On 10/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Sage Ross
<ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In my experience, the biggest problems with
notability deletions (both
A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel
blindsided by them. The interface doesn't do an adequate job of
making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all
information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information
on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why
the topic is significant).
In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss
of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is
unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability
requirements). That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at
least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware
of that ahead of time. Our standards have changed so much over the
last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed
interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.
Your task:
1. Write this interface.
2. People don't read. How few words can you put it in? Can you be as
harsh as the new articles page for IPs on Meta?
I'll try to mock something up, but something more like the Meta
interface (is there a difference between the regular and IP versions?)
would be a step forward.
One possibility would be to add the must-read text to the edit box
itself, along the lines of the preloaded template for the featured
picture candidate interface
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AFPCn…
(and have this be a preference that users can turn off, but default
on).
People may not read much, but reading rates will certainly go up if
the text can be passively ignored (i.e., if they have to delete it to
write their article).
-Sage