User talk:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Girth Summit

Girth Summit as you might have seen a user asked me to help them out with CSD and so I decided to see what CVUA has used and plan to use some of the examples. Then I when I wanted to say something about one of them I had to find an out of the way place that neither of our students could stumble upon so here we are. My issue is with the Lemmie example. In theory when doing CSD there is no obligation to google for anything other than COPYVIO - the context (or not) should be present in the article. I respect Ritchie but that feels like a gotcha question at RfA and obviously is acknowledged as a trick question for CVUA but I wonder where the balance is between people not being thoughtless or carless with CSD and imposing more of a burden for placing a tag than is really there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably fair comment actually. I'm going to refer to Mz7 here - I'm using pretty much the same course material that he took me through when I did the course, including that question. I use it as a way of opening up a discussion of redirecting a page being an alternative to CSDing it, but perhaps it is giving the impression of there being too much of a burden on a reviewer. Mz7, your thoughts would be welcome - should we drop that question do you think?

As an aside Barkeep, I was thinking a while back about creating some example dodgy pages that we could ask students to review and comment upon. My problem is that a lot of material they're likely to come across - attack pages, COPYVIO, promotional writing - would not be permitted even in user space. Do you think there is a way that we could get official sanction to store some pages in some kind of training space somewhere? And do you have any thoughts about red lines that we absolutely couldn't cross? I mean, COPYVIO for one would be illegal, unless we found a way to get Earwig to pick up on some content that WMF actually owned (maybe a Wikipedia mirror site), but would an attack page about a made up person with a fake name be inappropriate? Promotional copy about a fake company? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've given some thought about the dummy pages too and decided that they'd be a bunch of work and you run into things like we can't actually host COPYVIO. However, when I was giving this thought - before deciding it was more work than I was willing to undertake - I had thought about using something that was in the public domain, such as US Government generated text, which could be enough to trick Earwig. So a bit of a trick there itself but a useful distinction worth talking about and a way that we could still get at COPYVIO. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Girth Summit. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A1 states: If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. (emphasis is mine)

For me, the intent of including the Lemmie question was to see whether a student would try to perform a web search to aid in understanding the context of the article. I do realize that it's a sort of trick question for CVUA students, since it's not immediately obvious that's the intent, and at RfA I can see how it could be tactless for the same reason. However, the goal of the question is less to see whether the student can get the right answer, but more to analyze how they approach the question (and I'm sure that was what Ritchie333 was aiming for as well). Even if the speedy deletion policy doesn't specifically obligate it, I think it's good practice to do some quick two-second Google searches to see what's out there about a subject before tagging a CSD for, say, A1 or A7. If the CVUA student failed to do a Google search in response to the Lemmie question, that's a good opportunity to let them know that doing one may be helpful in certain situations. Mz7 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those thoughts Mz7 - that lines up pretty well with what I've been using the question for. Barkeep49, if I emphasise to students that it's about doing a quick check before nominating A1, and potentially redirecting rather than CSDing, does that allay your concerns any? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7's point about the wording of A1 is fair enough except that there is a clear subject - Buzz Ward. It's right there in the article title in the creator's username and in the first two words of the article. So A1 is a bad CSD on those grounds no googling necessary (and I admit I while I had in mind the links element of the A1 criteria, I did not have the aid of web search foremost in mind). There is also far more than necessary to satisfy A3 which I saw one of your students give Girth Summit. The question is whether it's a good A7 - presumably some roadies are notable but being a great roadie doesn't strike me as a credible claim of significance - is more fair. Howeever, that's back to where I started - neither A7 in its wording nor in the policy/guidelineesque essay Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance suggests quick searching is necessary. And the larger point about teaching people to be thoughtful rather than speedy with their CSD is an important one for CV and NPP so fair enough on that point. And having ATD in mind is also something I really do support. So I would tweak it to be something like

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

as that to me presents a clear claim of significance and remains ineligible under a3 and a1 so now turning to Google and seeing his name called out in the Wikipedia article (result 6 for me) feels like it makes the teaching point without quite being a trick question - hard but still ultimately fair. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Realized my pings to @Mz7 and Girth Summit: didn't likely go through because of how I blocked that. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) - I didn't receive either of those pings actually - not sure why not, unless the template doesn't support multiple users like that, or it doesn't like the small text? Anyway, I assume that @Mz7: didn't either, so re-pinging him now.

I can see that your revised wording would include what constitutes a claim to significance, and that would certainly make me more inclined to do a Google search; Mz7 seems to be saying that he'd expect a basic search even just based on the initial wording however (and, when we pose the question to CVUA students, we do give them a hint to do a search - using Google or Wikipedia's search tool will bring the trainee to our article on The Nice, so there are some breadcrumbs for them to follow). I think that, as the least experienced person in this discussion with regards to the policy and practice around CSD tags, I'm inclined to bow to whatever agreement you will both be able to come to on this. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think my response would be "do what you feel is right". I don't have any objections to modifying the question if you feel it's too tricky for your tastes—Barkeep49's proposed revision seems totally reasonable. For me, I mainly wanted to introduce users to the habit of doing Google searches beforehand in borderline cases when one isn't sure—get a WP:PRESERVE mindset in. It looks like the revised question can accomplish that as well. Mz7 (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]