Wikipedia talk:New users

message: In 99.9% of cases, if a brand-new user creates a page, it's going to get deleted. That's bad for the new user and a timesink for newpage patrollers and administrators. People should edit first. After a while, they get good enough to judge the appropriateness of an encyclopedia topic, learn how to properly source, stub tag, and categorize a new article, and then get it created. The only people who this would hurt are spammers and SPA's who are here to create a spamvertisement or vanity bio and run. We don't need them. Also, if it would be technically feasible, it would probably be best to set it up so that the "four-day clock" starts ticking from the user's twenty-fifth edit or so, to ensure that they're at least reasonably serious about the project first. Obvious vandals and spammers will have been blocked long before edit number 25, and "sneakier" ones may not have the patience to make 25 good edits just to engage in attack article vandalism or spamming. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely in favor.  Here is my very first edit - creating a page that was on the requested pages list.  (I promise, I had not edited anonymously previously.)  Would I have become a regular editor, (now an admin), if I had been limited to minor contributions at first?  Unprovable, but I doubt it.  Would this reduce the vandalism pages - yes.  Would it reduce vandalism - probably a lot less.  Would we loose some good editors - yes.  Would the overall effect be beneficial?  Dunno.  GRBerry 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm against, as mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The above has raised another reason. A dedicated vandal/POV pusher may go through the process, and then use this spurious legitimacy as adding weight to their disputed edits. LessHeard vanU 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a fine idea, but what would prevent a new editor from going to a dozen +1 articles and adding then removing a comma, to get to the 25+ edits? Invent a rule, and people will game it. Edison 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this idea. I mean, four days? That isn't that long...--ionescuac(Talk) 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, and can we do it today? How about yesterday?

message: Yes, I'm sure the benefits discussed could be obtained.
But the cost is a substantial one -- PR. The introduction of semiprotection came with a flurry of media articles about how Wikipedia was closing its doors to anonymous editors, and how this demonstrated the wiki concept was flawed, etc.  And that's just restrictions on individual articles, with only a small number of articles at any time having the protection applied.  Introduce this, and there'll be a lot more of those stories, and this time they may be justified: we will be saying we don't want (a certain kind of) contributions from new users.
I don't think this is a cost worth paying for reducing the AFD backlog and saving time for those who monitor the recent changes list. JulesH 08:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, we do not want certain types of articles. We don't want spam and ads. We don't want attack articles. We don't want vandalism. We don't want nonsense and gibberish. We don't want hoaxes and lies. It is articles like these that give Wikipedia a bad name. Mr.Z-mantalk 17:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Wiki concept that everyone should be allowed to vandalize an encyclopedia, is a badly flawed one, in that it wastes incalculable time spent by editors undoing the vandalism of others, when they could be improving articles. Then, too often, good edits get reverted away in the storm of vandalism. What is the "PR" of people reading about the amazing sexual exploits of the founding fathers of a country, which were added by vandals at computers in a school, for the hours or so before someone reverts? Edison 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to consider the cost, too. 

message: I repeatedly have to convince people that you don't need autoconfirmed rights to create a page. If this were implemented, few people would probably notice. -Amarkov moo! 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather ironically... 

message: If we're worried that we would "discourage" passing specialists, why not just direct them to AfC? If it really is a worthwhile article, it'll get accepted anyway, it gets created (and then the creator can edit it as normal as soon as it goes up), and there we go! I completely agree with Rob. I've had a ton of new users angry and upset that their vanity bio or garage band article was tagged for speedy. They weren't acting out of malice creating those, they just didn't know any better, and had to learn the hard way. Why not make sure they have a feel for the place first? That's not just better for us, it's better for them too! If they realize "Oh, you know, I don't really think that would be a good idea. Maybe I'd better ask someone first", it's a lot less bitey then just to let them create away and then we speedy away. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:AFC]]?

message: I propose that all new users should be required to undertake some kind of self-paced tutorial (especially on the main policies of WP) before they are allowed to create new pages or edit protected pages. This could replace the 4-day waiting period. It means that new users can make themselves familiar with the policies, rather than going off elsewhere (and not bothering to learn about WP) whilst they wait for the 4-day period to elapse. Shootthedevgru (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New users to take tutorial before being able to create articles? 

message: Is there a short cut for the new user log? I currently keep being redirected here and then clicking your link! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I just realised: The link I keep clicking is the shortcut *turns red*...how embarassing! Thanks anyway! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcut for new user log

message: I am redirecting the article to Special:Newusers as this is long out of date, but I will leave all content preserved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Grave Rob (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect