Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter/Archives

Hi MB, I appreciate the effort that has gone into drafting this letter. It's well written. However, I have worked in very close collaboration with Marshall in the past and I know him to be someone who is already acutely aware of the issues surrounding NPP. Nevertheless, even though he has been promoted to overal charge of Growth, his hands are tied when it it comes to the allocation of budgets and engineering staff. The WMF is currently rudderless, practically on their own admission it has no one in overall command and the new CEO and a new 'Chief of Staff' still need to settle in, and the replacement for Toby Negrin needs to find his feet. That said, NPP has been brought to the attention of the BoT and the chair of its technology committee and their responses have shown some optimism and they will be discussing NPP with Ms Iskander.

I am preparing a sequel to my two NPP special reports in The Signpost here and here (please read them - and the reader comments - if you haven't done so already). Lest I make inaccurate claims, as per journalistic courtesy I have requested feedback on this draft article from key people in the WMF and the BoT and I have received encouraging response.

I therefore believe we should hold off putting Marshall and those people under additional stress for a while. Some of my upcoming article hinges on the effect of backlog drives and before I can complete that section, I must wait until you or somebody has revealed the results of the current drive and handed out the rewards. By the time the next Signpost is published, from the undertow of the current off-Wiki discussions I shall know more about the progress on NPP and my report will reflect this. The month will pass quickly and the article in The Signpost will not be without significant impact.

I think here is little to be gained by involving Mr Wales. His talk page is little more than a soap opera of petty grievances, mostly by by 'regulars' at his page. In RL he's quite a busy person and he does read it all but rarely sees the need to respond or to follow up on every link to his name. His powers are limited but at the real-life Wikimanias his keynote speeches were well researched and he is an approachable person. Best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, this does not have to go to Marshall, I just put that there as a "placeholder". You say the need for NPP support has been "brought to the attention of the BoT". My idea was to have this "signed" by as many NPPers as possible. We could give it to them just to show there are many of us at NPP who desperately want these improvements (strength in numbers). I've seen comments elsewhere that the devs are influenced by what readers/editors are asking for (like notifications/TP access for mobile uses). I was anticipating collecting signatures for a month or so. How do you feel if I ask for signatures, just to have this ready if at some point in the future we may think it could be helpful to send it to someone? If your efforts are fruitful and we do nothing with this, so be it. MB 00:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

MB,I think that's an excellent idea. I'll add a note to it to the August newsletter which you are of course welcome to edit or even redraft as long as it's kept as short as possible and mainly contains the basic results of the backlog drive. I think the letter to the WMF should then be sent out after reader comments to the article in The Signpost have tailed off. How to distribute that letter is another question. I think there is an official WMF email channel anyone can send mails to, I can't remember, but I think that my article will be a subtle kneejerk to them first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung OK. I don't want to change this letter after people start signing it. It is suppose to be from all of us at NPP. Is there anyone else you would suggest to review it? MB 01:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

MB, I don't think so. It's been produced by you and Novem as NPP coords with some input from me as quasi NPP 'emeritus' and that will be enough. Too many cooks spoil the broth, and that's what all too often happens on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, OK, but I do think this needs improvement: most notably actors and business people. I don't see that many business people. More singers/ internet personalities/ etc. - anyone whose success depends on being noticed. MB 01:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

MB, absolutely true. I've made a couple of minor tweaks to it but I don't want to override your super draft. I'll take another look at it before our newsletter goes out. Compare the diffs to see what I have changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

MB, I've taken my signature off. I only put it there to show you what it would look like. I'll sign again when I will be further down the list. I don't want to be seen as the driving force - plenty of people are fed up already of my interfering since I retired from NPP ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

PS. Jimbo is aware of the challenges surrounding NPP. I spoke to him personally about it each time I have met him (2013, 2014, 2016). Also, I have received feedback yesterday from the former senior developer of PageTriage. He left the WMF during the mass exodus some years ago but he might be tempted to come back as a volunteer and offer some technical input. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

PPS: MB, Novem Linguae, The replacement for Negrin was announced here. It's ostensibly a job on the very top level of WMF hierarchy and carries (or did for her predecessor) an extremely high salary. She starts on 1 August, but unlike her predecessor she does not already have a background in the Foundation or on Wikipedia. I don't know who is responsible for hiring the key Foundation staff, but it's obviously not through the CEO's office. Off-topic, I'm still also baffled why the WMF's website is a WordPress blog and needs a WordPress.com membership to access parts of it. Is the WMF - mainly a technology driven org - incapable of designing a proper website and hosting it themselves? Is that also why they can't get to grips on NPP? Perhaps one day the entire Wiki will be running on that awful WordPress code. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Condense more?

We could possibly condense this letter more. The 4 paragraphs about NPP's internal struggles are true and interesting, but may be too much information for our target audience, and may not be related enough to the PageTriage software. Thoughts on condensing the 4 paragraphs to 1 paragraph? I guess we should decide if we want to focus on the action item (getting devs for PageTriage), or on educating WMF brass about the NPP situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't educating the "WMF brass" the way to get them to allocate resources (devs) to PageTriage. I think the first paragraph should be more like the original version. Why have "Unbreak Now" and so much jargon. It also has too much detail about non-developer fixes. Let's just leave the burden on the WMF to support the software. MB 07:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The WMF is likely to know that jargon. They're basically a tech company and have almost 200 software engineers on payroll. However feel free to adjust the first paragraph or change it back. This letter in any form is likely to help. I trust your judgment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My article for The Signpost pre-empts much of that letter anyway and I was quite surprised when I read it. It is so similar I though that someone had already seen my draft before I blanked the page. At least it demonstrates that at least three of us have got a handle on the issues. Condensing it might be an idea because the WMF brass doesn't really need educating about the NPP situation, they know all about it already and have done for a long time. The only solution is to convince them that the system is nearly bankrupt and that without NPP they'll have to find new ways of keeping the corpus clean, and it won't be with AI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I wrote it on an airplane when I was without Internet access and had nothing else to do. MB 04:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• @MB and Novem Linguae: It is indeed a big question to whom this letter should be addressed. There is a lot of confusion concerning who is actually responsible for PageTriage and its maintenance. There have been clear statements where some WMFers say it's the Grow Team, some say it's Community Tech and some . like the vice chair of the BoT say the software was built by the community (which is clearly wrong) and hence the responsibility of the NPPers themselves (there are diffs for all these claims). OTOH, Marshall Miller seems to be now fairly high up in the scheme of things while Danny Horne whom I know personally and who finally acquiesced and organised the ACTRIAL for us, is apparently in charge of both departments. The top spot in engineering, which I assume to be only one rung down from the CEO, was filled only yesterday. Frankly I'm totally confused with all these characteristically American job titles of Lead this, Senior Lead that , Director of Something, Assistant-vice-deputy-manager of Whatever, etc. Regulars at Phab give the impression (to me at least) that it's Phab's mandate to interpret - or make up - and enforce policies that would override legitimate local Wikipedia consensuses. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Signpost

Done

We'd be happy to republish / advertise this in the September edition of The Signpost. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Epic. The letter probably won't be sent until just after the next publication, so advertising the letter (not publishing it) might attract more signatures. Then perhaps the letter itself could be published in the October issue. It's up to @MB and Novem Linguae: to decide. I've put my article for The Signpost on hold until the letter has had time to be signed by a maximum of volunteers and the adressees have had time to read it and react to it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I was waiting for you to comment first, since I wasn't clear what the plans were for your article. If we are trying to influence the WMF, I suppose additional signatures from the community at large (beyond NPP) can only help. (Haven't you been commenting through the middle of the night in your timezone?) MB 01:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

MB, I have, and if you look at this you'll understand... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I get some sleep every night. Version 2 below looks fine to me. MB 21:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Signpost "advertisement"

How about something like this:

NPP lobbying the WMF to provide better Page Curation software support

Page Curation, the primary software tool used by New Page Reviewers, is essentially unmaintained by the WMF. Bugs go unfixed, (except for a few patches provided by NPP volunteers), and there have been no enhancements to it in years. Dozens of Phab reports are stalled at "unassigned" or "needs triage". A letter has been written asking that resources be allocated to the maintenance of this tool. As there are too few active reviewers to promptly address the constant inflow of new articles, software improvements are imperative. You can read the letter here, and even offer your support by adding your signature. MB 01:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Version 2

PageTriage, the suite of NPP software tools used by New Page Reviewers at Page Curation, is essentially unmaintained by the WMF (who created them). Dozens of Phab reports are stalled at "unassigned" or "needs triage". An open letter to the WMF has been written asking that resources be allocated to the maintenance of this tool. As there are too few active reviewers to promptly address the constant inflow of new articles, software improvements are imperative. Read the letter here, and if you support it, please consider signing it.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Version 3

PageTriage, the suite of NPP software tools used by New Page Reviewers at Page Curation, is essentially unmaintained by the WMF (who created them). Dozens of Phab reports are stalled at "unassigned" or "needs triage". An open letter to the WMF has been written asking that resources be allocated to the maintenance of this tool. As there are too few active reviewers to promptly address the constant inflow of new articles, software improvements are imperative. Read the letter here, and if you support it, please consider signing it. Also consider helping to patrol new pages. If you are interested, check the criteria, read the tutorials and apply at PERM. We especially need people with the ability to judge the notability of non-English topics.

@Kudpung and Novem Linguae:, should we appeal for more reviewers too? I added a sentence at the end of V3. It is a separate issue, but it's just as important. MB 14:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@MB and Novem Linguae: I don't know. Probably best to decide towards the end of the month. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung and Novem Linguae:, I think we should get this finalized. I'm not sure how much lead time they need at SP, but the next edition is just over a week away. Version 2 or 3? Since the backlog is climbing for three weeks straight now, I'm leaning towards V3. MB 03:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@MB and Novem Linguae:, I don't mind making suggestions - and I do a lot of that - but you two are the coords, it's your call. On another note, of course the backlog is climbing again. The drive was not overall a resounding success, and as I've implied many times, backlog drives are usually just a flash in the pan and often lead to superficial fast reviewing fuelled by the fascination for barnstars - of which IMO, NPP now has too many. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Both versions are good. Slight preference for #3. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I just added this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions MB 00:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, Re: PageTriage, the suite of NPP tools comprising the New Pages Feed and Page Curation used by New Page Reviewers, is the only firewall against inappropriate new pages while also encouraging users to improve their article submissions. I don't like saying "the only firewall" since other editors CSD and AFD some of the worst every day. No need to dis them and boast about NPP too much. Why don't we just say the main or primary firewall. The second clause doesn't read well either. "PageTriage ... while also encouraging users". PageTriage doesn't encourage users. This needs to be rewritten. MB 02:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@MB and Novem Linguae:, ...since other editors CSD and AFD some of the worst every day. - are you sure you're talking about new pages? As I have said many times, I merely make suggestions because I have some experience of what works and what doesn't work, but it's your call. BTW, encouraging new users is the other half of what NPP is supposed to do - at least until the community and/or the WMF gets its act together and at least reviews the ideas I've sown above on what exists already but hasn't been rolled out (I notice nobody has even bothered to ask for links to the pages, but we are a bit busy with a couple of urgent issues right now). Please take 10 mins however, to read this if you haven't already - it was 4 years ago and every single word is just as true today, if not more so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, yes I am talking about new articles. For example, I just checked current G11s (spam) articles. There are three, all brand new, only one of which was tagged by a NPPer. So, yes, I don't think we should say NPP is the only firewall. As far as the "other half", I wasn't disputing that - I just think the grammar is poor. How does this sound:

PageTriage, the suite of NPP tools comprising the New Pages Feed and Page Curation used by New Page Reviewers, is an important firewall against inappropriate new pages and is also used to encourage users to improve their article submissions. MB 04:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

No objections, MB, but one of my objectives in creating the NPP user right was to stamp out deletion tags by inexperienced users but that part of the argument didn't get consensus. I've seen too many newbs bitten by inappropriate PROD, CSD, and AfD. For me it's a bit like saying that IP editors don't do vandalism or add COPYVIO or COI. I've always stated that NPP is the only firewall etc, and you are the first to complain. Do read this if you haven't already. I've written and published (McGraw-Hill, and EDBA) 23 books on English grammar that are used worldwide in EFL, but it was a long time ago and they are out of print now. At my age when writing short messages I admit to the occasional linguistic imperfections and due to my environment these past 23 years, my thinking language nowadays is mainly a mix of German & Thai. Everyone, even Nobel Laureats, needs copyediting ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have read that, a few times. NPP is the only software firewall (beyond Actrial now), and I have certainly seen plenty of declined CSDs - so I don't disagree that are probably too may inappropriate tags placed by inexperienced users. But I think is is prudent to try not to sound too elitist about NPP. In one of the barnstar discussions, a comment was made that the barnstars only went to 1000+ reviews which was just out of reach for a lot of reviewers and you had to be one of the elite power-reviewers to be appreciated. So if we can use words that get the message across that NPP and the tools are important and avoid needlessly (possibly) antagonizing others who also help out in other ways "on the front lines", we probably should, in my opinion. MB 05:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I still think that NPP is probably the most important single process on the en.Wiki, but that's because of what it does. It's got nothing to do with elitism. People who know what is expected of them just take on a task and get on with it. Untill they get fed up with it . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Opposition

The issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the OP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't wish to disrupt the existing structure of the page, but I strenuously object to this letter, and in particular to the statement "New Page Patrolling by the New Page Reviewers is a critical function necessary to keep Wikipedia from being overrun with new articles that don't meet the community's standards for inclusion", and wish to have that objection recorded. How might I and other Wikipedians who share my opinion go about recording our objections? -- Visviva (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Visviva, you're making a statement, but it's never going to be an opinion until you clearly explain why you object to the letter or to that sentence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

An objection section can be started in this talk page section I suppose. Also feel free to elaborate on your opinion if you desire. I'm surprised you find that particular statement objectionable, and wouldn't mind trying to wrap my head around your views. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I really don't understand. This letter is a statement of opinion. If you don't agree with it, you obviously don't sign it. But other editors can have a differing opinion. MB 02:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think MB hits the nail on the head, but more than an opinion, it's a statement of facts. Anyone who really knows how nearly bankrupt the NPP system is, wouldn't be opposing the efforts to get it improved. I certainly don't think an 'objection' section needs to be commenced. This is a call for support for an urgent and genuine cry for help from dedicated volunteers who want to preserve the integrity of our en.Wiki - it's not an RfC, and when my article in The Signpost gets published as a sequel to the others I wrote such as NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers, people can complain all they like - after publication. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I only meant to be asking a procedural question, as the setup here is rather confusing. Ordinarily when something is posted for centralized discussion, that means there's some sort of discussion happening, allowing for various positions. Here, instead, there appears to be an assumption that we are all in agreement and there is nothing to discuss. To the extent that this petition is being offered on behalf of the Wikipedia community, as a dissenter I have a strong obligation to ensure that my dissent is heard.

That said, since you ask, here are the bullet points of my concerns:

• Wikipedia is at its strongest when it is most open, and at its weakest when it is most closed. That the project is currently in a very closed and very weak state is borne out by horrific rates of article neglect (we are on track to have 2 million articles going without a single human edit in 2022, which is a level of neglect that no article can withstand for long) and editor repulsion (we lose 90% of editors in the first year and 95% in the second, which represents the grim trailing end of a trend that clearly tracks with the community's slow turn toward exclusion), among other metrics.
• The work of patrolling to protect the project from harmful junk (copyvio, vandalism, BLP violations, spam and the like) is extremely important. Unfortunately, the current implementation of NPP harms:
  • (a) the work of patrolling itself (by occupying the field with a very aggressive definition of "minimum standards", including the aggressive and tendentious enforcement of notability criteria, thus leaving no space for those like me who have in the past contributed to patrolling work and would like to do so again, but not in a way that we believe is harmful to the project),
  • (b) NPPers themselves (as seen from frequent complaints of NPPer exhaustion),
  • (c) the project (by depriving it of the steady flow of imperfect content and imperfect contributors on which it depends), and
  • (d) the community (by causing the experiences of new editors to be worse and less productive of long-term loyalty to the project).
• If Wikipedia were still producing content at a healthy clip -- indeed, if article growth were even keeping up with the rate of growth in peer-reviewed scholarship -- the idea of a single group of editors engaging in the kind of deep, searching analysis of incoming articles that NPP currently expects would be self-evidently absurd. Thus, the current implementation of NPP is only made possible by Wikipedia's slow decline, while also serving to accelerate that decline.
• While the Wikipedia community is generally very good at self-correction and self-governance, this breaks down when it comes to excluding content and contributors. The reason is simple: those who are excluded no longer have a voice, and the signal sent by contributors exiting the community is generally ignored. As a result, Wikipedia has been on a long slide towards greater exclusion, which produces greater weakness in the project and community. And that weakness -- our inability to improve on imperfect articles as we once did -- is then used to argue for even more exclusion. Or, in this case, for even more and better tools for exclusion.
  The WMF has generally declined, wisely or not, to exercise the fiat authority that has always been recognized as necessary to ensure that such failures of collective decisionmaking are corrected. But it can still exercise the soft power of technical support that is at issue here. And it should exercise that soft power, not to further empower a group that is both a symptom and a cause of Wikipedia's present crisis, but by devoting any available resources to tools and research for improving the contributor experience and contributor retention.

In sum: the petition amounts to a request for more and better alligators in our moat, but an open project like ours has no business with moats or drawbridges to begin with.

I'll try to write up something more in-depth and post the link here, but anyway, that's the gist of my objections. -- Visviva (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Visviva enforcement of notability criteria - disagreement with Notability criteria or disagreement with enforcement of Notability criteria should be posted at WT:N, not here.

I apologize for my lack of focus and not addressing the rest of your post. Your other points seem linked to the above point, and I find that point overly distracting. Alsee (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to start an argument here, simply to express my principled dissent from this letter being presented, even implicitly, in the voice of the community. I raised a procedural question and understood the responses to be requesting my substantive reasons for dissenting, which I have provided. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I bear my prorated share of blame for the many ways in which our community has failed the project. And as long as I am here, I must also bear my prorated share of responsibility to object to any efforts to continue and increase such harm.

(My quarrel is not with WP:N, which of course has a good and noble function as a set of best practices for how to organize content and not whether to cast it onto the burn pile, but with the unwise and tendentious manner in which NPP (a) legalistically "enforces" the various notability guidelines, even the highly subjective GNG, and also (b) expects all users of the patrol right to follow its LOCALCONSENSUS in this regard. You can't bar dissenters from your work and then complain that you're overworked. But as far as policy goes, it can never be said enough that even if a particular reading of WP:N were ironclad, any rule that harms the project is a nullity.) -- Visviva (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Visviva, your quarrel is not with WP:N, it's with NPP. But just consider what the encyclopedia corpus would look like if there were no such process at all. If you've got a suggestion for a better solution, by all means do go ahead and make it, but the VP would be a better venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

True, I rose to the bait rather too eagerly, and will be withdrawing from this conversation at this point. (But to return to my original question, which I guess has been implicitly answered at this point, I find the idea of a "centralized discussion" with no discussion, and only rote assent permitted, rather troubling. Or, perhaps, illustrative of the same troubling features of NPP's culture that led me to wish to make a record of my opposition in the first place. But I've said my piece on that point.) -- Visviva (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-NPPers?

I don't consider myself an active NPPer but am familiar with the issues presented here and agree fully with the sentiment. Is there a place for me to sign? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

KevinL, thanks for the support. Go ahead and sign. I just made an update to show it's not only NPPers signing. MB 06:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@L235. Fixing ping. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

More than a signature

Barkeep49 added a comment. I'm uneasy about that - we don't want this to turn into a forum. I don't disagree with it at all but we should communicate that thought elsewhere. Should we strike this? MB 21:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No disrespect to @Barkeep49 but, yes, I think we're all simply signing a letter, so all we need is a signature. Discussion on priorities should take place elsewhere, or after submission, or be linked from the letter itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a letter. It should only have signatures. The letter is long enough already and 'less is more'. There's still a risk that it will get binned, unread by many of the addressees. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it with a request to re-add just a signature if willing. MB 14:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer patches

Thank you for writing this letter. I want to specifically note that if volunteers are having trouble getting their PageTriage patches merged, they should feel free to ping me directly and I'll work to find appropriate reviewers, or just review it myself. (This offer stands for any volunteer-submitted patches, not just PageTriage ones fwiw). Legoktm (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you enormusly for this Legoktm. The person to inform is Novem Linguae. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Legoktm. Awesome. Thank you for this. So far I have written around 10 patches, and TNT and Taavi are helping with reviews when they can. Here's a couple that are unreviewed if you want to take a look: . I was sweating bullets a week or two ago about getting reviews, but it recently got better, so that's encouraging. Thanks again for your assistance. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Both of those people are awesome too :) I reviewed one of those patches, the other one (wiki agnostic) appears to have a very long backstory that I don't want to just charge in without understanding it fully...it might be a week or so before I can get fully up to speed on that. Legoktm (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Admin newsletter

Done - waiting for publication. Watchlist done.

@MB and Novem Linguae:Has anyone remembered to ask the Admin Newsletter editor to include a mention of the letter on their next newletter? I did mention it somewhere with a suggested text. BTW, considering 700 NPP newsletters were sent out, the number of signatures to date is not particularly overwhelming and may even reflect a lack of interest in reading our newsletters attentively. Admittedly, the 600 inactive reviewers are not interested but others may need a reminder. I'm considering sending a very short mass message reminder in the next few days. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I recall that, but forgot to do it. Now, I can't even find the suggestion. As far as a separate mass-message, I'm not sure there is a rush to do that since we will be open for signatures for another month (we need to wait at least a couple of weeks after the S.P. article). I know studies show that personally addressed messages are much more effective. If we took the list of top 100 active reviewers, removed the ones that have already signed, then sent a message to the remaining "We noticed you haven't signed yet..." But that is a lot more work than a message to the entire list. MB 23:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I searched more and still can't find that discussion. But there is the text above (Version 2) written for the S.P. It looks OK to me to include that in the Admin newsletter also. Or maybe a shortened version for admins:

"PageTriage, the suite of NPP software tools used by New Page Reviewers at Page Curation, is essentially unmaintained by the WMF (who created them). Dozens of Phab reports are stalled at "unassigned" or "needs triage". An open letter to the WMF has been written asking that resources be allocated to the maintenance of this tool. Read the letter here, and if you support it, please consider signing it." MB 23:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I found it over on my TP, Your version was

"The NPP department has prepared an appeal to the WMF for assistance getting Page Curation bugs and features addressed. If you haven’t already done so, you might like to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It’s not a discussion, just a signature will suffice." I think "NPP department" sounds strange, that's not Wiki-speak. I'll put this in the Admin newsletter (but with "NPP team"). MB 00:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done - See the draft September Admin newsletter here. MB 00:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Slip of the tongue/keyboard/brain. There are many departments in the company I run so it's a word I'm used to using.

That said, I see it's already on Cent, but do you think a watchlist notice would help? Please bear in mind that I have already announced that I have put my full Signpost article on hold until after the letter has been published, but if signatures are still lagging near the end of the month, the proposed call to action in The Signpost might reach a few more people. Our previous experience is that the WMF don't care two hoots - they even reject appeals with 500 signatures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like typical watchlist notices are RFAs, backlog drives, Signpost issues, and IRL meetups (the latter being geo-targeted, so going to less people). I think it's rare for petitions to make it into a watchlist notice. We can try if we want, but I suspect it will be declined. MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

So far we have:

• NPP newsletter - 700 most involved
• WP:CENT - policy discussion watchers - was probably not appropriate for there per the instructions (which suggest WP:VP)
• Admin newsletter
• NPP second notice
• Signpost

I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Watchlist notices that says this would be inappropriate. But people do complain about too many notices there. It probably would garner more sigs. But it would probably annoy all the editors who have watchlists because only care about content and have no interest in other things. I'm leaning towards no, since as you say, 100 or 500 probably won't make any difference to WMF. MB 17:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

500 (IIRC) was the consensus for ACTRIAL which the WMF threw out in 2011 very rudely, with borderline PA, as Scottywong well remembers. ...it would probably annoy all the editors who have watchlists because only care about content and have no interest in other things.. The watchlist notice signiicantly increased readership of The Signpost (my idea), and more than doubled the drive-by votes at RfA. However, there is indeed another problem associated with this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Scottywong (re-sending ping on behalf of Kudpung) —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 06:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Did anyone at least try to get a watchlist notice done? I realise there might be a problem with that that doesn't meet the eye, but nothing ventured, nohing gained. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  Kudpung, just did it. Please review my wording - needed to fit this one on one line. MB 03:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

MB, I've changed the wording a bit and corrected the links and to comply with the request I've also added the plain text version so they can see what it's all about. Feel free to revert or change again. I don't think the length of it is much of an issue, but getting it approved might be. I think I explained that particular problem in an email. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I kept your wording, but moved the link to the letter and bolded it as the actionable link. We shall see if it is accepted. MB 04:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

MB, fingers crossed, but I'm not holding my breath. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

How long is this watch list ad supposed to last? If there is 1 new signature every 6 minutes (As is my current calculated average time between signatures), we should have 500 signatures in a little over a day. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Just over a week, until the 29th. MB 20:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Stalled

Resolved

This petition has stalled. Sad to say, but it looks like the WMF will not do anything about it any time soon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Too early to say. We haven't even submitted the letter yet. We're still collecting signatures. I think if this stays on CENT this could hit 100, which is a decent #. It could very well stall later when the WMF executives and managers ignore it, but seems a bit early to give up on it since we haven't submitted it yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, much too early to say. Sometimes gathering comments on Wikipedia or signatures for a petition can take weeks. There will also be a reminder sent out at the end of the month instead of pestering users with yet another newsletter, there will be an ad in the next issue of The Signpost and we have another few ideas up our sleeves. We haven't even drawn up a list of addresees yet. There are multiple venues, open email lists, and of course social media, and a couple of friendly staff on some newspapers. For maximum impact it will not be launched until it's ready. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@MB, Novem Linguae, and CactiStaccingCrane: actually it's coming along quite nicely and I think it was an excellent initiative. There may well be 200 signatories by the end of the month, then there is the ad for it to appear in The Signpost on the last day of August so a mid September publication should be fine, and I will follow up with my Signpost article at the end of September after submitting parts of it out of journalistic courtesy to named subjects inviting their comments. I'm rather expecting to report however: 'The WMF has declined to comment'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully we can do more to get validity for the petition. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we are still getting several more signatures almost every day, with the only current "advertisement" being the list at WP:CENT. MB 03:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

MB However strange their opinion may be, they seem to be raising concerns and using this page as a platform for opinion, which it is not. Nevertheless, they may have a point on one thing and having read the rules at Cent just now, I think it would be best to take it off. Especially in the light of the huge success of the mini newsletter already that was sent out this morning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

MB I think I posted this in the wrong section. It belongs in section 'Opposition' above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I agree. It was posted at Cent, AFAIK, without discussion here. I have removed it. MB 16:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Racism / xenophobia

The letter is probably not going to be changed at this stage. The thread has outlived its usefulness

While I 100% agree that NPP needs to be better supported, the phrase Since the exponential increase in availability of the Internet in developing regions and cheap smart phones, is racist / xenophobic. As someone who remembers the original Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel scam, I can assure you that there are more than enough scam artists and hucksters in heartland America to cause us problems without blaming it on foreigners. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: I also support removing this line. Clovermoss (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand why the line is concerning, but I think it's just poorly phrased. If I'm reading it right, the authors simply meant that there is now a much broader pool of people who have the ability to access Wikipedia and create an article than there were in, say, 2005. Therefore, the total volume of new articles is higher and so is the volume of junk/promotionalism. I don't think they meant that people from developing regions are more likely to create bad articles, just that there are more potential submitters than there have ever been. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Also support the removal of this line. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The claim there has been a huge increase in the creation of articles seeking to promote products, businesses, and people of all professions is not supported by any evidence. That such an increase is caused by am exponential increase in availability of the Internet in developing regions is also not supported by any evidence. Nor is the claim that the growth in internet access in developing regions is "exponential" supported by any evidence. It's simply not true. See for some statistics on changes to the number of individuals using the Internet. I can't tell whether the inclusion of these claims is motivated by racism, but it should be removed.

I think that the WMF has accumulated significant technical debt, and I would support an appeal to the Board of Trustees the WMF executive to address it. Reallocating a significant portion of the WMF budget towards that goal is both urgent and critical. Vexations (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Also support removal of that line. I understand that it comes from the frustration of those fighting an incoming tide of articles, but it sounds like opposition to the spread of access to Wikipedia from our ingroup to the world. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be re-worded. What about something like just "Since the rapid increase in availability of the Internet and cheap smart phones" instead? -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reworded this per the above comments, although it may still not satisfy everyone. MB 22:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I am happy with the change. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Stuartyeates, PerfectSoundWhatever, Ganesha811, Vexations, and SchreiberBike: I think that to suggest that the gist of that sentence would imply xenophobia and/or racism would be (note the modal) an extraordinary assumption of bad faith. Regular reviewers, especially those whose patrolling spans a decade, cannot not failed to have have noticed the change in provenance nowadays of what is possibly the majority of new article topics, while some who have only been editing for just over year or reviewers for only a few weeks, or are not New Page Reviewers, may not have perceived the distinction in the shape of the new pages feed.

The link to statistics provided in this short discussion relate to only one of the several world regions which contain emerging economies, but at first glance however, the data appears to confirm rather than disprove the trend. The WMF technical debt - which they have admitted - is the main reason for the appeal to be launched by this letter. Reallocating a significant portion of the WMF budget towards that goal is both urgent and critical, is indeed precisely what this exercise is all about. By insisting that the Foundation now addresses the need for maintenance and upgrading if the software they created in 2012, the under-staffed NPP community will be better equipped to address the stream in the feed. Exactly what is meant by 'ingroup' in the context of opposition to the spread of access to Wikipedia from our ingroup to the world on the en.Wiki which in contrast to all the other WMF owned projects, is by definition exceptionally global, over-regional and multinational, carried mainly because English in some form or another, either as L1 or ESL or EFL, is the world's lingua franca.

In most areas, 'Wikipedia' is synonymous for en.Wiki and coterminous for modern day encyclopedias. FWIW, I happen to live in an emerging nation since 23 years- possibly one of the strongest economies in its region - and as author of that sentence and as one with a lot of professional experience in the economies of the Global South, I have spent a total of exactly 50 years living, studying, and working in non-English regions and I am therefore deeply offended by any suggestion that I might be a racist or xenophobic, both words with very different meanings. The NPP team is trying to do something good here, let's not kick it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe you or the authors are racist, xenophobic, or operated under bad faith. But this is a widely viewed letter and I would rather it be worded in a manner that prevents it being misconstrued. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@PerfectSoundWhatever: I understand, and I'm sure no one in this discussion who has supported the letter with their signature really meant to use words such as 'racist' and 'xenophobic', which if levelled at a named individual could invite sanctions under our PA policy. Having been around and very busy (until my semi-rerirement) for over 15 years on Wikipedia, I am however used to encountering people who look under every rock to see if there is something that can be complained about, especially when it concerns those who have taken the initiative to become coordinators or admins or taken on a deeper involvement in building this great project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MB, thank you for that change. It seems perfect and should more than satisfy those of a more sensitive nature, although none of the many indigenous residents in my large household of three generations (several of them L2 English speakers), nor my co-workers here from other continents and non-English language regions, felt in the slightest bit perturbed by the original wording. It's episodes like these complaints with their use of unfortunate but possibly not ill-intentioned choice of lexis, that can well discourage one from continuing to be a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia, a project that is otherwise so 'careful' not to bite the newbies while neverteless criticising the old hands who do a lot of the maintenance tasks and write a lot of the articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, the sentence was just background, so I thought it best to change a few words while keeping the meaning the same and not let this turn into any bigger of a distraction. MB 01:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It may be that my initial claim was too strong. Maybe it should have been that I could not sign the statement with that phrase it in because to me it would be racist / xenophobic. I acknowledge that in a global context racism / xenophobia looks different in different times, places and contexts and from different points of view. This was not an attempt to call you racist / xenophobic, although in hindsight I can see how it can be read that way. I'm sorry. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hardly an improvement, and it doesn't make it even remotely true. With the rapid increase in availability of the Internet and cheap smart phones, there is always a huge number of articles seeking to promote products, businesses, and people of all professions. "Professional" UPE outlets don't edit on cheap mobile phones. To suggest that there is something nefarious about editing on a cheap phone is perhaps not quite as a racist as directly referring to developing regions, but it's not all that different. So, we only want people editing who can afford a new iPhone and do their editing on a $3,500 MacBook Pro? Because poor people can't be trusted because they'd be promoting products and businesses they neither own nor sell? Something rich people would never do, right? And you may have dropped the direct reference to developing regions, but this rapid increase isn't happening in the UK or the US, or Canada, or Australia, is it? Because internet access in THOSE regions has been pretty decent for for some time now. No, that increase is happening in those "developing regions" you no longer directly mention. Places like Nigeria, a country of more than 220 Million people, where some 38% have internet access, about 84 million internet users, projected to grow to 117 million internet users in 2027.

What this is going to sound like to the WMF is something like this: "HELP! People are getting internet access, and they're using it to edit Wikipedia! We can't have that." Sure, you're removed the bit about those people not being sufficiently white, educated and rich, but kept the meaning the same. But the WMF very much wants those 33 Million new Nigerian internet users that are expected in the next five years to join their "movement", and it doesn't believe that all those Nigerians are running a sockfarm on their cheap mobile phones. The WMF is not going to invest in technology to keep them out.

You need to reframe the request, something like: To support the strategic goal of <insert WMF jargon here> and retain the skill development infrastructure put in place by experienced reviewers who safeguard the reliability of Wikipedia, prevent volunteer burnout and improve the quality of interactions with new users, retooling and internationalization of the reviewer toolset, and re-classiffication of that toolset as a core part of the Mediawiki ecosystem is critical and urgent. Then go on strike, as I did, albeit quietly. I refuse to waste any more of my time using broken tools to do work volunteer work that is unappreciated, unrecognized, and unsupported. Vexations (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 to Vexations. This is hardly an improvement. Can't we just remove the availability of Internet and cheap smart phones phrase? and huge number of articles seeking to promote products, businesses, and people of all professions. seems to imply that the number is increasing only because of these, which again is another guess. Aren't good quality submissions increasing? We don't know because lack of data but we should not assume. IMO this is written in little bit of frustration, which I can understand but should not be in a letter like this. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi 1997kB, If you were to do more regular New Page Reviewing and were concerned about the quality of the new articles, you wouldn't need convincing of the change of shape of the feed and why NPP can't cope with it. Or do you want a {{cn}} to prove the Earth is not flat? Please don't assume either that we are not working on stats, they are well and truly in the pipeline but they are not immediately required for this exercise. If you are an expert at Quarry, maybe you could help. It's unlikely however, that with near 400 signatories and only two 'complaints' (already resolved), that the text of the letter can/will be changed at this juncture because so many people have signed already for what they have read. Thank you nevertheless for expressing your concerns. A not entirely unconnected thread at the VP that might interest you is here - food for thought/more frustration... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung, Please don't assume that I'm not concerned about the quality of new articles. But please don't assume that I don't want the more Editor friendly NPP process. And changing availability of the Internet in developing regions and cheap smart phones => availability of Internet and cheap smart phones just hid the racist line, which I don't support. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

1997kB, it's already been clearly explained here that there is not/was not the slightest racist or xenphobic intention in the original text, and linguistically (especially for native English speakers) there was no such implication whatsoever. To assume there was is just looking under every rock to see if there is something that can be complained about, or offended by. You might not be based in an English L1 region, but you are probably aware that the en.Wiki is truly international,very multiracial, and read by millions around the world outside the US and UK. FWIW, I have been living and working in communications in Asia these past 23 years and I can vouch for the exponential increase in broadband Internet coverage and smart phones in recent times. There was a statistic published by the BBC last month about it. If you're really concerned about having a more editor friendly NPP process and keeping the corpus free of junk, you might wish to sign the petition without the contentious comment - signatures with comments are removed anyway. Please don't sabotage the good work others are doing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that BBC article? Vexations (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Great. What is the URL please? Vexations (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You'll probably be able to find it yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vexations: Not sure why Kudpung doesn't want to post the article, but I found another BBC article anyways. It's from 2014 and about Africa, not Asia, but delivers the same point:

But by the end of 2014 more than 600 million people - about 56% of the population - are likely to own a mobile phone, with some researchers estimating penetration could reach 80%. When you consider that just 1% owned a mobile in 2000, the rate of growth seems all the more astonishing. There are now more than 35 mobile network operators in Africa busily extending their base station networks to improve coverage.

There has never been a doubt in my mind that developing countries' access to smartphones is rapidly increasing. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung You are labelling my comment contentious, yet you are insisting to keep the same contentious phrase in letter, wow. And no I am not sabotaging anything here, I just tried to make the letter more inclusive to the "truly international,very multiracial" English wiki community, that all. JTC nor I am assuming that the true intention here were racist but it could have been improved. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Vexations knows why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@PerfectSoundWhatever, 1997kB, and Vexations: Yes, I can be abstruse sometimes. Have you all any idea at all what 60% is of 1.3 billion? "Seven years ago, only 19% of India’s 1.3 billion people had access to the internet. That figure now stands at nearly 60%." I guess the BBC is being racist and xenophobic. Interestingly, I lived in a country once where the people who complained about racism and xenophobia were the racists and xenophobes themselves (and that was in Europe). Some things defy all logic. I've also spent many months on several work trips to India since 2007. Now can we finally collapse this contentious thread before it gets out of hand? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I may be compromised in my reading comprehension because English in not my first language, although I am based in an English L1 region, but I'm not innumerate. What's new to me is that on Wikipedia, we're expected to not ask for sources, and accept Kudpung's personal observations as fact. Vexations (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

There you go again, Vexations, not for the first time laying false claims to my intentions and you still wonder why I'm not enthused by the thought of helping you. I answered your question with 'Yes'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You're a lovely human being. Vexations (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Objection to the process: why is this not a community wishlist survey item?

Why is this not a community wishlist survey item? Explained. (Feel free to discuss)

I have skimmed through the above, but apparently nobody has raised this, so here goes. Let me first make clear that I do think the state of PageTriage is rather shameful, and I have (almost) no opposition to anything the letter says. I do have a strong opposition to the process however.

The plan with this letter seems to be that the WMF sees there is lots of support from the community to allocate more resources to PageTriage and does it. But there is already a channel for such requests: the Community Wishlist Survey. If the letter "works", it sends a clear message that this (rather than the community survey) is the way to get the WMF to listen. "Whichever project can drum up the most support via talk page message, WP:CENT notifications etc. gets its features" is not a process I can get behind - it creates an obvious incentive to spam.

Some possible counterarguments that I do not think are valid:

1. The community survey process is flawed because of X. Sure, but what matters is whether the alternative is better. I do not think any amount of criticism of the community survey can make me think that the alternative "open letters galore" is better.
2. PageTriage should not be evaluated via the community wishlist survey, because its popularity among community-survey-participants is much lower than its real importance is, because of reason X (take your pick for X - for instance, it affects new editors disproportionately but newbies will never comment on the survey page). OK, but if you want to make that case, you need to make it more clearly in the letter, and you would not try to make "number of signatures" the metric of the letter’s importance.
3. Maintenance and code refactoring in general should be higher-priority than new features in the dev pipeline, or all patches coming from volunteers should be reviewed promptly, by dedicating a dev team if need be, or the WMF should spend more of their fat budget on hiring and retaining devs, or other general issues - true, but that letter is clearly about about a single project.

As I write, more than 250 people have signed the letter, and zero have mentioned the community wishlist. If I am missing some context, please fill me in. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Tigraan this letter is precisely and deliberately because the scope of the work is, on the Growth Team's and Community Tech's own admission, too big for them. The issues have been the subject of discussion for months. Over 250 people are familiar with the issue. Perhaps if you were to watch the newsletters and talkpages you would be up to date. Ça va maintenant? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the wishlist is a mechanism to determine what bug fixes, new features, or other changes the devs will work on with the resources they have. This is addressing the lack of developer resources and will be directed to a higher level of the WMF bureaucracy. We are not trying to push aside other projects by circumventing the wishlist, we are trying to get more developer bandwidth overall. Addressing the WMF should spend more of their fat budget on hiring and retaining devs as a general issue is not likely to be effective without being tied to something more specific. This is a concrete example of why that is important. MB 15:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We are not trying to push aside other projects (...) we are trying to get more developer bandwidth overall. I have re-read the letter, and that is absolutely not the impression I get. Maybe there is some part of the letter that could be construed as a general call for more devs, but if so it is awfully unclear. Compare with the clarity of the requests of the last two paragraphs: (1) to get a designated maintainer/team, (2) to review promptly volunteer patches, and (3) to assign some resources to that project (...so that we can properly maintain this important tool, that’s written as a tool-specific request). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This was written to draw attention to a specific need that is not being met (and that is beyond the Wishlist). Its focus is not on proposing solutions. However, the obvious solution is that "WMF should spend more of their fat budget on hiring and retaining devs". I would expect that a more general initiate requesting the WMF hire more designer in general would get as much or more support. I'm hesitant to make changes now that it has received over 300 signatures as written. MB 18:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, For the record, Tigraan did not respond here but did thank me for this response, so we can probably collapse this one too. MB 14:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• The Community Wishlist Survey is for small technical fixes. This request is out of scope mainly because it requires investment in non-technical community social processes, and also because the complexity of this request is perhaps 10x more than what the Wishlist can support for a single request. The Wikimedia Foundation has no established channel for making requests which include social issues and which are this complex, so a community petition like this is the default option. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

A page under the provided Wishlist link supplied by Tigraan does not exist. To learn more about the process, the location is Wikipedia:Wishlist where all the polls are listed since the project was created in 2016. More to the point is that solutions such as the solution I submitted to the Wishlist's first season, which at in this section came in at No.14 out of 265 requests and narrowly missed being accepted. It received a lot of discussion and quite a few supports, but was not taken on by the devs. Probably because it ads just one simple step to aid newly registered users to create their first article and due to a perceived policy expressed by one commenter that it would conflict with one of the Five Pillars, but I'm not sure which one, if any. Bugs were nevertheless filed at Phab:T156442, which was quietly shunted into oblivion, and Phab:T50552 which is now being addressed by Novem Linguae, an NPP volunteer and coord. These are the main bones of contention expressed in our letter, an initiative of MB, the other half of the coord team, and why the pool of salaried devs should be expanded - something which Bluerasberry also understands very well.

If NPP is to be helped to keep the backlog at sustainable levels and if this cannot be achieved by increasing the number of active patrollers, then this landing page which has already been wireframed by the Foundation at my suggestio but never implemented, is clearly a solution that should now be examined. The NPP letter to the WMF now approaches 300 signatories. This is something that the Foundation will not be able to ignore and onboarding new users in a quick an easy way should also be one of their priorities rather than their current expensive, 2-year long development of a major mobile phone based mentorship programme. Sure, it's certainly a great way of helping new users - and so is the en.Wiki's excellent Teahouse driven nowadays mainly by Cullen328 which is probably better and cost nothing, but neither of which will reduce the daily flow of unwanted new articles in the feed.

In the December 2018 Wishlist, the 19 bundled NPP requests came top out of over 200 requests and most, but not all, of the issues were addressed - see the full analysis here, but by then Community Tech had had enough of NPP and of course the rest of the global WMF projects were not entirely pleased at the en.Wiki having squatted the devs' capacity for that year's project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

CapnZapp, you can discuss it as much as you like but it will be off topic. This thread is a done deal for the very reason that the appeal is due to the very fact that Community Tech, and The Growth Team who run the Wishlist, and the Board of Trustees, have denied any responsibility for the Page Triage software although it was developed by the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Discussion formally closed. Nothing to see here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The language here, while well-meaning, is somewhat overblown.

This project isn't "critical".

It's important and valuable. But not critical.

An easy mistake to make. Spend time doing anything and you likely inflate the importance of your work. That's natural.

But here someone needed to dial back the level of alarm.

As an absurd example, even if Wikipedia does become daisies in sewage, all that's needed is WMF taking notice then, and making sure to clean up the mess.

In other words, I can't sign this, because it lacks minimal awareness of the project's core criticality.

In short, Wiki will probably survive even if WMF doesn't get involved.CapnZapp (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

With almost 400 signatories who agree with it, among them some influential Wikipedians, and the former WMF creator himself of PageTriage, and those who know what the challenges are that the reviewers are facing, it's unlikely that the appeal will fail because you wouldn't sign it. It might fail for other reasons, but that's always the risk with the dealings of any kind with the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You come across as wanting this to be an echo-chamber where dissent isn't welcome. Either sign this or shut up, as it were. That's just ridiculous. People need to discuss whether this is a genuine core need of the project or just some whining from a neglected secondary project.

Now, you likely don't intend this, and act from a genuine frustration, but I'm reporting my impressions of reading your overly alarmist letter. In my opinion, you do your aims a disservice by painting a picture where if WMF doesn't immediately give you want, Wikipedia falls apart. Somehow I highly doubt that will be the case.

Of course, you needed to hear this BEFORE making a global VERY public appeal, but here we are. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response from WMF Product

Hi, everyone — for folks who don't know me, I'm Danny Horn, Director of Product Management for the five Contributor Tools teams. In Product, we've been following the conversations and activity around this open letter.

I completely agree that the New Pages Patrol does very important work on English Wikipedia, keeping out newly-created articles that are bad-faith, self-promotion, or simply not ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I know that the people who volunteer to do this important work can get overwhelmed by the constant stream of new articles, and PageTriage certainly needs improvement to help folks work through the backlog.

I'm familiar with the NPP problems, because in 2018 and 2019, the Contributor Tools teams that I manage made some significant improvements to the PageTriage extension.

• In summer 2018, Marshall Miller and the Growth team made some improvements to the extension for both NPP and AfC, adding quality assessments and copyright violation scores for each page, and allowing people to filter based on those qualities.
• Insertcleverphrasehere made a proposal on the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey: Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements. NPP reviewers and supporters came out in force to vote for that proposal, and it ended up as the #1 proposal for the year. (Here's the results.)
• Because of that strong show of support, Ilana Fried and the Community Tech team worked for more than six months making improvements to PageTriage, completing 13 different wishes that were prioritized by the NPP members. In December 2019, Ilana wrapped up that project, told the NPP folks that the team needed to move on to other Wishlist projects, and encouraged them to put up another proposal at the next Wishlist Survey.

Since then, the members of NPP have not submitted proposals in further Community Wishlist Surveys. Leading up to this year's survey, there were several threads on the New pages patrol/Reviewers talk page about submitting a proposal:

• In October-November 2021, Usedtobecool started a thread called "Page curation toolbar", suggesting improvements to the tool. In that discussion, Kudpung pinged Marshall for information about asking the WMF for more resources, and Marshall responded with encouragement to participate in that year's survey. Marshall pinged Natalia Rodriguez, who's now the Product Manager for the Community Tech team. Natalia responded and offered to help the group out with crafting a proposal for January's survey. Unfortunately, nobody replied to take Natalia up on her offer.
• Also in November 2021, Kudpung started the thread "New Pages Feed/Curation toolbar improvements or new features", encouraging people to write a proposal for January's survey. There was a little bit of discussion, but it didn't go far.
• In January 2022, once the Wishlist Survey had begun, MarioGom started the thread "Community Wishlist Survey 2022", asking if the group should put a proposal together. That discussion was pretty brief, and nobody wrote a proposal.

I think that another Community Wishlist Survey proposal would probably be very effective — the NPP proposal got 157 votes in 2019, and there are more than 400 people who've signed this letter so far. I would expect that a proposal in the 2023 survey would lead to more work getting done on PageTriage.

That being said, I know that people on this talk page have said that the scope of the problem with PageTriage is too big for a Community Tech project. I think that could be discussed with the Community Tech team, once there's a successful proposal at the top of the survey results. That's what we did in 2019, and that year CommTech made significant improvements to the tool. It's unfortunate that there were no proposals submitted in the 2021 and 2022 surveys.

If the group decides not to participate in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey, then it doesn't really make sense for us to commit more resources to this problem, when the NPP folks have not been taking advantage of the resources that are currently available to them.

There's also a larger question about what the WMF Product department is investing in, and why the organization isn't spending more money to solve important problems that affect our most active and productive volunteers. Naturally, as the head of Contributor Tools, if people want to advocate for more resources to be allotted to Contributor Tools teams, then I certainly wouldn't object, and I appreciate the support.

But the question is, why don't the Contributor Tools teams solve this problem, using the money and people that we currently have?

To answer that, here are the current projects that we've prioritized above rewriting PageTriage:

• The Moderator Tools team is working to support content moderators on medium-sized wikis. There are a lot of countries and languages where people are more likely to own a mobile phone and not a laptop, and Moderator Tools has found that on all of our wikis, there are very few majority-mobile volunteers who are admins, or do significant content moderation work. So the team is making the basic content moderation tools accessible on mobile web — currently working on making preferences accessible, and soon moving on to make the mobile diff pages more functional.
• The Campaigns team is providing support for organizers setting up editathon and content campaigns, a group of people that Product has never really done much significant work for. The team is focusing especially on campaign organizers in Africa, to make sure that we're working outside of the organization's traditional focus on North America and Europe. The team is building a campaigns platform for organizers, currently working on campaign registration.
• The Trust and Safety Tools team is responsible for supporting the rollout of the Universal Code of Conduct with a Private Incident Reporting System, which will help all users across our projects to access help when they're being harassed or threatened.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is building tools that will help us to adjust to an internet where there are restrictions on how we use IP addresses. They've recently worked on a new IP Info feature, and a sockpuppet detection tool.
• Finally, the Community Tech team is currently working on projects from the Community Wishlist Survey. Recently, they've been working on Real Time Preview for wikitext, improvements in the IPA text-to-speech engine, and better diff handling of paragraph splits.

Sorry that I'm going on for so long, but I want to show the kinds of choices that we have to make in WMF Product. There are lots of important people and projects and workflows that we can support, and we have to decide which ones we're going to focus on. Contrary to what some might think, we really don't have an endless supply of money that allows us to fix every important problem.

I hope that this helps to explain our point of view. I'm happy to talk more, if you want to. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DannyH (WMF). It's nice to meet you. I appreciate you explaining your point of view, but I'm not sure "go get your 400 signatures again in January" is the answer we were expecting. Forgive me if I'm a little disappointed in that answer.

There's also the question of why we should have to lobby this hard to get bug fixes for a tool that is deployed to production. Shouldn't there be software engineers and teams that at least fix major bugs for deployed tools? Not new features, not minor bugs, but major bugs. This tool has major, years-old bugs, such as phab:T238025, that are severe enough to drive our NPPs to use Twinkle.

It seems that no WMF teams want to take ownership of this tool. Growth Team is listed as the code stewards, but states they do not have any bandwidth to work on PageTriage.

This situation is frustrating, as you can see from the # of signatures in our letter, and we would like a solution that isn't "go lobby us again in January". Please do whatever you are willing to do to raise this up the flagpole. The WMF does not appear to be an organization lacking funds. Perhaps there is a fund somewhere to hire a contractor to do some much-needed work on this important tool. Thank you for your time and consideration. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm too new here to understand community–Foundation politics. But it baffles me that a letter signed by 400 editors (highly active ones, mind you) receives a response written by a single employee, a response which (tergiversation aside) fails to recognize the seriousness of the issue. Perhaps rearrange your kanban: How can these editathons, for example, function smoothly without effective community review? Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that we are asking to rewrit[e] PageTriage. The letter I signed sought improvement, not a redo. One developer, even a contracted employee, is infinitely better than none. Ovinus (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Struck per below. Ovinus (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Ovinus. This issue has a very long history. It's much too early yet to enter into a dialogue with the WMF or to hold a discussion here until the letter has been officially announced. I will say this however: The fact is that it was the WMF themseves who admitted that they had made an error with their choice of codebase in 2012 when they developed PageTriage. They have been insisting - as one explanation - that the bugs and features in the the PageTriage can't be addressed effectively until the code has been rewritten to be compatible with the later iterations of MediaWki.

For the time being, I don't think there is much to be gained byturning this organisational talk page into a general debate, there are current threads started by others on the VP discussing the Wikipedia-WMF relations where concerns are being voiced by others about these and related issues, and which will have a broader audience. (FYI: @DannyH (WMF):. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus, I agree that it is premature to be commenting here on the "WMF response" to our letter as we haven't even finalized to whom at the WMF we will be sending it. While the feedback from DannyH provides useful insight and another perspective, I don't think we should react to it as the "WMF response". MB 03:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right. I've struck my comment. Ovinus (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Contrary to what some might think, we really don't have an endless supply of money that allows us to fix every important problem. is an excellent point, and it shows that it is good to address our letter at "the Foundation" (which does have a near-endless supply of money (much of it brought in by the successes of the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia and a few other large projects) compared to the size of the software problems at hand), not at some individual team with an individual budget that is not enough to cover all the important projects. —Kusma (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@DannyH (WMF) I'd just like to note that in 2020, or the year following the 2019 improvements, further improvements would not have been eligible for proposal because the Wishlist only allowed proposals for non-Wikipedias. So that is exactly 1 Wishlist that NPP could have asked for improvements and didn't. Bigger picture I agree with the idea brought up indirectly by Kusma that these improvements should be put into the annual plan in a way that does work. How that happens would, of course, be left up to you and others at the Foundation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Kusma, I don't believe Contrary to what some might think, we really don't have an endless supply of money that allows us to fix every important problem. is a valid excuse. DannyH (WMF) has been promoted (or moved) into a slot that if the staff descriptions are accurate (but many are ambiguous and there is no true organigram) that gives him overall control of all software development. This puts him extremely close to the top of the tree, probably very close to the new CEO. He will therefore clearly have a major say in the budget allocations for software development that directly affects the performance of systems that ensure that the Wikipedia encyclopedias live up to the Foundation's claims of accuracy and neutrality. I would remind everyone that this appeal to the WMF is far from over, and I would point anyone reading this to the key post I made on Jul 20 2022, 2:25 PM on a 7-year-old request at Phabricator. As we now have over 400 signatories and as the BoT election results will soon be published, the appeal will go live soon, so for the sake of simplicity, here is the text of that post:

Phabricator T50552 Jul 20 2022, 2:25 PM

All those years ago 'Page Triage' was proposed by the WMF as a consolation prize for so rudely denying the massive consensus for ACTRIAL, I worked closely with them during its development - but from the aspect of a patroler and not as a software developer. Fast forward to 2022: we now have ACTRIAL/AQREQ, and we have a special user group of (hopefully) experienced New Page Reviewers, and we finally have a much enhanced curation system. But the problems of patrolling persist and despite having over 750 patrollers (of whom half have never made a patrol), today's backlog stands at around 12,000 articles.

The importance of the process of reviewing new pages accurately has since been better understood by both the community and the WMF due to the exposure of Orange Moody and the discovery how deep rooted COI and paid editing actually is among certain editors who willfully exploit our free work for financial reward and abuse our sockpuppet policies. We now also have hundreds more Wikimedia projects and hundreds more staff managing it all.

Back in the day, it was considered that Page Triage should be Wiki agnostic. But here we are now with hundreds of Wikipedias going to need something like it sooner or later, which means this is much bigger than a wishlist item. I locked horns for two years with Danny Horn who steadfastly insisted that such an important process as NPR should nevertheless stand in line with every one else and hold out its Xmas begging bowl.

We all know by now that the control over new content is faced with new and more subtle challenges, not least of all the disinterest in patrolling due to the totally changed profile of the new articles that are now submitted. This leaves the community with too few capable and competent people at NPP. We therefore have to rely increasingly on ORES, filters and other forms of artificial intelligence to get the work done. This will obviously require a bigger and dedicated team of devs for which I have been advocating for a long time.

Maybe its time to look at Page Triage as a sunk cost, keep the pretty and user friendly interfaces and their highly useful functions, but rewrite the entire code from the ground up - more than enough funds are available.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)