On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/10/30 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
2009/10/30 David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
> 2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)googlemail.com>om>:
>> I'm hoping that we won't have too
many "trick" articles in this
>> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
>> criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
>> criteria".
> Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good
faith, not an attempt to
> catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an
> article as you would in your known identity.
Not a reasonable test since anything that heavy
with markup is
unlikely to look anything like something created by a new user.
I fear it won't be that bad a test. Try doing your usual editing as an
anon. You'll be surprised just how preremptorily anons get treated
these days, and the excuses for the clearly unthinking actions. ("How
dare you! I couldn't possibly cope with the load if I had to think
about what I was doing!" Really.)
Well, I'm slated to do my regular once-a-month spate of article
creation (yes, really, it's that bad), but I do this (and all editing)
under my account (the only one I've ever had). But I do try and create
the article in the best possible state, drafting and previewing it for
several hours. I suppose my version of this test would be to create an
article in sub-stub format, and see whether someone jumps on it before
I improve it?
But I'm stuck on which of these terms to write an article on:
1) "sword brother" (bit lightweight)
2) "heroic code" (good number of Google Scholar hits)
3) "heroic friendship" (nebulous concept, difficult to pin down)
Any suggestions?
Anyone saying "all three" will get a wet trout slap. I'm leaning
towards heroic code, but unlike most articles I start, it is one that
I don't really have access to enough sources to flesh out the article
enough. The last time I did that was here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arctic_expeditions
But it is gratifying to see that article (well, list) continuing to
grow and improve.
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that
stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a
new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics
need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed
to new editors trying to do the same?
Carcharoth