Grants talk:IdeaLab/Twinkle for newcomers
Add topicI don't really understand what you are saying here. Are you talking about blocking registered or unregistered people? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Dunkleosteus77: I think that the idea creator wants to allow newcomers without autoreviewed status to use Twinkle to improve Wikipedia. Also the user misunderstands what Twinkle, a semi-automatic tool for Wikipedia's content maintenance, is for. It has nothing to do with those blocks. The user is blocked in zhwp for disturbances, and from the user's previous discussion seen in enwp, I'm quite afraid that s/he may not be able to command enough proficiency of English, needless to say if s/he can elaborate an idea well. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 08:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from 春卷柯南
[edit]- Oppose: at least in Chinese Wikipedia Twinkle is not for newcomers. We require users of Twinkle to know well about our policies and guidelines before they use it, so they won't utilise that as a tool to threat our community and core values. Some of them may not know well about what Wikipedia allows, or they may come there for some specific causes which the community can hardly accept (e.g. cosmetic modification on articles, pursuit in a particular political view instead of NPOV.) Giving them rights to use Twinkle may get the thing worse by rapid escalation of edit warring, nomination for deletion with purpose of hoax or in a bad faith, etc. IMHO to activate this gadget by becoming an autoconfirmed is quite enough. Sorry if I'm too pessimistic. (PS. the idea creator is banned from Chinese Wikipedia for disturbance which I'd involved in discussions in the local teahouse.) --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 08:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reason for I created this idea is that I saw a lot of IPs do constructive edits and report some vandalisms, and if this success, the "confirmed" right will probably not needed at that time. 333-blue 12:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- A lot is not all, by doing this we may see those newcomers with bad intention to abuse our trust to do what they want as there's a lack of mechanism to identify who won't abuse Twinkle. Newcomers should learn basics of editing before they are identified as contributors with good intention, thus able to move on. Why should they feel bothered before they joined Wikipedia for a week and finish a minimum amount of (accepted) edits. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 13:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia's autoconfirmed right is earned by editing 10 times and 4 days, not 50 times and 7 days (which used in the Chinese Wikipedia). 333-blue 04:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- The different conditions to gain autoconfirmed rights is just irrelevant. Furthermore I've read the history of this proposal, this may not only exists for newcomers, but probably also anonymous users. With visible risks and inadequate elaboration on its solution, this should be considered twice before we move on (maybe to shelve it is too aggressive to make the idea creator unpleased). --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 11:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's sure not only for normal users, but also for anonymous users. They will not gain all the rights as autoconfirmed users. Like that they can't report users with this Twinkle too often. They also have to be autoconfirmed if they want to use the full version of Twinkle. 333-blue 23:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unless users vandal obviously, IPs can't report them too often. 333-blue 23:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's sure not only for normal users, but also for anonymous users. They will not gain all the rights as autoconfirmed users. Like that they can't report users with this Twinkle too often. They also have to be autoconfirmed if they want to use the full version of Twinkle. 333-blue 23:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- The different conditions to gain autoconfirmed rights is just irrelevant. Furthermore I've read the history of this proposal, this may not only exists for newcomers, but probably also anonymous users. With visible risks and inadequate elaboration on its solution, this should be considered twice before we move on (maybe to shelve it is too aggressive to make the idea creator unpleased). --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 11:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia's autoconfirmed right is earned by editing 10 times and 4 days, not 50 times and 7 days (which used in the Chinese Wikipedia). 333-blue 04:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- A lot is not all, by doing this we may see those newcomers with bad intention to abuse our trust to do what they want as there's a lack of mechanism to identify who won't abuse Twinkle. Newcomers should learn basics of editing before they are identified as contributors with good intention, thus able to move on. Why should they feel bothered before they joined Wikipedia for a week and finish a minimum amount of (accepted) edits. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 13:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reason for I created this idea is that I saw a lot of IPs do constructive edits and report some vandalisms, and if this success, the "confirmed" right will probably not needed at that time. 333-blue 12:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
┌───────────────────────┘
What do you mean? Having a trial version of Twinkle for them to use? If you mean by limiting the frequency of vandal report, I don't think that it makes difference to so-called full version of Twinkle as from experiences IP vandals only report a user to VIP per time.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 07:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's sure a trial version. IPs can report 3 users per day (generally based on the UTC), and registered non-auto/confirmed users can report 5 users. This is also good because that it will let the users be more familiar with (language) Wikipedia policies. 333-blue 13:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Still not useful. They can simply get rid of the limits by report all users they considered as vandals at once, also they may or may not understand why a sysop may rejected their request (which is a common case for VIP reports of newbies and IP vandals), sometimes keep arguing with sysops and other parties in the conflict (either with or without Twinkle). Also it's no mention on differences on edit reversion and AFD.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 14:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- They can only AFD and CSD with Twinkle, as well as BLP PROD, they can't do things like TFD. If there is a mention, an orange box/line will appear on the top of the page he/she is reading. They also can't vote, only nominate is allowed. 333-blue 23:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then what's different from the rights they have now? If I don't remember it wrongly all users have rights which one can handle with the "trial version" of Twinkle as you've mentioned. Also in some language there's no TFD, templates are handled by AFD.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 09:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- In Chinese Wikipedia (for example), they can only nominate to AFD, not File for Deletion. Sorry if those are incorrect, I didn't mean it. I have been blocked in the Chinese Wikipedia for quite a while, so I may not know all of the big changes. Just memories. 333-blue 14:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- IP users doesn't need Twinkle to participate in FFD. We're not going to restrict their rights to do so. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 14:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- In Chinese Wikipedia (for example), they can only nominate to AFD, not File for Deletion. Sorry if those are incorrect, I didn't mean it. I have been blocked in the Chinese Wikipedia for quite a while, so I may not know all of the big changes. Just memories. 333-blue 14:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then what's different from the rights they have now? If I don't remember it wrongly all users have rights which one can handle with the "trial version" of Twinkle as you've mentioned. Also in some language there's no TFD, templates are handled by AFD.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 09:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- They can only AFD and CSD with Twinkle, as well as BLP PROD, they can't do things like TFD. If there is a mention, an orange box/line will appear on the top of the page he/she is reading. They also can't vote, only nominate is allowed. 333-blue 23:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Still not useful. They can simply get rid of the limits by report all users they considered as vandals at once, also they may or may not understand why a sysop may rejected their request (which is a common case for VIP reports of newbies and IP vandals), sometimes keep arguing with sysops and other parties in the conflict (either with or without Twinkle). Also it's no mention on differences on edit reversion and AFD.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 14:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
┌─────────────┘
I know, they can't nominate files at the FFD through the trial version of Twinkle. Twinkle is the half of a bot. 333-blue 01:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your words are simply hollow, as you've said that before, and many of Wikipedians know that Twinkle is a semi-automated gadget. It doesn't matter whether they can use Twinkle to take part in FFD, it's still the same: someone once deleted my non-free screenshot of a TV programme, leading to it speedy deletion.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 12:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if your answer is close to the topic. Anyway, IPs can still leading articles to speedy delete (not vandalizing the article) by using Twinkle, as well as the BLP PROD, but not the normal PROD, they may even make the (language) Wikipedia better! 333-blue 07:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Stop doubting if I'm off-topic, I'm trying to point problems of your idea. How do you get the conclusion that IP user's usage would be mostly beneficial? In the history of zhwp there're two great vandals, and till now they're still vandalising Wikipedia through IP accounts and new sockpuppets. You've never mention about what IP can do with Twinkle to revert an edit, and if the matter get worse they may utilise the loophole to escalate an edit warring rapidly (as we know that it's much faster to revert an edit through Twinkle instead of the normal way). Also, newcomers and IP users can use the loophole to propose deletion of a file through AFD (though it's not responsible for it), only to wait someone to move the request to FFD. So what I should doubt is not my response, but the idea itself.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 08:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just call an admin to block them. There are still some vandals in the English Wikipedia, too. Also, they can only rollback vandals, not include AGF and the normal rollback, they can only revert in the old way. And, I said that I don't know what's happening in the Chinese Wikipedia. Users are not allowed to propose files for deletion in the AFD. 333-blue 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- But the fact is that vandals will not quit proactively, they'll be there before their objectives are met. Sometimes they may deny that their new account inherits the original account that's blocked permanently, or change the IP address they use to increase the difficulty of sockpuppet surveillance. How naive the response above is. To give them rights to revert edit (but only when they have to label edits they have to cancel as vandalism) probably can still worsen a edit warring quickly, coupled with personal attacks, which is detrimental to mutual trust between Wikipedians. Also it's incorrect that a deletion proposal of a file through AFD would be rejected (at least in zhwp), I asked some users yesterday and they said that moving such proposal to FFD is the way. One more thing: the risk is too big to tolerate on this issue. Just like the Schengen Pact, even if it's meant to be good, it can become a threat to internal security to Europe as terrorists can disguise them as refugees, slip into the EU states and perpetrate an attack. Needless to say that we're branded as an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 10:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, some IPs may vandal, just call an admin to block them. So that's what I'm saying, reporting files in the AFD through the trial version of Twinkle will not be allowed. Yeah, Wikipedia is sure a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even anonymous users. This version of Twinkle's goal is to give people convenient, and help Wikipedia more. I believed that you read "弟子規" when you are young, didn't you? It said that "人之初，性本善，性...", which means that people were good when they were born. Sockpuppet: area-of-effect blocks usually solve these problems, it shouldn't be a big problem, though. 333-blue 14:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- But the fact is that vandals will not quit proactively, they'll be there before their objectives are met. Sometimes they may deny that their new account inherits the original account that's blocked permanently, or change the IP address they use to increase the difficulty of sockpuppet surveillance. How naive the response above is. To give them rights to revert edit (but only when they have to label edits they have to cancel as vandalism) probably can still worsen a edit warring quickly, coupled with personal attacks, which is detrimental to mutual trust between Wikipedians. Also it's incorrect that a deletion proposal of a file through AFD would be rejected (at least in zhwp), I asked some users yesterday and they said that moving such proposal to FFD is the way. One more thing: the risk is too big to tolerate on this issue. Just like the Schengen Pact, even if it's meant to be good, it can become a threat to internal security to Europe as terrorists can disguise them as refugees, slip into the EU states and perpetrate an attack. Needless to say that we're branded as an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 10:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just call an admin to block them. There are still some vandals in the English Wikipedia, too. Also, they can only rollback vandals, not include AGF and the normal rollback, they can only revert in the old way. And, I said that I don't know what's happening in the Chinese Wikipedia. Users are not allowed to propose files for deletion in the AFD. 333-blue 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Stop doubting if I'm off-topic, I'm trying to point problems of your idea. How do you get the conclusion that IP user's usage would be mostly beneficial? In the history of zhwp there're two great vandals, and till now they're still vandalising Wikipedia through IP accounts and new sockpuppets. You've never mention about what IP can do with Twinkle to revert an edit, and if the matter get worse they may utilise the loophole to escalate an edit warring rapidly (as we know that it's much faster to revert an edit through Twinkle instead of the normal way). Also, newcomers and IP users can use the loophole to propose deletion of a file through AFD (though it's not responsible for it), only to wait someone to move the request to FFD. So what I should doubt is not my response, but the idea itself.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 08:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if your answer is close to the topic. Anyway, IPs can still leading articles to speedy delete (not vandalizing the article) by using Twinkle, as well as the BLP PROD, but not the normal PROD, they may even make the (language) Wikipedia better! 333-blue 07:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
┌─────────┘
You're keep avoiding the question that someone can propose the deletion of a file through AFD by Twinkle, I'm not going to illustrate on this point more. The original intent for development of Twinkle is not a good shield - Alfred Nobel invented dynamite to decrease the danger of explosives and make works like tunneling easier, but it doesn't stop politicians from using this to attack their enemies, which make Nobel disappointed. I've talked above how they can get rid of banishment imposed on the IP address they used, and it works, so I won't reiterate it again - some get rid of this by just changing IP address. Lastly in Mencius' Essay for Disciples it said that people are born to be kind, but as you say below babies can't edit Wikipedia. When they have such ability to do so they may learnt to be sophisticated. This may echo with a contradictory viewpoint of Xunzi that people are born to be evil, while in the academia none of this two statements are proved as correct. I just found it contradictory.
Couldn't agree more on Carrotkit's stand. One more example: Let's imagine in a village every household has a harvester. It can make harvesting faster with low level of human labour devoted, but it's possible that it can destroy other's fields, amputate someone's leg and even murder. These are cons which are hard to get rid of. Now there's a plan to park harvesters on public road and allow strangers to use it. It is for Good Samaritans' act, i. e. helping others to harvest. But the danger's still there, and discontent sowed between villagers that bandits may go to the village to attack - destroying fields, amputate legs of someone and even killing him/her (with nothing lost for the driver.) What makes the matter worse are some people would like to take the risk even if they know about it - like vandals there. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 17:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Even if we assume that all of newbies are not vandals and hope to comtribute, the risk still exists. Most newbies are not very familiar with policies and guidelines. They might misuse (semi-)automatic tools and thus violate guidelines easily although they do so with a good purpose. Let me present an analogy: hammers and knifes as agricultural tools are very helpful, but it is dangerous to allow children to use them. Although we assume that children want to help out, they might misuse the tools as they do not realize the risk. --Carrotkit (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A possible drawback of the idea
[edit]In accordance to my own experience, early usage of (semi-)automatic tools might hinder newbies from gaining better understanding to Wiki markup. When I was a new user, I did not know the existence of any automatic tools. Despite the dull processes, I have learnt some skills of editting in Wiki markup, such as substitution and inserting a signiture. If (semi-)automatic tools were offered to newbies, they would lose the opportunity of exposing themselves to Wiki markup. Instead, the user-friendly interface might hinder them from learning the markup. --Carrotkit (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- How did you know that new babies can edit Wikipedia? Did you mean newcomers? Actually, I also hope that they can learn policies earlier. They could be great wikipedians, and I said that it is a trial version. 333-blue 01:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am afraid that your answer could not solve my doubt. The early usage of Twinkle might hinder newcomers from learning Wiki markup. --Carrotkit (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki markups are shortcuts. 333-blue 14:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am afraid that your answer could not solve my doubt. The early usage of Twinkle might hinder newcomers from learning Wiki markup. --Carrotkit (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry but your statement above is not correct. Wiki markups are the original but complex way to combat vandalism, while (semi-)automatic tools like Twinkle and Huggle are the shortcuts. It makes no sense to say that Wiki markup is a shortcut. --Carrotkit (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki markups are just below the edit screen. It says that they are insertable wiki markups. 333-blue 23:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry but your statement above is not correct. Wiki markups are the original but complex way to combat vandalism, while (semi-)automatic tools like Twinkle and Huggle are the shortcuts. It makes no sense to say that Wiki markup is a shortcut. --Carrotkit (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
April 12 Proposal Deadline: Is your project ready for funding?
[edit]The deadline for Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) submissions this round is April 12th, 2016. If you’ve developed your idea into a project that would benefit from funding, consider applying!
To apply, you must (1) create a draft request using the “Expand into an Individual Engagement Grant” button on your idea page, (2) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (3) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talk page.
If you have any questions about IEG or would like support in developing your proposal, we're hosting a few proposal help sessions this month in Google Hangouts:
- April 5th, 16:00 - 17:00 UTC
- April 8th 1:00 - 2:00 UTC
- April 12th 16:00 - 17:00 UTC
I'm also happy to set up an individual session. With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, just look at the discussions above, not yet ready, and even maybe never. 333-blue 05:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)