 8 is 1/9. This is because there are 36 possible outcomes when rolling two standard six-sided dice (6 x 6 = 36). Out of these 36 possible outcomes, only 4 will result in a total score of 8 (1+7, 2+6, 3+5, 4+4). Therefore, the probability of rolling a total score of 8 is 4/36 = 1/9.
- The confident delivery of a totally misguided answer is impressive but unhelpful. Maproom (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I find it a bit funny how for question 4 it says "please do not write 'best regards'" which the bot totally ignores and writes "Best Regards" anyway. Might I ask what "ChatGPT" is? Clearly it's not an aspiring Teahouse Host, but I've never heard of it before. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at it, it appears the bot doesn't know what the instructions it's being given are, only the questions. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Something new developed by OpenAI. (see this) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. Seems promising, though I don't think we should ever use an AI to answer questions anywhere. For one the AI may not always be right, and two it gets rid of the human to human interaction (although some trolls and vandals like to think anti-vandals are bots when really that's just ClueBot NG). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. This was not a proposition that we should tell them to respond to people automatically, but it can create an idea of what a response would look like. At least from what I have seen, ChatGPT was deemed to be generating responses of decent quality. But I guess Math is any chatbot's nightmare:
- Suppose you roll two standard six-sided dice. What is the probability to get a total score of 8? Explain your working fully.
- To get a total score of 8 when rolling two dice, you can get a score of 6 and 2, 5 and 3, or 4 and 4. Since there are a total of 36 possible outcomes when rolling two dice (6 possible outcomes for the first die x 6 possible outcomes for the second die), the probability of getting a total score of 8 is 3/36, which simplifies to 1/12. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef Don't offer yourself as an alternative to chatbot. There are two ways each to get 6/2 and 5/3 but only one way to get 4/4. So the correct answer is 5/36. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Michael D. Turnbull That is what ChatGPT generated. I should have specified that. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I wondered about that! Actually, I thought that its answers to the Teahouse training questions were pretty good. In the case of the image upload it did say "[if] you have the right to use the photo" which does imply it knows about copyright. The real issue is that people often don't know what the word "right" means in this context. It might be fun to try out giving instant answers, making clear they were from a bot, in the live Teahouse. You would want it not to answer every question or some trolls would start trying to trip it up but if it answered say one in three questions on average that would be a useful experiment to run for a few days. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I like that idea. I think a message at the end saying "This message was generated by ChatGPT and may not be accurate." with a link to more details on ChatGPT would help distinguish the AI's answer from a real one. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Although I do have an issue in that it doesn't use internal linking, and make it seem like the answer comes from the Teahouse itself (which is not true) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- It could be mitigated by detecting keywords and automatically linking them, and trimming out the best regards part if it insists. However, we can't do it with a bot as OpenAI has not exposed any kind of API for it yet. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I wondered about that! Actually, I thought that its answers to the Teahouse training questions were pretty good. In the case of the image upload it did say "[if] you have the right to use the photo" which does imply it knows about copyright. The real issue is that people often don't know what the word "right" means in this context. It might be fun to try out giving instant answers, making clear they were from a bot, in the live Teahouse. You would want it not to answer every question or some trolls would start trying to trip it up but if it answered say one in three questions on average that would be a useful experiment to run for a few days. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Michael D. Turnbull That is what ChatGPT generated. I should have specified that. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef Don't offer yourself as an alternative to chatbot. There are two ways each to get 6/2 and 5/3 but only one way to get 4/4. So the correct answer is 5/36. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I find it a bit funny how for question 4 it says "please do not write 'best regards'" which the bot totally ignores and writes "Best Regards" anyway. Might I ask what "ChatGPT" is? Clearly it's not an aspiring Teahouse Host, but I've never heard of it before. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Meeting this Friday
Hello,
The Editing team is hosting a public meeting this Friday, December 16th to talk about the needs of new editors. You are all invited. They want to present some ideas they have about encouraging the addition of inline citations, and they want to hear what you think will help newcomers make productive contributions.
When: Friday, 16 December 2022 at 16:00–17:30 UTC
Video conference link: https://meet.google.com/krq-tonw-quz
This meeting will be in English. There is some information on wiki at mw:Editing team/Community Conversations#16 December 2022 You don't need to sign up in advance, but you can sign up on that page if you want to. I hope some Teahouse hosts will be able to attend.
If you aren't able to attend, but you have some information or advice for the team, you can also leave a public note for the Editing team at mw:Talk:Editing team/Community Conversations. (Also, if you want to find out about future events, I suggest putting that page on your watchlist.)
Thank you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was about to tell you that you forgot the section header but clearly you noticed. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I attended the meeting, in the expectation that it would be for Teahouse hosts and suchlike to discuss how better to help and encourage new editors. In fact most of those present were new editors from sub-Saharan Africa; and people from the WMF were demonstrating new tools intended to make things easier for them. (I wish WMF employees would discuss things with experienced contributors before developing new tools. They seem to work in an ivory tower.) Maproom (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- There couldn't have been any demos, because nothing's been built yet. They presented some drawings of different ways to encourage people to add citations. You may have noticed that I wrote above "They want to present some ideas they have about encouraging the addition of inline citations".
- I wonder what your definition of "experienced contributor" is, if people who have made hundreds or thousands of edits during the last couple of years don't count. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
most of those present were new editors from sub-Saharan Africa
this comment is concerning; it has racist undertones. Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)- According to this page, "This meeting will be an opportunity for new and experienced volunteers from Sub-Saharan Africa ...". Does that also have racist undertones? It seems to me that WMF members hearing about and addressing the problems encountered by editors from that part of the world is an excellent initiative. But I didn't notice anyone there with hundreds or thousands of edits. Maproom (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate the context, without which it sounded concerning. Thanks for the clarification. Polyamorph (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- According to this page, "This meeting will be an opportunity for new and experienced volunteers from Sub-Saharan Africa ...". Does that also have racist undertones? It seems to me that WMF members hearing about and addressing the problems encountered by editors from that part of the world is an excellent initiative. But I didn't notice anyone there with hundreds or thousands of edits. Maproom (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Scams and incompetence
I often read this kind of thing:
- Companies that offer to create articles for pay are almost all scams or not competent.
Indeed, I've written this kind of thing myself. But increasingly, I doubt that it's true. As I look at stuff awaiting AFC review, I often see drafts by very new editors that, though (I suspect deliberately) aren't polished, cite a stunning array of obscure sources and (aside from a tendency to include relative trivia) are actually well done. Often they'll have some sort of stylistic/technical disorder that doesn't risk having the article declined, that can be fixed fairly easily, and that I suppose is designed to add a veneer of novitiate ignorance of MoS or Mediawiki formatting or similar. I presume that a given username of a paid, competent writer first makes a few trivial edits to articles in the rough subject area, creates the paid-for draft, gets it promoted to article status, is retired and replaced....
Lacking solid evidence that these drafts are the work of paid editors, I usually keep my suspicions to myself. "Smells as if paid for" isn't a "decline" rationale. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- You would know better but I believe there's nothing wrong with dropping the COI notice and waiting for their reply before accepting, as it's a TOU and policy violation to be a UPE. I think the obvious one's are PR "specialists" who haven't bothered to learn the medium they are trying to publish to, but your point is accurate on those specializing on Wikipedia articles. Slywriter (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I could, Slywriter, but then I fear I'd soon find myself sticking COI notices on any submission by an SPA. Indeed, I think that the average SPA does have a COI. But there's no rule saying that contributors must have a normative pattern of editing. WP certainly does have unfortunate omissions, and a benevolent person could conceivably (i) have a lot of info about a subject, (ii) sincerely believe that this subject is notable, and (iii) be unusually adept at adopting house styles of writing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- "I often read this kind of thing:
- Companies that offer to create articles for pay are almost all scams or not competent." I usually only see this if someone mentions they received an email saying that they can get their article published if they pay some money. I almost never see this if someone asks why their draft wasn't approved. Mind providing some examples? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to name any, Blaze Wolf, but I'll nudge you in one direction. Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts is rather a magnet for (self-) promoters. Currently none of the short descriptions in that list mentions "curator" or similar, and indeed curator drafts aren't common. But of those drafts about curators that are submitted, a pretty high percentage are of the kind that I describe. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mean "curator" as in the actual job? I would very much expect people who are curators or care about curators to be able to write a decent wikipedia article and have access to and interest in obscure sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, asilvering, the actual job. I'd expect such people to be bright and highly articulate. And any autobiographers among them would have those obscure sources. However, with their negligible list of contributions that aren't for the article in question, I wouldn't expect the editors to be highly fluent in Mediawiki markup and the like. Yet they tend to get the markup right, only making this or that beginner mistake of a variety that's both innocuous and easy for anyone else to fix. (Among these varieties is utterly unnecessary piping: I mean, if they want the link, say, cyan to appear within their text, they'll write not [[cyan]], as any non-beginner would, but instead [[Cyan|cyan]].) I mean no offence to curators -- I know at least one, and just today I glumly walked out of an exhibition half the way through: I might well have viewed the whole thing if only it had been the product of a curatorial intellect -- but I fear that very few people are sufficiently interested in any curator to build up files of newspaper clippings on that person unless they have a powerful COI. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mean "curator" as in the actual job? I would very much expect people who are curators or care about curators to be able to write a decent wikipedia article and have access to and interest in obscure sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to name any, Blaze Wolf, but I'll nudge you in one direction. Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts is rather a magnet for (self-) promoters. Currently none of the short descriptions in that list mentions "curator" or similar, and indeed curator drafts aren't common. But of those drafts about curators that are submitted, a pretty high percentage are of the kind that I describe. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- As a host at Help Desk and Teahouse, I often see paid editors asking for help because they're clueless about the work they've accepted payment for, and need help from us volunteers. When they're salaried employees who've been told by their boss "get an article set up on Wikipedia", this is understandable. When they've taken on the job as freelancers, they get less sympathy. Anyway − the result is that we hosts can get the impression that most paid editors are incompetent. But I suspect we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and there are plenty of competent paid editors working away unnoticed. At the opposite end of the range there are extremely competent (and I assume accordingly well-paid) agents of e.g. big tobacco, working effectively in their clients' interests. As for the ordinary, fairly competent, undeclared paid editors, they're probably a net positive for Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Maproom, yes, I tend to agree. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Edit conflicts: a tip
Maybe what I describe below is obvious or well-known. But it only occurred to me recently, so I thought I'd pass it on.
Until around a year ago, I used to get edit conflicts at the Help desk and at the Teahouse, and they weren't a problem for me. I could click the "back" button in my browser, get back to the text that I'd typed in, and copy it. Then something changed, that technique stopped working, and I found myself having to retype the text. But there's an easy way to avoid that: once I've typed in the text, and maybe checked it with "Show preview", instead of clicking "Publish changes" I shift-click "Publish changes". That way (with Chrome, anyway) the submission goes to a new browser window; if if it's lost to an edit conflict, it's still there in the old window. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nice tip Maproom - it works in MS Edge as well - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's useful but I suspect that most editors are now using the "reply" link rather than "edit source" when answering on any Talk Page. This makes edit conflicts impossible as the software waits for any conflicts to resolve before committing the edit when you click on the "Reply" button. It also has the advantage of getting the indenting correct and previewing the edit as you type. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and with the Reply tool being enabled by default for new users, I doubt we'll see edit conflicts as much as we used to a year ago.
I still think Convenient Discussions is better, but the inhouse analogue's pretty serviceable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)- I've tried using the Reply tool (and am doing so now, to remind myself what it's like). It doesn't let me see the source of the what I'm replying to, and it doesn't have Show Preview. So I've gone back to using edit. Maproom (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- For me, I can see a preview below the reply window while I type, without needing to hit a "show preview" button. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Maproom That's odd! I suspect you are using the "Visual" option on the reply tool. I use the "Source" option (toggles just above the editing window) so I get the best of both worlds with a Preview below the source editing window. And of course, the tool also auto-signs, so you won't be adding any tilde if you are using it correctly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've tried using the Reply tool (and am doing so now, to remind myself what it's like). It doesn't let me see the source of the what I'm replying to, and it doesn't have Show Preview. So I've gone back to using edit. Maproom (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and with the Reply tool being enabled by default for new users, I doubt we'll see edit conflicts as much as we used to a year ago.
- That's useful but I suspect that most editors are now using the "reply" link rather than "edit source" when answering on any Talk Page. This makes edit conflicts impossible as the software waits for any conflicts to resolve before committing the edit when you click on the "Reply" button. It also has the advantage of getting the indenting correct and previewing the edit as you type. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Archives missing?
Does anyone know why the archive list at the top of this page only goes up to 10 (there are actually 26)? And what happened to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the deletion logs, it seems that the answer to your second question is that someone mistakenly created Wikipedia:Teahouse/Archive 11, and admin User:Liz deleted that, and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11 was deleted at the same time, presumably unintentionally (and perhaps your first point about only 10 being shown in the archive box contributed to that) so perhaps she or another admin can undelete it? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh. I couldn't figure out that deletion reason, but your theory would cover it. Maybe I'll try an undeletion request later this week if no helpful admin wanders by here first. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and just requested undeletion while also linking this discussion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's done! Thanks all. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I see that getting Archive 11 back has corrected the problem with the archive list in the box at the top. We can now see the ones beyond 10, so it had previously all been part of the same problem. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's done! Thanks all. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and just requested undeletion while also linking this discussion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh. I couldn't figure out that deletion reason, but your theory would cover it. Maybe I'll try an undeletion request later this week if no helpful admin wanders by here first. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)