Talk:GLAM/Newsletter/September 2021/Contents/USA report
"The attitude is: “More than 80% of the new articles that come in are paid for.” ". I'm one of the regular AfC and NPP patrollers, and I'd put it differently--80% of the articles at AfC have COI, and and the great majority have been paid for. (I've been here a while, and back in 2006 we were rejecting half of the of new pages, and that has remained about the same trough the present) Unless it's declared paid editing, it an be very difficult to tell paid editing from COI, and from people writing the same way because most of the articles in some fields that they see in WP are COI. From the editathon ed, back when NYC-WM ran editathons in person, I helped with about half of them), and almost none of ours were ever deleted or even challenged, because we made great efforts to see that people never wrote on marginal subjects, or in a promotional manner. In person, we used to make some edits ourselves to the articles before they went out, or otherwise indicated in hte edit summary that one of the experienced WPedians had seen and approved them. We've had much poorer success since having to go online with the sessions, and I have postponed participating until in-person returns, because it's too frustrating not being able to use what I can best describe as group consensus to prevent inappropriate articles going through.
As a reviewer, I started checking s much as I could from editathons a few years ago. Many of the earlier ones I checked had a very high proportion of poor articles, because the participants were working from lists that had been poorly chosen (taking some publication's 40 under 40 or the like as a a basis for choosing topics, in ignorance that placement on such lists is considered promotional and rarely counts for notability . Over time, those running such events have become more knowledgable, but I still check, and I still find problems. This should not happen--it is the responsibility of those running an editathon to make sure that only articles that will do them credit are submitted, just as it is for a WPedian running an academic class. WM-DC is one of the most careful groups, with some of WP's best editors helping run the events, and an excellent reputation for submitted viable articles from their events. I can only suggest that they might have the same problem with online events as we do in NYC.
I do not think AfC is broken; it has sometimes had manageable backlogs due to lack of reviewers, but its doing better-- . If it currently has problems, its in using too high standards for accepting articles--it should be accepting everything likely to pass at Afd, but some reviewers try to aim at GA status. I and other people working there are tryign to educate them. (The other problem is that reviewers are unwilling to review in fields they do not understand--this is in a sense a virtue, but we need more specialized reviewers)
Of the items listed on the page, I consider that
- 2 Michelle Zatlyn is a be a press release or indistinguishable from one - no notability except thru her co,pany Cloudfare
- 3 Kamakshi Sivaramakrishnan has no evidence of notability as an individual;she is con-fouder of a borderline notable company ,but has no notability otherwise.
- 4 Tammarrian Rogers is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammarrian Rogers (2nd nomination) and will probably be deleted as promotional To quote rom the article, "She currently works in the Windows Division and connects with customers to build better products"
- 5 Cashmere Nicole is pure promotionalism Not even her company is notable.
- 6 was warned about an article that has since been deleted. at least 3 of their other articles are questionable. Probably not paid editing, tho. Just poor selection of topics.
- 7 is notable
- 8 Melanie R. Bond is I think notable. Good choice.
- 9 Ver aHuckel is a person with a similar careet to others whom we have consistently accepted.
- 10 Martina Angela Caretta prob notable, but needs further check for role in the publication . The only tag added was for lacking categories
I would suggest that rather than "Glam event organizers may want to organize counter patrollers, to engage in the emotional labor of defending the inclusion of notable content." , "Glam event organizers may want to check their suggested articles better, to avoid giving new contributors the emotional labor of having their article challenged " DGG (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)