User:ProgrammingGeek/WikiProject Report/Interviews/WikiProject Articles for Creation: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Interviews: add template |
K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 82:
*How can a new contributor help today?
There is a PERM like process to access the reviewing script at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants]]. If you are not ready for that, there are interesting ways to still help while you can learn more about the process and build up confidence. We are in the business of sorting out the junk and promoting the good. You can CSD spam/copyvio and MfD other problems in [[:Category:Pending AfC submissions]]. If you prefer content creation or gnoming, please look for good notable topics in the same category and improve the pages. Many submitters are new, without the skills to add sources properly, format pages correctly, and other issues. Helping get good pages ready for mainspace and eliminating bad pages makes the AfC reviewer's job much easier.
=== K.e.coffman ===
<!-- Don't feel the need to answer these all at once, but please have your responses finalised by December 22. -->
*What motivated you to become a member of WikiProject Articles for Creation?
::I've been nudged a couple of times on my Talk page, but joined only recently. Early on, I accepted a few drafts that had been submitted three months prior, which seemed like a really long time to wait to get one's draft reviewed. This motivated me to keep going. The current backlog is just shy of four weeks, which is much more reasonable.
*There has been discussion about integrating Articles for Creation into the New Pages Patrol. What are your thoughts on this?
::The two projects have overlapping goals -- shepherding new articles into mainspace while maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia -- but I don't think that the functions are exactly the same. The NPP browser now allows users to toggle between the two processes, which is useful.
*The Articles for Creation backlog has fallen dramatically recently. How are reviewers keeping the backlog low?
::The new rejection feature (to discourage resubmissions) is helping; I'm no longer seeing drafts that have been resubmitted two, three, four times. Fewer resubmissions mean fewer total submissions, and it's better to be upfront with the authors if the topic is not suitable, rather than implicitly asking them to invest more time into "hopeless" drafts.
*Have you seen a difference in your workflow following the conclusion of [[WP:ACTRIAL]]?
::I only joined the project two months ago, so I don't have the first-hand experience with what has changed compared to before ACTRIAL. I would argue that the bar should be raised even further than ACTRIAL went -- four days and 10 edits in no way prepare news users to write encyclopedia entries directly in mainspace. More drafts being channelled to AfC would hopefully relieve the pressure on NPP reviewers, while improving the overall quality of articles that reach mainspace. To keep the AfC backlog manageable, we would need more AfC reviewers, of course.
*What are WikiProject Articles for Creation's most pressing needs?
::The project can always use more reviewers. I found that AfD experience makes AfC a seamless transition. Exposure to AfD and various notability guidelines is helpful in knowing which subjects are and aren't likely to survive a deletion discussion. With that in mind, I would encourage AfD regulars to try their hand at AfC. There's also an interesting proposal on the table regarding "Drafts for assistance", which would hopefully draw other projects into lending a hand. I'd like to see this idea implemented.
*Anything else you'd like to add?
::I've found the project to be a supportive environment and a good group of editors to be around. People should join us!
| |||