Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial
Evaluation[edit]
You can't have a trial without evaluation, so it doesn't seem like a good idea to have two questions asking whether you should have it. A better question would be about what ways the commenter would like to see any trial evaluated. Obviously, though, the more pertinent question is what steps are we trying to put in place. If there was broad consensus, a plan > implement > evaluate model could be widely held to be sufficient. (And the things to be measured would presumably be the feasible ones from the main discussion, such as Mr.Z-man's stats, which can be run monthly, and stats for AFC.) RedactionalOne (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I mention in the first question (trial proposal) that the trial should be evaluated. However if we just ask how users would like to see it evaluated, I'm afraid this won't result in anything definitive and 'binding' for future discussions. The additional questions ask if the trial should be evaluated on some specific points through a RFC before any further decision. This allows to force the evaluation of those issues by the community before any new decision is made. Cenarium (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem clear; there's no mention of RFC. And if we'd decided what metrics we were using at the outset (as we'd surely need to in order to gather 'before' data) wouldn't we just go ahead and gather the 'after' data? Then, all being well, the data would indicate success or otherwise, it could be put up at the Pump, and if someone wanted to RFC (maybe because they felt issues had come up not covered by the evaluation data) they could. RedactionalOne (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I mention there'll be a preparation period where metrics to consider will be discussed. By "comments will be requested", I mean we'll have a RFC. We'll have a RFC on "trial effectiveness" and on "trial safety" if there's consensus for those proposals, before any further decision on restricting article creation. Cenarium (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem clear; there's no mention of RFC. And if we'd decided what metrics we were using at the outset (as we'd surely need to in order to gather 'before' data) wouldn't we just go ahead and gather the 'after' data? Then, all being well, the data would indicate success or otherwise, it could be put up at the Pump, and if someone wanted to RFC (maybe because they felt issues had come up not covered by the evaluation data) they could. RedactionalOne (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Btw, what happened to the comments on the Project page? RedactionalOne (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The poll is under construction, not opened yet, still considered as a suggestion, so there should be no comments until it opens, if it opens. Cenarium (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- There seems to be a redirect from 'Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Autoconfirmed status trial' in effect; that page had a handful of comments by SDY, History2007, etc. Initially, I just assumed the text must have been removed for page repurposing and not moved to the talk page. Nothing vital. RedactionalOne (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Removed comments[edit]
Since the poll is just a suggestion for now, under construction and hasn't started yet, I think we should not comment on the main page until it starts. I've removed the comments that were there, there can be seen at [1] and [2]. Feel free to add them back if and when the poll starts. Cenarium (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)