1

Hey all, For those who couldn’t make the community conference call. Here are the slides that were shown: http://portal.sliderocket.com/ATNPQ/BC7BD163-3438-48F8-A30B-120112524CB8 While the slides only capture a tiny part of what transpired, they will at least give you an idea of what was discussed. Unfortunately, we failed to record the call. Perhaps some of the attendees can summarize what was discussed in more detail. I’ll follow up with a detailed forum post about one specific area which was “a request regarding innovation”. We had 15-16 people on the call, which I think is more than we have ever had on a conference call. Thanks to everyone who joined the call!

2

Thanks, Jack, I was so disappointed to miss the call, and I’m really glad you posted this! I have one question for anyone who was on the call. Slide 20 explains the new NFD Guardian app. Will it be like QG in that the deletion decision will happen automatically based on the votes? I thought the deletion policy stated that the decision to delete was made more than just “strictly democratically” and that, while the ratio of yes votes to no votes would definitely affect the decision it wouldn’t be the only factor. Has this changed? Also, will the NFD Guardian app allow the voter to say more than “delete” or “save”? I’ve really enjoyed some of the passionate, in-depth discussions that happen over the decision to delete, and I’d hate to see that become a thing of the past!

3

I totally agree with what Sara2871 said. Some NFD articles can be saved, but with as little as 3 votes, the article is not available to anybody. Maybe if an NFD article gets 5 votes to delete, then it could “deleted”. I believe that 3 votes is a small number.

4

I think three votes is way too few, and I think that there should be some kind of option for the person placing the tag to force a real comment on the real discussion page so that there can be real dialogue. The NFD Category even says “Add your comments to their Discussion page.” If we make it simply three votes one way or two the other, there is the potential for abuse of the system, there is the potential for incredibly good points not to be heard, there is a problem. I think that, if anything, this tool should only be used for NFDs that are at least two weeks old and have not yet had any discussion, or we will lose potentially quality articles.

5

I agree with what the above admins have said.

6

The are planning for it to be like QC, yes. But when it first starts out the votes will only be statistics for admins to delete the articles. If the app is successful then it will delete the articles automatically.

7

I think three votes should be for articles marked for speedy deletion, and seven for all other NFDs.

8

Thank you for posting the slideshow:slight_smile:Looks like a lot of interesting new information and updates were shared. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend, but hopefully next time.

9

I think the NFD votes idea is great. But I think that tool should just be used to get an idea for the Admins to see what the vote is at, and give the final decision to the Admin. I can see how it can be abused – creating multiple accounts to save or delete an article. Otherwise, love the upcoming updates!

10

Okay, that makes sense; thanks for the clarification. I can definitely accept that, at least for speedy nominations, the app could just delete the article automatically after a certain number of votes. That would seem to conform rather well with the standard for a speedy, after all! (edit) Also, would the RC easter eggs come up on bunch patrol? (/edit)

11

Something that was discussed in the meeting was abusing it. The articles are presented in a random order so it would be very hard to vote unfaithfully, create a new account, find it again, vote unfaithfully, and repeat that proccess once more. It would be even more secure if it took 3 votes to delete speedys but 5 or 7 to delete everything else.

12

I think inputting a small reason should be required (particularly for “Other”, “mean”, “dangerous”,“illegal”,“political”,and “vanity”); this would keep people from saying “Yes, delete” for like 100 articles in a row. (as is sometimes done with QC, and we can leave a coaching note. But the effects of deleting articles are more serious and may warrant disabling the feature for the user or blocking their account.)

13

That’s why I think Admins should have the final say on it, to prevent that.

14

With this feature, admins WOULD have the final say. An article cannot be deleted without the vote from an admin AND a vote from either a second admin or another user. An admin must vote for an article to be deleted, making this system no more abusable than the current one.

15

Well, I think your feedback is really important, so I think users should be able to leave comments about why or why not to delete it. It’s not helpful when deciding whether or not to delete it you just have, “Yes, delete,” or “No, don’t delete,” they need to have an idea why.

16

Let’s just let it come out first. After all it’s already made, and they’re just testing for and resolving bugs. We don’t know for sure which features are bad and which ones are actually good for it. The critiquing will be more accurate if you have actually experienced the app.

17

One thing that was said but not written in the slides is that the voting rules are very much so subject to change before this tool is launched:slight_smile:Even then, when we launch it, we are likely to not actually delete articles for a trial period, to see how this tool does in deleting what *should* be deleted, and not what *shouldn’t* be deleted. And from there we can fine-tune the number of votes it takes to delete/keep an article, till we find that “sweet spot” which matches our policy reliably enough.

18

That’s what I said. ^^^

19

Wait, what? Isn’t the whole idea of a speedy delete just that? It’s for articles that are judged to not require any nfd process because they are of an exceptionally low quality and an admin deems it entirely inappropriate for the formality of the process to take place. ---- I don’t see an issue with delete only requiring three votes, to be honest. What do people mean if an article might be “saved”? That someone could write essentially a new article with the same title? I don’t see that as justification for keeping an existing article. On an unrelated note, I really don’t understand why admin votes count for two. Wasn’t it always relatively axiomatic that adminship only ever conferred extra tools to trusted users, and was never meant to imply that an admin’s views and opinions should count for more than any other user’s? Are votes public? Are people allowed to change their vote after they have made it? I do think it’s a brilliant idea and a well executed design though. Anything that can increase participation in the NFD process can only be good.

20

I think this is the right idea. A number of NFDs could get several delete votes before someone thinks, "I wonder if I just trimmed out 2/3 of this rambling introduction and did some fact checking … " Setting a 2-week delay before the votes cause anything to happen gives lousy, but fixable, articles more of a chance to be seen by the right person.