Kazamzam
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
This Month in GLAM: March 2024 edit
| ||||||
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive edit
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Reversion of student editor changes on sea rewilding edit
Reverting the entire set of improvements from the student editor seems bitey and your edit summary makes it worse. The reason given in your edit summary also doesn't seem accurate (the changes were broken up into multiple edits and the article was made more comprehensive) and the summary fails to explain any of the issues with their changes.
At the very least, you should be explaining the issues on their talk page or on the article talk page. Several edits did contain WP:UGC, specifically Wikipedia references, but those could have been fixed, temporarily changed to {{citation needed}}, or those specific edits could have been undone individually. The other issues seem like they would be relatively easy to fix (e.g., any essay-like or POV text). It's not on you to make those fixes, of course, but completely reverting the text does not seem like the best solution here.
You might consider restoring the student's version and working from it instead. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Quinlan - I appreciate your feedback on this and as I am going through the edits of all the other students in the same course, I will keep this in mind. The issue with the sea rewilding article is that the new editor added 31,000+ bytes to an ~11,000 byte article that included, yes, UGC, but also sentences that were grammatically incorrect, misspellings of words such as "coastal" and "resource" and "environment", entirely subjective statements that did not use an encyclopedic tone, copyright violations, etc. I don't love reverting all these edits but I have a bigger problem allowing that quality and quantity of low-level information to remain on Wikipedia. Furthermore, when I addressed this particular student with the course instructor, the instructor said that the editor's work was a "trainwreck" (their word, not mine) and thanked me for reverting the edits. I disagree that these were "improvements" and I saw that someone from WikiEd had already reached out to the editor about their copying directly from their sandbox and overwriting the existing article, which was the edit summary of every single edit that they made, sans one about rearranging photos. Given this volume, the number of immediately identifiable mistakes and edit guideline/policy violations, the previous warning and continued behaviour, I think this was not bitey but bold and I don't think the edit summary made anything worse. I will be more detailed in my edit summary of the other students going forward and hopefully this will be a learning opportunity for them. Thanks, Kazamzam (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to disagree about the issues. My sense that it was bitey was really a combination of those factors. With 60% of the addition being citations, it seemed like a tractable amount of prose (especially after reverting the additions that had inappropriate citations) and some of the additions would help address shortcomings in the current article. And while it's not a requirement to leave a talk page explanation, it can really help newcomers. And as WP:BITE mentions, it's non-bitey in a good way if you can
Improve, don't remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors and regulars from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)
Thanks for listening. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to disagree about the issues. My sense that it was bitey was really a combination of those factors. With 60% of the addition being citations, it seemed like a tractable amount of prose (especially after reverting the additions that had inappropriate citations) and some of the additions would help address shortcomings in the current article. And while it's not a requirement to leave a talk page explanation, it can really help newcomers. And as WP:BITE mentions, it's non-bitey in a good way if you can
Thu April 25: WikiNYC Hacking Night edit
| April 25: Hacking Night @ Prime Produce | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for NYC Hacking Night at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is intended primarily for technical contributors, though newcomers are welcome as well! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Wikimedia's Technical Code of Conduct. Meeting info:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2024 edit
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Women in Red May 2024 edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I can't believe it edit
The momentum is still strong! The backlog might actually be cleared! That's amazing! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane it's going amazingly well! Someone has really been hard at work on October 2012, it's dropped by over FOUR HUNDRED articles in less than a month! Super proud of everyone's effort.
- In terms of next steps, I think we should wait for a few months for the next campaign - maybe August. We can make a planning section on the WP talk page and discuss what worked well, what didn't, how and where to innovate, etc. Since there's a lot of time to plan, I think we'll be able to come up with something really great. I'm interested in making use of an automatic tool like what Asian Month does that assesses submissions under criteria automatically. Kazamzam (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)