Either mark all IP edits for review or block them entirely outside of AfC. Although there are some good edits from IPs, the vast majority of vandalism comes from IPs. The era of "anyone can edit" needs to end.
The Education Program pays to put campus ambassadors at campuses as needed. The education program is still very much an adhocracy and despite the money flowing in from donors, it's not getting spent to help academia contribute. Any given class can greatly benefit from just one or two visits by a campus ambassador. For the cost of per diem and travel fare we could support every class out there and encourage further growth among the most-needed demographics.
Community consensus against a WMF employee is sufficient to force a firing. WMF has already had its share of misconduct. If the editors don't want you, then you need to go.
Monetary awards for article improvement like GA and FA. So long as the proper checks are in place to prevent gaming the system, we could both encourage content improvement as well as reward editors for the work they did. Let's remember, it was their hard work that helped earn Wikipedia its Alexa rank, not the staff.
IAR is deleted I have yet to see this policy applied properly. Large organizations kid themselves about being flat but fail to recognize that a bureaucracy was created because members of said organization can't operate without the strictures of rules.
Long-term valuable contributors like newsletter editors, prolific editors, etc. become salaried employees. We have editors knocking themselves out to write great content. While some editors are internally motivated, rewarding editors not only recognizes their contributions it might help some break away from a day job to dedicate even more time to Wikipedia.
Articles with GA status automatically have pending changes. FA status is fully protected. If there's one comment I've been longing to make to IPs and new editors, it's that GAs and FAs don't need the help any n00b could provide. Vandalism, especially sneaky vandalism, so easily defaces the edifice our productive contributors made that we need to do almost anything to prevent it.
PC2 is implemented Sadly, while there's consensus for PC2 to exist, there's no consensus how to use it. I propose PC2 being used to prevent content warring.
WMF pays for content experts to review/approve articles If you're taking in $35 million every year, why not spend some of that polishing and troubleshooting the content issues the WMF refuses to address?
WMF license is changed to legally prohibit mirrors and other re-use. WMF will continue to lose out to WikiWand and others if re-use isn't punished. I want everyone to be able to read Wikipedia for free. I don't care about journalists cribbing Wikipedia for their trashy magazine articles. If we allow mirrors to replicate our content then we'll be forever stuck in an arms race to keep eyeballs that might donate money.
Admins have to identify to WMF. In general I'm against any anonymity online. The first step is to at least sort through the admins.
Users are blocked if found to have misrepresented themselves on wiki. Every lying 12-year old that claims to have a Master's degree is a threat to the gullible soccer-mom that is assuming good faith.
Content dispute resolution Admins are willing to block vandals, editors that violate 3RR, and in some cases NPOV violators. Beyond that unless an editor is a long-term abuser there's not adequate means to quickly stop editors in content disputes.
Free-reins on Checkuser Currently a case has to be made to use CU even when there's evidence of sockpuppetry. Instead, CU should be used for ongoing investigations of sleeper puppets. We all know when we see an IP chime in at a policy page or some other discussion that they're really a coward Wikipedian, hiding behind anonymity to voice an opinion. That sort of thing needs to be punished.
Expand
WP:NUKEANDPAVE Every bum that starts an article about a great subject as a two-sentence stub robs me of an opportunity to earn a
four award. If I can take an article to FA I should be able to get the previous article deleted so I can start from scratch and reap all the credit. Anyone that wants a good encyclopedia needs to make concessions to the serious writers.
Allow the floor on source permissibility to rise Any n00b editor can add a citation from some pop history website to an FA, even if that source is less scholarly than the others used. When an article is really polished editors should be able to disallow non-scholarly citations as mere journalism doesn't have much reliability from an academic standpoint. Let n00bz and IPs add blog post citations to the article about the latest teen Disney star going off the rails. Let the experts work on the established subject material.
Start prosecuting offenders We've already established that WMF has too much money. Meanwhile, we have
long-term abusers, serial
sockpuppeteers, and massive
copyright violators. All of these do real harm to our encyclopedia and it takes hundreds of hours of work by our volunteers to clean up the mess, if those editors don't lose heart and quit first. WMF should be sending lawyers to investigate the real people behind these malicious accounts and start legal proceedings against them. We Wikipedians, propping up this website, should have protection from ne'er-do-wells and there's no reason WMF can't provide it.
Replace articles as the basic unit of measurement There's a common misconception that Wikipedia is about the mere existence of articles. Most edit-a-thons focus on creating new articles and much of the drive-by audience seeks to create new articles. Though this might be a factor of desired
ownership, Wikipedia needs to change messaging to emphasize quality content and maximizing sharing and collaboration. NPP and AFC are overwhelmed because of this false emphasis on articles while our WikiProjects wither on the vine.
[Wikipedia] doesn’t want its pages to become mostly-static (and therefore trustworthy) repositories of settled fact, it wants them to be
WP:BATTLEGROUNDS, because that is what makes it fun for the game players, and that is what encourages the duped and incorrect conventional wisdom believers to keep signing up (or making socks) and “correcting” things that are already correct.
This template is used on
31,000+ pages and changes may be widely noticed. Test changes in the template's
/sandbox or
/testcases subpages, or in your own
user subpage. Consider discussing changes on the
talk page before implementing them.
This template has one parameter and produces an image depending on the parameter value:
y, yes, pass, good, ok, k, +, aye all produce a pass symbol:
n, no, fail, bad, nk, -, nay all produce a fail symbol:
?, ??, ???, dunno, question, huh all produce a question symbol:
wtf produces Wikipedia's "I am out of my comfort zone" symbol: