[WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the create an article as a newbie challenge

[David Goodman]

The point of my comment is that if I have the time to do it,  the
advice is specific to the particular article.  Not suggesting looking
for sources in general, but suggesting  where they might be found,
keeping in mind the probable availability to the user. Not saying
avoid promotional phrases like this standard list, but  just which
particular phrases in that particular article  look promotional.

That said, I do have a list of boilerplate standard advice, and I will
post it. Let me give now the one I use the most often:

"See chapter 6 of [http://howwikipediaworks.com/ the free online
version] of ''How Wikipedia Works'' by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews,
and Ben Yates (also available in [http://nostarch.com/howwikiworks.htm
print])

I once thought of doing a similar book myself, but i quickly saw I
could not do better.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)
>
> Carcharoth
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The important part of salvage work is not keeping the articles, but
>> keeping the new contributors.   This is done not just by refraining
>> from deleting their articles, but helping the new editors  to improve
>> them.
>>
>> What encourages me to patrol is when I get a talk page comment after
>> I've deleted (or drastically reworked) an article: "I see where I did
>> it wrong--now I know what to do better."  or   "Many people left
>> notices but you gave me specific advice. Maybe I'll stay here after
>> all."    The reason for saving rather than deleting, not matter the
>> extra work it takes, is that a greater proportion of the people will
>> keep on trying. This applies not only to immature editors, but also to
>> people who wander in from the commercial or academic world where
>> expectations are different.
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Charles Matthews
>> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment,
>>>> but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new
>>>> editors bitten?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If that's a way of saying that experience is helpful in knowing what
>>> makes for a "good stub", I think that's uncontestable. If it's a way of
>>> saying that the patrolling that goes on is basically a filter by
>>> notability of topic first, and excuse for deletion afterwards, then that
>>> might be factually accurate, if something that also has its darker side
>>> (judging the notability of a topic by what is written in a stub, or even
>>> on the basis of quick googling, is obviously flawed). If it's an
>>> encouragement to post more stubs that are clearly needed to develop the
>>> site, then I'm in complete agreement, and would add that we need more
>>> infrastructure directed towards "missing articles" and at least turning
>>> the redlinks blue with adequate stubs. (To answer part of what David
>>> Goodman has been arguing consistently, adding new articles prompted by
>>> the needs of the site, rather than spending a corresponding amount of
>>> time on salvage work, seems to me a defensible priority on content
>>> grounds. Which is not the whole point, though.)
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>